Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1992

Volume 6, No. 5

[ Page 3865 ]

The House met at 2:16 p.m.

The Speaker: I call the House to order, and I apologize for the slight delay in the opening this afternoon. There was an unavoidable delay in the delivery of the order paper.

Today is one of the rare occasions when the Chair has an introduction to make. The hon. Nick Dondas, who is the Speaker of the Northern Territory in Australia, is here with us on the floor. Speaker Dondas and I have served together on the CPA executive, and he has stopped by our Legislature today on his way to London for the Queen's fortieth anniversary celebration. I ask the House to join me in giving him a warm welcome to British Columbia.

F. Garden: In the gallery today we have some visitors from Calgary who I am particularly interested in: my son Willy Garden and my two grandsons, Christopher and Devon Garden. Please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: Today we have a member of our consular corps visiting from Vancouver. Please join me in welcoming John Petersen, the honorary consul of Denmark. Accompanying him is Morten Faester, the Danish trade commissioner. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the galleries today are some 30 senior staff of the British Columbia Automobile Association. I would ask all members to make them welcome.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Today in the visitors' gallery we have representatives of the Cooperative Housing Federation of British Columbia. The delegation is made up of Alice Sundberg, Doug Robinson, Glenn Haddrell and Janet Laxton. Please make these representatives welcome.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, in the Legislature today there is a group from the Terry Fox Senior Secondary School in Coquitlam. On behalf of the member for Port Coquitlam, who is away on committee business today, I would ask the House to welcome approximately 200 students, accompanied by Mr. Kiloh.

The Speaker: At the opening of this morning's session, the hon. member for Delta South rose under the provision of standing order 35 to seek leave to make a motion for adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance -- namely, the extent of the provincial deficit for 1992-93 as announced by the Minister of Finance.

In his statement the hon. member referred to widespread unemployment and the seriousness of the province's financial situation. In this province, as in others that share a similar standing order, Speakers have time and time again stated that on standing order 35 applications the Chair must focus on the urgency of debate as opposed to the urgency of the matter. In this regard I refer hon. members to the Journals, 1961, at page 97, and 1990 at page 136, and to Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia at page 146.

Another criterion applied to standing order 35 applications requires that the matter complained of must be of recent occurrence and be raised without delay. In this regard I quote from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, at page 370: "The fact that new information has been received regarding a matter that has been continuing for some time does not in itself make the matter one of urgency."

It seems to the Chair that the provincial deficit has been a continuing matter for some time, as opposed to a matter that has suddenly arisen which would require the setting aside of normal House business.

Finally, the authorities clearly state that the matter involved must be raised at the earliest opportunity, or it will fail in urgency. The Chair notes that this specific matter was raised during question period in the House yesterday, and accordingly the matter could have been raised at an earlier opportunity. I refer hon. members to a similar case reported in the Journals of the House on July 26, 1990, at page 136.

The Chair has no difficulty in acknowledging that the matter raised by the hon. member is one of great consequence, but it fails for the above reasons to qualify under the provisions of standing order 35.

Oral Questions

INCREASE IN PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday we acknowledged that despite record tax increases in British Columbia levelled against the people of British Columbia, there was a projection of a $500 million deficit additional to the $1.8 billion record deficit that was tabled in the budget.

Today we notice in a press release from the Minister of Finance that the projection now is $2.7 billion, some $400 million more than yesterday. Yesterday that was costing every man, woman and child in the province of British Columbia $800. Today we are finding it is costing every man, woman and child in British Columbia $1,300: a rather large increase over 24 hours.

Will the Minister of Finance please account for that difference in figures, and explain what he's doing to try and correct them?

Hon. G. Clark: The $2.7 billion would be the deficit if no action were taken. Action is being taken. It will not be the deficit at the end of this fiscal year. I'm going to make that point very clear.

Secondly, today we received information from the federal government on our share of personal and corporate income taxes. Our share of that revenue is down $500 million. The federal government miscalculated to the tune of half a billion dollars our share of personal and corporate income tax. I want members to know that it is true that every province in Canada's revenues are down, but no one is down as much as British Columbia.

[ Page 3866 ]

The federal government's miscalculation obviously makes it difficult to plan how to deal with the budget question. It makes it extremely difficult. It is a serious matter, and we are taking action over the coming weeks to bring spending down.

G. Wilson: I'd like to remind the Minister of Finance of his comments of October 21, 1992 in this House, in which he says: "I'm delighted to answer this question on the economy of British Columbia. We have a 2.5 percent growth rate in British Columbia -- the highest growth rate of any province in Canada, of any state in the United States, and of any country in western Europe. We have 1.7 percent employment growth."

Surely even this Minister of Finance must know that the decline in revenues coming from Ottawa must be a result of the lost earning power of individuals and corporations in British Columbia. Can this Minister of Finance tell us what contingency plans he built into the tabled budget in this House to be able to look after such contingencies should they occur? Because surely that is something within the purview of this minister.

Hon. G. Clark: Once again the Leader of the Opposition's facts are incorrect, and I invite him or any member of the opposition for a full briefing from my staff. The federal government collects income tax in British Columbia and corporation income tax in British Columbia. We are doing better than anywhere else in Canada. The entire income tax revenue of the government of Canada is down, and our share is down. It's a complicated formula, and our share is based on last year's share of the total economy of Canada. It has nothing to do with current economic growth forecasts. The federal government miscalculated in terms of the economy, we're paying the price now, and we're taking action to deal with it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would again remind hon. members that under standing order 47A, both questions and answers should be brief and precise.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

G. Wilson: That was a pretty scary analysis from someone who doesn't understand the basic principles of economy.

My second question is to the second part of the tax-and-spend tag team across the road -- the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us how he accounts for the fact that the senior business community today said that the policies of this government in fact are going to exacerbate the current deficit situation because they say, and I quote: "...that his policies will sideline and ultimately result in lost jobs, lost investment needed to create new jobs." Can the Minister of Labour tell us how this policy that he's introducing now is going to help clean up the deficit problem in British Columbia?

The Speaker: Minister of Labour for that portion of the question that comes within the ministerial responsibility.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the context of labour legislation, which the hon. member knows is before the House -- and therefore that's the appropriate forum in which to debate it -- the fact of the matter is that we have introduced in this province fair and balanced labour legislation, first of all. That legislation says that the only way in which we can make sure our economy prospers is if business and labour pull together, if they work together and if they cooperate together. That's what this legislation endeavours to do, hon. member.

We as a province are situated uniquely, geographically, on the Asia Pacific. We have enormous potential in this province. We have achieved the highest growth rates of any province in this country and with this labour legislation will have the highest level of cooperation between labour and management, high-wage earners in this province and a high...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

INVESTOR CONFIDENCE

J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the Minister of Finance. Your government has declared war on the business community. First there was the capital tax, then there was Bill 32 and now there's this labour legislation, the final straw. How can you hope to get this economy back on track when everything you do tends to shatter the confidence of the investment community?

Hon. G. Clark: Every day in this House the members of the opposition call for lower taxes, more spending and a balanced budget. That's a pipe-dream. This is a responsible administration. We're working hard to deal with these shocks that we keep receiving from the federal government, on top of their offloading of $1.6 billion this year. We're working hard, and that's the best way we can retain the confidence of the investment community in Canada.

[2:30]

J. Weisgerber: You imposed $1 billion worth of new taxes this spring. Your budget is now going to run another $1 billion over on the deficit. You've lost any credibility that you had with the business community. What specific plans do you have to get the economy of British Columbia back on track and British Columbians working again?

Hon. G. Clark: We, frankly, restored some of the taxes which were cut by the previous administration, which left the province in the kind of fiscal situation which we inherited because of the profligate spending by that administration. We are working hard right now, through a series of cost-saving initiatives. We've cut $82 million this fiscal year. We're working right now with all the ministries of government to cut spending, to find 

[ Page 3867 ]

efficiency gains and to bring the budget deficit down, in order that we can move forward in a positive and rational way to build the economy of British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: On October 27 in this House, the same minister said: "We have the highest credit rating of any province in Canada...; we have the lowest debt per capita of any province in Canada." That's what you inherited from the last government: the best fiscal situation in Canada. What British Columbians want to know is: what is this government going to do to get spending under control in the province?

Hon. G. Clark: Right now our spending is up by 1.9 percent over budget; our revenues are down by over 3 percent. Two-thirds of the increase in the projected deficit is because of a revenue shortfall from the federal government. In spite of that, hon. Speaker, we are working now to bring the expenditures of government down to the budget level. I have every confidence that we'll be able to do that over the coming weeks. But those kinds of shocks -- half a billion dollars in lost revenue from the federal government -- are difficult to manage, and the Mulroney administration has, frankly, destroyed the economy of this country. It is an extremely difficult and challenging environment within which we're working, but we're working hard and we have every confidence the people of British Columbia will work together to solve these economic and fiscal problems.

L. Stephens: First it was the Socreds and now it's the feds who are responsible for this deficit.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last week the Minister of Finance said that British Columbia had the most vibrant economy in the country. Now he says we're in a recession and that's the reason for our terrible financial mess. How can this minister expect the people, the workers of this province, to have any confidence in him or in his budgets?

Hon. G. Clark: Two and a half percent economic growth is not a recession. That's not an opinion; that is a fact, hon. members. The rest of the country is in a recession and the revenue shortfalls for the country impact on our share of federal income and corporate taxes. That's the impact that we're dealing with. But frankly, hon. Speaker, it's a bit hard to take advice from Liberals when the leader of the Liberal Party almost bankrupted the Liberal Party. So we're not going to take lessons on fiscal conservatism from them.

JOBS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

L. Stephens: Well, we've just seen an example of NDP faulty research here.

Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance again and it is about jobs. Last week he said that British Columbia was leading Canada in job creation, and now we find that our job losses are up 9.9 percent in this province. We also learn that as a result of the employment in the province, social services costs are up by $80 million. Does the minister not accept any responsibility for this pathetic forecasting?

Hon. G. Clark: Talk about faulty research! Hon. Speaker, 1.7 percent employment growth in the first six months of this year -- the best record of any province in Canada. That is a fact. However, more people are moving to British Columbia than 1.7 percent, so the unemployment rate is high. It's unacceptable, and we are working hard to create jobs in British Columbia and to provide the climate for growth.

COST OF GOVERNMENT BODIES

F. Gingell: Again to the Minister of Finance. Today at a press conference the minister announced spending cuts -- or "savings initiatives," as he called them -- of almost $83 million. That brings the projected deficit down, according to his own numbers, from $2.7 billion to a mere $2.618 billion. Isn't it time, hon. minister, in this time of emergency, that you should agree that the plethora of boards, commissions and agencies that your government has spawned should be scrapped in light of our fiscal crisis?

Hon. G. Clark: We are reviewing every board, commission and ministry of government, but let's be serious about the magnitude of the problem. If we closed every hospital in British Columbia and laid off every nurse, we would not balance the budget. If we shut down the entire education system, we would not balance the budget. We have some difficult decisions to make, we are working hard to make them, and I can assure all hon. members that no stone will go unturned. Every single ministry budget is being reviewed, as well as every board and commission, including the opposition's budget.

Orders of the Day

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

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

On the amendment.

R. Neufeld: I rise again in support of the reasoned amendment put forward earlier on Bill 84, the labour law.

Some of the parts of the labour legislation that are before us are things that each and every one of us takes to heart, and have taken to heart for a long time. It gets repetitious after a while to talk about them, but there are always new angles to come from. I can tell you that Bill 84, when it removes the democratic right to vote, whether you want to unionize or not, is unpalatable for most British Columbians. It's a right that most of us hold near and dear to our hearts -- that we can vote. It seems to me that in the code where it states that if 55 percent sign cards there's no need to vote, and under 55 percent there's a need to vote.... Well, I find it rather odd that at 55 percent we cut it off.

[ Page 3868 ]

But whether it's 55 percent or 65 percent, I'm still of the opinion, and so is our caucus and I think most British Columbians, that you should be allowed to vote whether you want to join a union or not. It's also interesting to note in the bill that to deunionize, to decertify, requires a complete vote, no matter what. So it's not fair one way or the other. It's not fair at all.

Members opposite have continually said that employers, once the cards are signed, use some negative tactics toward employees to get them to go behind the curtain and vote a different way. I don't think that's quite true. That may happen in some cases, but it does happen the other way also, where in trying to get a card signed, tactics are used that are not quite cricket.

I just would bring members back to the quote from the member for North Coast, made in June 1987.

An Hon. Member: The guy who's in the penalty box.

R. Neufeld: The fella that's in the penalty box right now. The quote is:

"I'd be foolish if I stood and suggested that everything labour ever did was above board. Certainly there have been instances where labour has tried to overexercise its power. We have generally recognized that the parties should be left to work those out. Occasionally that does create some hardship in society.

...other people can get hurt in these disputes. I don't want to be trite in saying that it is the price we pay. But it is the price we pay in a free society...."

I have great respect for that member. I think he presents his viewpoints and his thoughts very well. I only bring to the attention of everyone opposite that there is the chance that labour can use forces which may not be quite right to get cards signed.

The Minister of Economic Development yesterday talked about disputes in the past and how we had so much labour unrest under Bill 19. From 1986 to 1991 there was a tremendous drop in days lost. In fact, it was about 90 percent from days before Bill 19, so I can only say that Bill 19 worked. It provided the province with a good, strong, even labour code, weighted both ways evenly, so that labour and management could get together and entrepreneurship could happen in British Columbia. That happened; the record proves itself.

In fact, the Minister of Economic Development talked about moving into the twenty-first century. I can tell you that if we're going to move into the twenty-first century with labour legislation like that which is before us today, we're in an awful lot of trouble. It's obvious from the questions in question period that we are in a lot of trouble. It hasn't even taken effect yet, but people out there are nervous. Investors are not sure what's going to happen. They know that Bill 84 is tabled in the House and that discussions are taking place.

I think the Minister of Economic Development got a little confused when he talked about how much labour unrest there was before Bill 19. I think he was a little confused with all the labour unrest that has taken place since the NDP was elected in 1991, because there has been an awful lot. It's because of the expectations of the unions and the support that this party garners from the top executive. They don't garner all the support from the unions, because an awful lot of them vote for people like me. An awful lot of people out there in unions do not believe in a closed world and a closed economy. They think a little further, and they think to the future. Those are the people who go along with free enterprise.

[2:45]

If we look at the record of disputes and days of work lost from 1991 until now, it's up by 160 percent from the previous five years. Hon. Speaker, that tells you something. What has gone wrong? We have a government that's supposedly labour-friendly, and they want to be. They say they represent all labour, but we have all these labour disputes that don't seem to quit.

Since last year, I've had lots of small businesses and individuals talk to me about labour law and what's going to take place. They've all been a little afraid of what's going to be tabled. Their worst fears came true recently when the NDP government tabled Bill 84, because I don't think any of them in their wildest dreams thought that this government would go that far, knowing the fragile economy that we're in today. I don't think they expected that at all, but they were nervous from the time this government was elected.

That's why there's a drop in investment and in investor confidence, not only within the province but from other investors in Canada and offshore. They're just not investing here. When the Premier and his ministers go abroad and talk to investors from other countries about how they're going to bring in reasoned labour law, those people would rightfully believe this government is doing that. But obviously they've been tricked. They probably feel about as let down as a lot of the people who voted for this government during the general election when they heard about honest, open government and didn't receive it. That's why investment is down. It should not be a surprise to this government or to anyone in British Columbia.

I'm going to go back to a letter that was written in March from the B.C. Construction Association and what they talked about in their submission. These are the submissions that the three wise men used to put together the new labour law. The key points are: "The current economic environment demands policy decisions that maintain or enhance industrial relations harmony. Substantive change to the current act is not warranted." This is one of the submissions that was made, and many submissions like it were made to that committee. I had lots of people tell me: "Leave Bill 19 alone. If there are some superficial things that have to be changed, fine, do it, but leave the meat of Bill 19 alone."

The current provisions regarding secondary boycotts and secondary picketing should remain as they are. That's one of the submissions the committee had before they began making their changes to the labour law. But I suggest that it was probably the submissions from Ken Georgetti, John Shields and those types that were used more, because obviously it's no secret to anyone in the province anymore that Bill 84 leans heavily on labour's side.

I have some parts of a letter that I'd like to read into the record. It has to do with picketing and what's called scab labour. I don't like the words "scab labour" at all. I 

[ Page 3869 ]

can't for the life of me understand why some small business man should not be allowed to retain and operate his business while under a strike, when picketers are allowed to go out and get other work while they strike against this company. They want to shut this company down totally. A lot of these aren't big corporations; they're just ordinary individuals who have probably invested their heart and soul and every last penny that they have, and they could stand to lose it. You can understand the frustration felt by those people. It's no different than the person who's on strike trying to get a higher wage, who's allowed to go out and continue to work. But the person who owns that business has no other way of getting revenue to keep that business operating and to keep the banker happy.

I guess members opposite have not had too many businesses and have not had to worry night and day about how they were going to make the payroll and pay the banker when the time came. That's hard on a person, and these people should recognize that. I've been through those situations when you're running on the fine edge, and anything can tip it one way or the other. All of a sudden your ten, 15, 20 or 30 years of work, or whatever it is that you've put into that business operation, is gone -- poof! Too many members opposite have been employees of governments. Governments seem to be able to shut down, and they can always survive because they just borrow more money and bring up the deficit. It's no big problem. They can, but small business can't.

"The introduction of restrictions on strike replacements is particularly radical and unfair. Weakening the countervailing power of employers during a strike goes far beyond what the previous Barrett NDP government was prepared to enact."

This is worse than what Barrett was going to enact.

"The NDP Minister of Labour of that day considered strike replacement restrictions unfair unless there were also restrictions placed on employees obtaining alternative employment during the strike. Also the inability to require managers and supervisors to perform 'struck work' will threaten the safety and well-being of many enterprises. The fundamental interference with the right of employers to deploy excluded staff between operations is extremely restrictive -- more so than even Ontario" -- this government professes it's not as bad as Ontario -- "and provides labour with a huge and unfair advantage to overpower employers during a strike."

That was a press release issued this morning, signed by the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Business Council of British Columbia, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Fish Processors' Bargaining Association, Retail Merchants' Association and the Vancouver Board of Trade. And this government says they have the confidence of these people. Well, after reading just that paragraph, with a whole bunch of things that damn Bill 84, how can they stand there and say that they have the confidence of the business community? I can't imagine it. There's no way that they have the confidence of the business community.

I want to talk a little bit about the consultation process and why I find it a little bit interesting, but before I get into it I'd just like to read another quote from April of '87, and it's by the present Minister of Environment: "I don't care if you listen to 700 briefs, or 7,000. If you do not heed the people of this province bringing you the substance of their concerns about labour legislation, then it really can't be called consultation -- it's consultation in name only." I think that's what we have here. I can tell you that going out as they did.... I don't dispute that they went out and listened to people. But as they were sitting there in those 11 cities that they travelled to, they didn't sit there and say: "Well, we're going to take education and not make it an essential service. We're going to pull the vote out. You're not going to be able to vote whether you want to unionize any more. We're going to have secondary boycotts. We're going to do something with picketing." That's not what they did. They went out there to listen to the people, to get submissions, they received those submissions and then drafted a labour law. What should happen now, if they want to do the other part of the consultation, is that they should take that to the people and say: "Look, after talking to you and getting all this information, here it is."

Another member opposite, the Attorney General, another person for whom I have a great amount of respect, agrees with us. At least he did in April of 1987. I quote, and he's talking about Bill 19 at the time: "This bill has more damaging content than any other labour legislation in the history of this country; damaging not to one side or the other, but damaging to the people and to the economy of this province." And: "If the government thinks I am wrong and thinks the critics are wrong, then what is wrong with taking it out to the public for a long, careful look."

Absolutely amazing. That's the Attorney General. I have a great amount of respect for that person, and I would just hope that he would live up to, and I'm sure he will, what he said in 1987, how he felt the consultation process should go, that you should go out after you've drafted something together and tell the people what you've put in it to see if it really reflects what you received.

There's been some talk about the three wise men -- in fact, an awful lot of talk about the three wise men who put together the labour bill. I don't know any of the three gentlemen, but I've been told by very good sources that they're honourable, reputable people. But every one of their backgrounds has to do with labour, labour management or labour relations of some kind, whether employer or employee, it doesn't matter. So I think to myself that when you put three people together like this to go out and draft a labour bill it's almost like having the fox build the henhouse. You know, you don't put them inside it, you just have them build it so he knows how to get in there and pluck a chicken out every once in a while. Hon. Speaker, that's obviously what's in the bill. It's easy to get into, and it has some parts of it that you can't really see easily, and can't explain easily, but they're there, and they're dangerous.

This government talks about cooperation, and it's very close to Ken Georgetti and John Shields and those people. The people who work for those unions are just the ordinary British Columbians who want to work and bring home a paycheque so that they can live. But they 

[ Page 3870 ]

talk about cooperation on that side of the House, and about cooperation with unions. It's funny that these same unions boycotted the IRC in 1987, but as soon as this government was elected and they could put a political hack in place of Ed Peck, all of a sudden they started working with the system -- and it worked. So why change it? That's what people are asking: why change it? If it's working, leave it alone.

Secondary boycotts are another thing that a lot of people are worried about. The now Attorney General, as stated by our leader in his speech yesterday, believes that if 95 percent of the province were unionized, we'd have no poverty. I can't believe a statement like that, and I don't think most of the members opposite can. Even the Minister of Labour is smiling about that one. It's interesting how some of this stuff comes home to haunt you after a while. I think we all know that's not really true. There have to be some other forces that keep the economy going other than just unionization of every business. What it does is make me very nervous about the real philosophy of members opposite and how they really feel about labour legislation and about the way the province of British Columbia should go.

That's probably what has just about all British Columbians a little bit nervous about this government. There are some very honourable people over there with very good intentions. But when you start hearing things like that, and you start taking away the individual right for the collective right and those types of things, and placing the control of the economy in just a few hands and jeopardizing our economy, that's what makes people nervous.

Jobs and investment are what we need. We need labour legislation to be balanced in British Columbia. As the Minister of Economic Development said the other day in his speech about going into the twenty-first century, we need labour legislation that will take us into the twenty-first century with a good economy -- as good an economy as we can have. We have to continue to go up. We can't go backwards. We can't go back 40 or 50 years, because that just won't work. We have to have a little bit more initiative from the members on that side than saying that it worked 40 years ago and we're going to use it again.

We have to get away from governments dealing totally with their own supporters. What they were elected to do was represent all British Columbians, whether they're in labour or in business. That's what they have to represent. We must have labour legislation that will encourage and foster development and investment in the province. That will be beneficial to all British Columbians, and that's what this government should be striving to do, not decimating it.

[3:00]

G. Wilson: In speaking in support of this amendment, I note that it suggests this bill not be read because in principle it erodes the fundamental individual rights of workers and employers. I think that we need to focus in a little bit on exactly what the intention of a labour bill must be, with respect to both the rights and protection of rights of collectives and the collective working people of the province, without eroding or taking away the individual rights of those people who, either by choice or because of the nature of the operation that they happen to have employment within, are members of a union or are exempted from a union without the choice to join one.

I think it's important we understand that even though members of the Liberal opposition have been characterized by some members opposite, in a rather jocular manner, as anti-union, that is simply not the case. Neither is it the case that we have....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Highways, Forests, and whatever other ministry he might acquire as the rest get put into the penalty box, has difficulty understanding the terminology. I'll try to keep them down to single syllables for his benefit.

We notice that there have been members opposite, albeit not many in cabinet, but mostly those who haven't yet worked their way into cabinet, who believe that somehow the Liberal Party in British Columbia is an anti-union organization. This is simply not true.

Let me point out that I'm proud to have been the president of my union. I have been a long-time union member. I have sat in on many negotiations.

Interjections.

G. Wilson: The members opposite ask why we are attacking unions. The fact is that we are not. The fact is we are protecting not only the rights of unionized working women and men in the province, but also those people who employ them and those people who are not in the employ or are employers who do not have unionized workers. You see, this labour bill doesn't just affect unionized workers. The labour bill doesn't just affect those businesses that are unionized or which have a portion of their employees under union contract. This labour bill affects every man, woman and child in British Columbia, because it fundamentally affects our capacity and ability to function economically with our trading competitors in the areas of Washington, Oregon and California, as well as in the Pacific Rim, across Canada and in other jurisdictions within this great country.

We have to understand that when we suggest that this erodes the fundamental rights of the individual workers and employers, what we are doing is looking in a much broader way at the implications that this labour bill has. And those implications are rather severe. First and foremost there is a fundamental democratic right in this country that should allow individuals, when there is a process of certification to occur, to have an opportunity to cast their ballot, yes or no, in a manner that does not identify them.

A secret ballot vote is a fundamental, basic tenet, a principle of democracy that all of us share when we go to an election to elect a government. We don't always get the government we want -- witness in British Columbia. Nevertheless, when we do go in to vote on a referendum and the government of British Columbia, which we didn't want, noted they didn't get the results 

[ Page 3871 ]

in the referendum that they wanted.... But such is the case of democracy.

As we proceed with this process, we can see that if you have the right to say yes or no in a private way, you also have the right to inform yourself as to whether or not you should cast your ballot for or against. Therefore prior to certification, prior to a union becoming certified, it is important -- I would argue it's critical -- that those workers who will be affected have an opportunity for full consultation with the employer to find out whether or not it will materially affect them to the positive or the negative. That's something that I think a lot of employers would very much like to engage in.

I find it interesting, when we witness the kind of commentary that we have heard from members opposite, that we in the Liberal opposition are constantly characterized as being people who have no experience in the union movement or who don't understand trade unionism or the implication of the labour bill. It's understandable, given the high percentage of members opposite who either are now or were active members of the trade union movement and therefore had very much a vested interest in seeing this bill changed prior to their election -- not that I would impugn them in any way, thinking that they now don't have the vast interests of all British Columbians at heart.... Nevertheless we suggest that this labour bill doesn't actually address or look after the interests of the individual. We are told that somehow we are not progressive.

I find it interesting, with respect to the proposition of management rights versus worker rights and individual rights versus collective rights in the process of technological change which now is going to be enshrined in law in legislation here, that I was attacked directly and named in debate by the member for Cariboo North, who was formerly the president of the pulp mill in my own riding. I think it's wonderful that he had a long and very productive life in Powell River, and I'm sure the people of Powell River miss the fact that he's no longer there. However, what he suggested -- and I would like to refer back to his comment, because I think it is very salient to the point I'm making now with respect to the individual rights of both union members and workers -- was that we should not fear the fact that we are legislating the requirement on technological change for the involvement and, essentially, acceptance of the union. In the instance that I used in Powell River, and he also relates to Port Mellon, he suggests -- and I quote from Hansard, October 29, 1992 -- that they "have had that provision in their contract for 20 years. The technological change clause has been in the agreement that he described for 20 years. How do I know that? I was president of the union at the time, and I helped to negotiate it."

Well, hon. Speaker, I rest my case, because this hon. member, from a recognized and honourable trade union, has just emphasized what we in the Liberal Party have been saying from the very beginning in opposition to this labour bill. Number one, it is possible to have a process for implementation of a negotiated collective agreement that recognizes that where technological change occurs, there will be negotiation between management and the union. And strange to relate, it happened 20 years ago. So how have we progressed if the individual right of the union members to sit down and negotiate a deal is somehow taken away and put in a legislated document, as we have in this labour bill, which says that, by law now, there is going to have to be this process of inclusion, negotiation and acceptance on technological change? Is it because this government doesn't trust unions to be able to more effectively negotiate on their own a method and process for looking at technological change clauses in a collective agreement that gives them an opportunity to better implement the technology that they're going to have to work with, deal with and look after? What this government has done is say that the individuals working in the collective bargaining process in the union movement are better served by legislation that entrenches in the legal language of the code that the management must sit down and must deal with the technological change question without doing so in the format and process of a freely negotiated collective agreement process.

Hon. Speaker, we say that that's an erosion of rights to the union, not an implementation of greater rights. What it means is that where you do have some rather unscrupulous employers -- and I'm sure there are as many out there as you would find in any other sector of the economy -- they are going to be less likely to continue to involve themselves in technological advancement, given the changing nature of our continental economy. They can find far better investment climates south of the border that don't have those kinds of regulations and restrictions. Therefore they are simply going to find a more profitable investment climate without the kind of restrictions that this act is going to put in place. That is bad for the economy of British Columbia. It is bad for our opportunity to expand and to grow, and to have a process whereby we can start to look after the interests of those individuals who will be affected.

We have to look at the language of the agreement too. What do we mean when we talk about the process of measure, policy, practice or change in this technological change concept? Measure, policy, practice or change: that's the language of the bill. There are now very fast-changing factors that affect the ability of virtually every level of employer, from small business to the very large corporate sector.

There are so many effects that the global, national and continental economy is having that employers must have maximum flexibility if they are to look after the changing nature of their production. If they are going to be bound by the measure, policy, practice or change provision of this agreement, how does it give them the flexibility to deal on an individual basis with the employees who are going to be directly impacted by it? How is it going to make it possible for that kind of situation to occur? And what is that going to essentially affect?

On the question of a 60-day notice period, is it going to affect things like packaging, for example? Is it going to affect the process of production and productive capabilities? Is it going to affect the implementation of new machinery? Is it going to affect the implementation 

[ Page 3872 ]

of new technologies in transportation, communication and systems development with respect to a very rapidly changing computerized world, where we're starting to computerize production in much larger formats?

What does it mean to things in the trade union that were scoffed at by the member for Cariboo North, who learned that we had a member here who was with a trade union in the post-secondary educational sector? He scoffed at it and said that that's not a union at all, that those are all a bunch of people who are simply teaching in universities -- not on the shop floor like the old blue-collar workers he was referring to.

Well, times are changing, and all of us recognize that the rights of every worker, whether they are working in a pulp mill, in a university, in small business or as self-employed individuals -- all of them must have an opportunity to succeed. All of them must have an opportunity for maximum flexibility in order to take advantage of very real changes that are occurring in terms of addressing the changing economy.

This bill doesn't do it. On the tech change question, it is our belief that not only is there an erosion of what is now an accepted practice in collective bargaining, but in this bill we have started to move toward a much more rigid structure that is going to make it much more difficult for industry and commerce to make the kinds of changes necessary to protect the workers, their employment and their long-term productivity potential that this government says they're trying to look after themselves.

It is very much Big Brother -- and I realize that is not a gender neutral term. In fact, it was brought up by one of our members that this bill entitled Bill 84 is replacing Bill 19, and there is indeed a very real connection -- 1984 in the Orwellian concept of Big Brother. That's what we're witnessing in this bill. We recognize that the erosion of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual worker is very much a product and a part of this.

[3:15]

Let me also point out that the members opposite suggest to us that we're actually looking at a situation where most of the men in the workforce need not fear or worry. This is interesting. In listening to the remarks of the member for Vancouver-Hastings yesterday, I was quite interested and somewhat amused by the fact that the member had the straight face to stand up and say that we in this group -- the Liberal opposition -- didn't have any knowledge of or experience with the trade union movement. We didn't really know what we were doing or what we were talking about. The member then came forward -- and again I quote from Hansard -- saying: "I must tell you that the future of our economy rests very much on encouraging women to join the workforce." There's no question there. We would certainly agree that that is a very important, functional part of a strong and viable economy.

But then this member goes on to say: "It will come as a shock, I am sure, to you members opposite who are male, that all of you who want to work are now working." That's the quote. She said: "Your participation in the workforce has maxed out, to use the vernacular term. You are not saying: 'I need to join the workforce.' Those of you who have decided to participate in the workforce are participating." Here we have a member opposite telling us that we don't know what we're talking about, saying that all of you males who want to work are now working. Obviously this member isn't familiar with the unemployment statistics in British Columbia. I don't know the operation, but I don't suppose NDP research is part of the Queen's Printer. Perhaps they're on strike.

Nevertheless, the statistics are very clear that we're looking at an overall 10.9 percent unemployment rate, 11.6 percent of which is made up of males and 10.1 percent of which is made up of females. It makes it difficult to put any credibility into the words of one member opposite when such a ridiculous notion is put forward -- and a notion is what it is -- that somehow every male who wants a job is working.

What is particularly upsetting about the comments from the member for Vancouver-Hastings is that that member is very well educated and was formerly a very well-positioned member of the trade union movement in the province -- one organization that had a great deal of input into the writing of this bill. To the extent that we can see that such facts are erroneous in this debate, one has to recognize that the facts in this bill may be equally erroneous in terms of the assumptions they have made.

We have to recognize that there is a need for us to have a greater degree of flexibility and change. We need to recognize that the individual rights and freedoms of people have to be looked at.

It wouldn't be so serious if this government wasn't attempting to put this labour bill in place at a time when this economy is in deep trouble. I don't intend to get into a long debate on the deficit rising to $2.7 billion. We recognized, from comments made earlier in the House and from what is becoming very obvious to all British Columbians, that we've got an economy out of control. If we are to get it back in control, we have to have a working relationship between both unionized and non-unionized workers and the employers of this province. This will maximize our potential to expand economic wealth.

We are not going to be able to deal with that by simply believing in the myth that there's room to tax out there -- that we can increase sales taxes or go forward and put new revenue measures in place -- and somehow have the economy stay competitive. I'm encouraged by the news release of November 5, 1992, from the Labour ministers, who are sponsoring a study on the best role for governments in promoting more effective labour-management relations. In Victoria today we see that our Labour minister and his federal, provincial and territorial counterparts are outlining details of a project that will explore how governments can promote more effective relationships between labour and management. A timely event, and one that I think lends credence to the fact that we should not proceed to give second reading to this bill until we can understand exactly what comes out of this kind of initiative, an initiative in which it would seem that British Columbia is prepared to take part and to deal with.

[ Page 3873 ]

Let me say that when we start to look at the impact of this particular labour bill, we have to recognize that there is a need for us to go well beyond the normal kind of approach to labour-management relations. We also have to recognize that right across this country, sponsored by our own Minister of Labour, there is in fact ongoing consultation on the role of government in looking after industry, in looking after the rights of both unionized and non-unionized working people. And we would like to see that that role is in fact looked at in great detail in British Columbia, because this bill not only erodes the individual rights of the worker, which I have spent some time in addressing, but it also erodes the individual rights of the employer. The employer must have the opportunity to have maximum flexibility to be able to keep investment happening in British Columbia, because notwithstanding what may be believed by the government opposite, we simply cannot have government be the engine of growth. All government can do is tax the people more in order to be able to spend more on programs that, in most instances, do not generate wealth but essentially distribute wealth that has already been generated in the private sector. That's a reality that somehow has not sunk home to the members opposite.

Let me say that it becomes more concerning when we see in a letter to the Premier that was released today: "The unfair labour legislation that you propose to enact will force business in this province to the sidelines and will ultimately result in lost jobs and investment needed to create new jobs." This is the opinion put forward by the senior members of the business community in British Columbia. What was the defence of this government in dealing with that? What was the defence that they offered when they heard this? The defence was that they were angry that somehow some kind of a prenegotiation had taken place, that somehow some kind of a deal had been cut, that this wasn't supposed to happen, that everybody was supposed to give this government a soft landing. Well, how can you give a government a soft landing when it brings in a bill that seriously erodes the rights of both working people and the employer in a manner that provides us a much more closed government, a much more divisive government. We have to ask questions of the ministers, and one hopes that we may get some clear and direct answers to them at some point.

If the major employers in this province suggest that what is coming through in terms of the restrictions on strike replacements, in particular regarding the inability of this government to move forward to put in place some kind of restrictions on employees obtaining alternative employment during a strike, how is it fair to have one set of rights for workers but a different set of rights for those workers who also happen to be employers? Let us not forget that those people in management, whether it's junior, middle or senior management, are also workers in the province, are also investors in the province and through their investment and their labour create wealth and generate employment and create an economy upon which this government, with its spending habits, has an opportunity to tax. And tax they do. They will continue to tax until we have an opportunity to become government and put in place comprehensive tax reform, which is something that all British Columbia needs.

In putting forward this motion, we are saying that we are not opposed to labour, nor are we opposed to having a sound, sensible labour relations bill that will be fair to the employer and the employee and provide balance on both sides. We are saying that this bill doesn't do it. We think we can improve this bill and that there are ways in which this bill can be advanced.

If the minister is really interested in a soft landing, the Liberal opposition is prepared to work in a constructive manner on this bill. The offer has been made by the senior employers in this province in the same letter to the Premier dated November 3, 1992. "We are anxious to discuss our concerns with you and with the minister. Most importantly, we would like to begin a process of negotiation with you regarding this legislation. The economic well-being of tens of thousands of British Columbia families is at stake."

Well, hon. Speaker, that is the bottom line. The bottom line is not whether or not this government gets kudos from any group it might be dealing with on the weekend or from the people who have been out there trying to drum up membership in their own organization, which we understand from information that's come to our attention is lagging and sagging very deeply. Neither is it a question of whether or not this government is going to get a soft landing. This bill is all about the families in this province who are going to find that their ability to function within the economy of British Columbia is seriously eroded by this bill.

We believe that if this government is very serious about making some amendments to this bill, we can amend it. We believe that amendments could go forward that would make this a better, stronger and more acceptable bill. But it takes some time for us to sit down and negotiate that in good faith with this government, which was supposed to have made that report available to all British Columbians. Rather, the government preferred to selectively release that report to certain groups and member organizations, which had it some weeks before the rest of British Columbia had the benefit of trying to enjoy it. We were told that this open and honest government, which was going to treat all British Columbians equally, with no friends and insiders, made this report available to friends in the labour movement and to some of the people involved in management before the rest of British Columbia had a chance to review it and comment on it.

The kind of backroom dealing and telephoning to ministers that went on in previous governments, which we thought had come to an end, has clearly not come to an end in British Columbia. We understand that it's still alive and well and living in Victoria.

The proposition that we're putting forward would allow us an opportunity to convince members opposite, if they were at all interested in a sensible bill, to amend this bill in order to look after the interests of the individual rights of workers and employers. We recognize that it is important to have collective rights protected in the trade union movement in the province of British Columbia. We are not opposed to that, despite 

[ Page 3874 ]

the rhetoric and bland commentary from some uninformed members opposite. We believe that this bill is badly flawed in several ways.

On the proposition of certification, why not look at a closed ballot vote that once again establishes the fundamental democratic right of those people who wish to have their vote recorded prior to certification? That is an amendment that I think can be put forward and implemented. We could take this bill back and work that one through to make it acceptable. On the question of certification, we have to understand that it is not just a proposition of certifying that is necessary in terms of the rights of the individuals who come together and who once they receive 55 percent of the workforce automatically become a union. It is also the right of the employer to have some kind of protection, especially small business, because large corporations and the large corporate unions with the large corporate bosses -- and they're the ones we tend to hear most about, the elite in the union movement.... There's a very substantial elite that tend to get time on government jets and things.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I understand this is not really the substance of what I'm talking about here today. Nevertheless, we understand that that is the connection that tends to have the ear of government. We're saying: what about the rank and file who tell us that they have their concerns? The certification process isn't -- as was pointed out before -- simply and only a question of one union; in some instances it will be competing unions. And where do we have the ability, then, to make flexible rights to individuals who are in the workforce and who may choose one over another? What's the proposition in here for that?

[3:30]

I've heard so much commentary about violence on the picket line as the reason we don't want replacement workers. I know the member from Cariboo North waxed eloquent as he went back on a sort of historic journey through the development of the Powell River Company. That was an interesting and rather entertaining discourse; nevertheless not relevant to this debate.

But it isn't just that problem. It is the problem of the individual right of the worker to decide which union they wish to belong to if there's a competing union which is in fact going to serve their interests better. It's whether or not they should be certified within one bargaining unit or within another -- that's an important consideration for the individual worker. It's whether or not some unions look after the interests of a particular group more effectively than others because of their involvement in particular sectors of employment. Those are very real concerns that have not been addressed in this debate to date, and we believe they need to be.

On the employers' side, if you can have 55 percent of the workers signed up on cards automatically certified, if it's that easy to get certified, what rights do the employers have in this legislation in the process of decertification? The answer is none, zero, nil, not any. They don't have any rights. And so we have to ask ourselves, how is this bill good for the individual rights and freedoms? We see that it is not, which is why I urge all members to vote for the amendment that is before us today.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the six years that I've been in this House I have never heard such pathetic drivel from a Leader of the Opposition.

J. Tyabji: Order! A personal attack.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, I'm sorry. The sting of that comment....

The Leader of the Opposition started off his speech talking a little bit about his commitment to and understanding of the trade union movement because he was once a leader of a trade union when he was at college.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, the silver-spoon Leader of the Opposition, who says he was head of a union once when he was in college. He now has this profound understanding of labour relations issues and understands what is at stake. He then engages in the most incredible and pathetic comments, which you would expect from someone who purports to know things.

Let's talk about this Leader of the Opposition.

J. Tyabji: On a point of order, much as I find this entertaining and slightly amusing, I don't think this is relevant at all to the debate on the amendment.

The Speaker: The point is well taken. I would remind the minister to address the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: He makes these points about individual rights. But before I get to that -- and I'm going to deal with all the issues he raised about individual rights -- this person who wishes to be the Premier of the province one day....

An Hon. Member: Fantasizes.

Hon. M. Sihota: Fantasizes. Oh, it hurts again, hon. Speaker.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, if the minister would read the bill and the amendment, he would find that the Leader of the Opposition is not mentioned in either. Perhaps he could stick to the issues at hand and discuss those -- which is the debate that people of this province want to see.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's amazing how they like to think they can dish it out, but they can't take it from time to time. That's the problem here.

Not once has the Leader of the Opposition of the province of British Columbia ever met privately with a representative of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

[ Page 3875 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, the minister is misleading the House. His last statement is simply not factual, and I would ask him to correct it. I take that as a personal insult.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the hon. minister would like to withdraw that statement in the interest of the debate in this House and continue his comments on the amendment to second reading.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I think they're confused over there about who the Leader of the Opposition is. Not once with the officers of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

G. Farrell-Collins: Pardon me?

Hon. M. Sihota: Not once with the officers of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

The Speaker: Is this another point of order, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: It's the same one, because the minister keeps saying exactly the same thing. He's mis-stating the facts. He's saying that I have not consulted with the people, and I wish he'd withdraw those remarks.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that is not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. As all members know, moderation in debate is always appropriate in this House. I would again ask the hon. minister to please address the substance of the amendment before us.

Hon. M. Sihota: The amendment before us deals with individual rights. This legislation goes out of its way to protect the individual rights of working people in the province. For example, it protects the right of a worker not to be intimidated during the course of a certification drive. I'll tell you what sometimes happens in this province. A worker decides freely, democratically and openly on their own that they wish to engage in unionization activity in the workforce, that they wish to engage in certification of their colleagues on the shop floor. All of a sudden the employer picks up the phone and starts talking about moving to Alberta or Saskatchewan. The suggestion opposite about individual rights doesn't hold water. This legislation says that that employer does not have the right, nor should that employer have the right, to intimidate an individual.

Not only that; we went further. We said in the course of this legislation that no employer has the right to dismiss an employee who wishes to engage in trade union activity and certification. You're talking about protecting individual rights, which is what this motion is all about. Let's hear it straight out from the Leader of the Opposition. Confess that this is good and progressive labour legislation, because it says very simply to employers that you can't fire an employee simply because he or she wants to be part of a trade union.

G. Farrell-Collins: Some is good and some is bad. We said that.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says: "Some is good and some is bad." The Leader of the Opposition says it's somehow bad to have protection here for individual workers when it comes to technological change.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me deal with that issue. We've seen massive technological....

The Speaker: Order! I regret to interrupt the minister, but I would bring the House to order and remind hon. members that every member has a chance to participate in the debate. At this time the Minister of Labour does have the floor.

Hon. M. Sihota: This legislation on technological change says that employers and employees in British Columbia have got to work out their differences. If there's going to be technological change, there has to be joint consultation and discussion to work out the differences and the consequences. But in recognition of the individual right to workers it says that no employer can proceed without developing a plan to deal with human resource planning, retraining and notice of termination. So it gives rights to individual workers to have protection in the event of technological change.

This Leader of the Opposition would take issue with giving workers the right to know whether they're going to lose their jobs, the right to be protected against that loss of those jobs, the right to have retraining so that they can be productive citizens in this province of ours. That's what the Leader of the Opposition would take issue with.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Right to vote. Let's talk about this issue. The hon. Leader of the Opposition says that he knows all about trade unionism; he understands the principles of trade unionism, as if he is some kind of scholar with respect to trade unionism. And if he was, he would understand why this legislation contains protection of employees, to individual men and women in this province, to engage in collective bargaining and freely form a union on their own, free of intimidation, free of discrimination and free of pressure from employers.

Interjections.

[ Page 3876 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: They talk about the secret ballot. Let's take a look at what the leading....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I want the hon. members to listen to this very carefully.

Paul Weiler is a leading scholar in terms of labour relations in this province and a Harvard University instructor.

J. Tyabji: NDPer; convention delegate.

Hon. M. Sihota: I see. The hon. member takes issue because someone may have an NDP card. I'll tell you one thing, hon. member....

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. I ask the minister to address the bill. I would also ask the members of the opposition to please restrain themselves. Tempted though I realize they are to interject, I would ask the members to await their opportunity to get involved in the debate themselves. Would the hon. minister please proceed.

Hon. M. Sihota: Paul Weiler says: "I do believe that there are compelling virtues in the method of instant votes now practised in Nova Scotia" -- he was looking at the voting system in Nova Scotia -- "not simply from the point of view of the employees but also of the union, win or lose." He also writes in a recent article:

"My experience in British Columbia leaves me doubtful about the administrative feasibility of that device in a far-flung province with a thousand certification applications a year, rather than just 30 or 40" -- he looked at Nova Scotia and British Columbia -- "and I'm heartily opposed to representation ballots conducted after a representation campaign. The employer has all of the advantages: the absence of the union from the plant; the lack of any tangible union benefits during the trauma of the representation contest; a gradual changeover in the employee complement, with all the newcomers unilaterally selected by the employer."

If I may pause for a moment. You talk to those who are involved in organizing trade unions around this province. They'll tell you all about inequality of bargaining power, and they'll tell you all about how employers in this province engage in pressure tactics and go out of their way to hire select employees to make sure that a representation vote doesn't pass.

"And the ugly fact of life," he says, "is that too often employers do not behave. Forty years of legal enforcement has not stemmed the tide of unfair labour practices by employers right across North America. I make no secret of my preference. Trade unions should be granted certification -- the legal licence to bargain on the basis of signed membership cards."

I want hon. members to listen to this very carefully, because it's a point that my colleague from Mission has made on several occasions in this House, and I think it's an excellent point: "The real test of whether employee support will remain steadfast will come when the trade union looks for a mandate to support its efforts at the bargaining table." That's the vote that counts, hon. member. That's the time for the vote.

I also want the hon. members to take a look at what the panel said with regard to this type of issue. In fact, I'll give them the comfort of not quoting it. I'll just paraphrase what they've said. They've indicated that incredible employer intimidation goes on during a representation ballot. They have indicated in their findings, in their study -- and we're talking about nine people from British Columbia who formed a panel to advise us on labour legislation -- that in the period between 1984 and 1992 there was a 100 percent increase in unfair labour practice complaints brought before the IRC as a consequence of that vote provision.

[3:45]

They found that it diseased the relationship at the front end between management and labour. They looked at the experience of eight other provinces in this country. They looked at the experience of this province for 40 years, and they came to the conclusion -- comparing the experience of 1984 through to 1993 with that experience of 40 years, with that experience of eight provinces elsewhere in this country -- that the way in which to deal with the certification issue is the way they recommended.

I want to tell the hon. member that we make no apologies with respect to introducing the provisions on certification found in the legislation that's before this House. Because I don't want him to have any illusions, I want him to understand that there will be no changes to that provision in this House. Nor should there be, because it's good public policy.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: It just behooves me to listen to some of the comments that come from the other side. They don't want to listen to the experts; they don't want to have the benefit of 40 years of experience. They don't want to see what any other province has done in this country with regard to this issue. They think that employers out there are just simply going to go out of their way and say: "Oh yes, go ahead and have your vote. I'm not going to be against the trade union."

They just want to sit there with their heads in the sand and engage in cheap political rhetoric, because they clearly do not understand the dimension of the problem as it relates to certification.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, let's talk about that. Let's not forget the ultimate point.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The Chair is trying to be patient, but it seems as though for some reason members are very twitchy today. I would ask the members, with the greatest respect, to please try and contain themselves so the hon. minister would address the Chair in making his remarks, to perhaps reduce the friction that seems to exist. Please carry on, hon. minister.

[ Page 3877 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's not forget that that provision with respect to certification was agreed to by both business and labour, unanimously on this panel. The hon. members opposite would have us undo a provision where we said to business and labour: "You go into a corner, you work it out, you advise us as to the best way to deal with this issue." They came back with this recommendation. They endorsed it, and in fact, the Business Council of British Columbia, through Mr. Matkin, insisted on October 27 that we proceed with all of those provisions -- which were unanimous; and indeed, this was one of them. We will therefore, in compliance with that business request, proceed with the provisions as they relate to certification.

The hon. members -- and particularly the Leader of the Opposition -- asked us to go ahead with the process asked for by the six individuals who signed this letter of today. They said: "...we would like to begin a process of negotiation with you regarding this legislation." That letter was written to the Premier and made reference to me. I'll tell you, it was six business elites, six individuals in this province.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I believe this is the third time that I've had to interject due to the chatter on the opposition benches, and while I certainly have considerable humour in matters, we are in the chamber, and it is under the rules of this House that I must be guided. I feel that members are not only interjecting, but on a number of occasions I have heard the hon. Labour minister referred to by name, which, as all members know, is prohibited in the chamber.

I would ask one more time that the members try to restrain themselves and allow the minister to proceed without interruption. It would help if the minister would refer to the Chair a little more frequently.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want them to hear this very carefully. Six business elites -- individuals -- want to sit down with the Premier and negotiate labour legislation. I want hon. members in this House to understand. Gone are the days when a single phone call or a single letter to the Premier will bring about changes in labour legislation.

Quite frankly, there are two ways in which one can change labour legislation in British Columbia: the old way of picking up the phone, talking to the Premier, working through the changes in the back room and engaging in confrontation as a consequence; or alternatively, the new way, the way in which people requested a year ago that government work through a process of consultation rather than confrontation, through public input rather than backroom deals.

I'm pleased to say that by engaging in that process this government was able to produce the legislation which is now before the House, which protects the rights of individuals and provides collective rights where they're required. On top of that, of the 164 changes proposed, 160 met with the support of business and labour. Hon. Speaker, 98 percent of the provisions now here have the support of business and labour. So this government will not acquiesce to the request of those who are asking us to go to the back rooms and engage in some kind of new negotiation process with respect to the labour legislation.

I want to go a little bit further. I want to explain to the hon. members why this government is saying that. We went through a remarkable process of consultation with business and labour.

L. Fox: You sure did.

Hon. M. Sihota: It seems to upset some of the members opposite that this government was engaged in a process of consultation. A year ago today, the new cabinet was selected. This government immediately commenced the process of consulting with business and labour with regard to changes to labour legislation. In January 1992 we sat down with business representatives, including Jim Matkin from the Business Council of B.C. and Kathy Sanderson from the Federation of Independent Business. We asked them: "Who do you want to be on this panel? Give us your choices. Give us some names." They gave us the name of Tom Roper as one of the individuals on that three-person committee. We put Mr. Roper on the panel at the request of business. We went back to them and said: "There's no representation here from small business." I want hon. members opposite to hear this, because for some reason they've been trying to perpetuate the myth that there was no....

D. Symons: Point of order. I believe the motion before the House is not being spoken to. The member is rambling on about a lot of irrelevant things as far as the motion before this House is concerned. I think he should stick to the topic, please.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your point of order is a very good one. However, I must say that we have permitted a fairly wide range throughout the amendment debate. Nonetheless, it would behoove all of us if the minister did address the motion before the House.

Hon. M. Sihota: There's nothing irrelevant in laying out the process by which we made sure that the rights of individuals and the collective rights of workers and employers were protected in this labour legislation.

The employers said, "From the small business side, we'd like Barbara Rae, chancellor of SFU, to be on the committee." We agreed with the representation made by business in that regard. Business had the representation that they asked for on this panel, so the stage was set to begin to deal with the issues that are now before this House.

In February 1992, they proceeded with a process of consultation. We announced the panel at that time. There was no objection to the panel by business. In fact, they agreed to the nine-person panel that we came up with. That consultation process continued from February 1992 right through to June 1992. They travelled around the province and listened to over 500 British 

[ Page 3878 ]

Columbians in 11 different communities. At no point did business ever object to the establishment of that panel or the process that occurred between February and June.

In June they came to us and said that they would like to have the opportunity to extend the work of the panel. We said: "Fine. If that's what business wants, we'll agree with that request."

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, hon. member, you weren't listening earlier on. I'd just refer you to Hansard in terms of that point.

From June to September 1992 the committee met publicly and privately with both business and labour representatives, and sought their advice with respect to their preliminary views on the changes that ultimately came before the House. Business was there; labour was there. Mr. Matkin was there; Mr. Georgetti was there. This government stayed out of that process, wanting it to be an independent and clean process, unlike the sham that we saw with the previous administration with regard to Bill 19. They met; they discussed. They dealt with issues such as certification, successor rights and technological change, and they came to a consensus on those provisions. Mr. Matkin was there, and Mr. Georgetti was there.

In August 1992 Kathy Sanderson of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which also signed that letter, came to us as the government and said: "Look, we feel a little left out of the process. We want to be involved in the process." We said fine. As a consequence of that representation -- let me say parenthetically that we met with them within 24 hours of their request -- they were involved in the process. They met publicly and privately with the individuals who were entrusted with the task of working through these changes. We wanted to make sure that there was a process in place that had the support of business and labour, and that they could work together to find a solution to this very difficult issue of labour law reform in British Columbia. On September 11, 1992, they produced a report -- all of them, the nine-person panel plus the private representations from both business and labour.

After we received the report there was a public campaign by elements of the business community saying that we ought to release the report. Fair enough. So what did we do? We met with the executive of the chamber of commerce. We met with the board of trade to discuss their concerns, and we made it abundantly clear to them, as I think it was proper to do, that this government would not tinker with any of the recommendations where the parties had agreed, nor do I think it has the right to do so, if one wants to pay homage to the process that was engaged in here. They had an opportunity then to have a better read of where the government was at with respect to this matter.

On October 16 they made a further request through Mr. Georgetti, Mr. Matkin and Mr. Plecas, who was then representing the business coalition. They requested a meeting to go over their concerns with regard to this matter. Business asked first that we make the report available to them. We said: "Fine, you can have it." They made a request that we change the date for introduction of the legislation from October 20 to October 27. We said fine. They said: "We would like to work with the Deputy Minister of Labour" -- who chaired this process in the first place -- "to try to find a solution to the four outstanding issues." And we said fine.

They made some representations. When I say "they" I mean business. Business said: "We are not content with the recommendations as they relate to sectoral certification." We as a government, mindful of the public interest, said: "Fine. We agree with you." So it's 161 out of 164. They made representations with respect to secondary picketing. We said: "Fine. We agree with you that there should be continual restrictions on secondary picketing and that neutral third parties ought not to be involved or drawn into a dispute." We agreed with business on that. So it's 162 out of 164.

[4:00]

We then listened to their representations with respect to anti-scab legislation, and quite frankly, it is a myth for hon. members in this House to suggest that somehow workers who are on strike can just run off and find all sorts of work out there and continue to make their mortgage payments, and that somehow there's some unfairness or inequality to business. Those aren't the facts, and far more importantly, the fact is that when you bring in replacement workers, history has shown us that you have violence on the picket lines. This government says that there is absolutely no place for brute force and violence on picket lines in British Columbia. We say that there are compelling public policy reasons for us not to allow for replacement workers in this province. So we made a prohibition with respect to scabs, and we make no apologies. Let me make it abundantly clear: that provision will remain in the legislation.

That left one issue on the table: secondary boycotts. I want the hon. members opposite to understand what happened with regard to secondary boycotts. We said: "We understand the concern about that provision. We have some responsibilities as public sector negotiators with regard to those provisions." I said publicly in this House, as well as privately, that this government would monitor very carefully what happens with respect to secondary boycotts, and that if there were any unintended consequences, we would not proceed with any changes. That was the process that protected these rights of working people and of employers and tried to build a consensual Labour Relations Code.

Here is what business had to say, as a consequence. Kathy Sanderson, in a press release dated October 27, 1992, said: "I wish to applaud the Labour minister for bringing small and medium-sized business into the process." That's what they said on the date the legislation was introduced. Mr. Matkin said on October 28....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, unless you are the designated speaker, then I must advise you that your time has expired.

[ Page 3879 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm the designated speaker, hon. Speaker.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Speaker. There is no designated speaker on an amendment to a motion. There are just 30 minutes for each member to speak.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I am advised that there is a designated speaker on amendments. I would rule that the hon. Minister of Labour continue.

Hon. M. Sihota: "The key thing about this code was that the public process worked." Mr. Matkin went on to say: "I don't think that this legislation brings a war between business and government." Subsequently he said: "I don't think there will be the kind of strident, almost ballistic approach that you saw in Ontario. I think that the reality in our business community here is that labour law isn't that important, whether it's good or bad."

I'm saying that there was a remarkable process engaged by this administration to protect the rights -- individual and collective -- of working people in this province. We've now introduced legislation. We will not participate in a backroom negotiation process that's being asked for by the representatives who wrote the letter today.

Hon. Speaker, I appreciate that there is some confusion with respect to your ruling, and I'm somewhat concerned about that. Hon. members may want to work that through.

Deputy Speaker: Please continue, hon. minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to say therefore -- and I want to end on this note -- that this government has gone through a remarkable process of consultation, which forecloses consideration for legislative committees and forecloses our agreement with the motion before the House. It also forecloses our acceptance of a six-month delay. We spent a year in this province working on labour legislation reform and, as a consequence, we will not agree to this motion or to any further delay with regard to the implementation of labour legislation. I want the business community, this House and British Columbians to understand that we are proud of the consultative process that was undertaken by this administration over the last year. We're proud to put before this House a bill where 98 percent of the provisions are agreed to by business and labour. We are pleased to say that of the 164 changes in this legislation, 162 must, by definition, meet with the support of business.

F. Gingell: Big business, big labour.

Hon. M. Sihota: Both big business and small business, hon. member.

With that understood, today let's be clear: this government makes no apologies for its legislation. It's firm in its resolve to proceed with this legislation, and we are committed to making sure that this fair and balanced legislation finds a place in the statute books of this province.

J. Tyabji: I ask leave of the House to table a document.

Deputy Speaker: Shall leave be granted?

An Hon. Member: No.

Deputy Speaker: I hear a no, hon. member.

Debate continues on the amendment.

W. Hurd: I'm certainly pleased to rise in support of the amendment that's before us in the House today. I must say that I can understand the extreme disappointment of the Minister of Labour who thought he had a deal and sees it unravelling as we speak. This is a red-letter day in British Columbia, because the major employers in this province have told the Labour minister to take his consultative process and shove it, and that's exactly what they're doing in the province today.

Major employers who are part of the process that's been described understand only too well that since the labour review panel toured the province, the fundamental economy in this province has changed. We're looking at a record budget deficit. We're looking at losses of employment that are occurring almost daily in the province, and they understand only too well that they cannot afford to see this bill go through. It's the reason they are determined to do what they can to try and bring reason to this government on the nature of the bill that we're being asked to pass in the House today.

Much has been made by members of the governing party on the consultative process that occurred as part of the formulation of this bill, the fact that 96 percent of it was the subject of agreement by all parties, and that there was dissent on only 5 percent that of it. But you know, it was the 5 percent that the management representative, Mr. Roper, made a minority submission on. As a result of that minority submission, which covers many of the points in this labour bill, this minister could not release that report until the day he tabled the bill in this House. That's the kind of openness and honesty that British Columbia has seen: a consultative report -- the bellwether of this bill -- which was not introduced in this House until the day the minister tabled his labour bill. Why?

The opposition asked that question for four months leading up to the opening of this session. The Labour minister is exceedingly disappointed that this carefully crafted process he put in place is coming unravelled like a cheap suit as we stand here today. We've seen a supposed consultation process leading up to a session of the B.C. Legislature that every pundit in the province said wasn't even needed. We don't even have to be here. But this government had an agenda leading into this debate, and we are here today to deal with one piece of legislation which they want passed before the annual convention of the B.C. Federation of Labour, so that Ken Georgetti, who is a ghostly member of this assembly, 

[ Page 3880 ]

can stand up in front of his conventioneers and say: "We delivered. The Minister of Labour was there when we needed him." That's the kind of consultation we've seen in this bill, and it continues to this very day.

The labour troubles in this province are not going to end with this bill, because the business leaders understand full well how the balance has been tipped. They are simply not going to accept the amendments in this bill.

Let's consider the changes to the bill one by one. Much has been made in this assembly about anti-strike replacement workers. Anybody who knows anything about labour relations in this province knows that employers have almost never used that type of retribution against their workers. This government has capitalized on a bitter strike at the Yellowknife mine -- not even in this province -- by suggesting that B.C. employers are somehow irresponsible and will use this provision as a club with their workers. They haven't. No major employer in this province wants to see picket-line violence. It's not a strategy for long-term business survival. The fact that the provision was there and that it was part of the negotiation process forced the parties at times to come to an agreement and get on with the job of running the province and keeping their businesses going.

This particular provision will make it impossible for companies that experience difficult economic times -- go into receivership almost -- to ever come out. That's what this means. During the negotiation process there's no chance that that type of leverage is available to companies. It was never used in the past but was always there. It was part of the collective bargaining process. Even though it was never used, it played a key role in allowing companies and unions in this province to reach settlements.

The secondary-picketing provision and secondary boycotts, which have been discussed, are exactly the same. They will allow the return of union "hot" labels to British Columbia. It will mean that suppliers will have to unionize, and their decision to unionize will be based on collective agreements between major employers and unions totally outside their jurisdiction. But if they want to be suppliers, they'll have to unionize.

The Labour minister talks about this being a bill for the union man in this province. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a bill about top-down union organization. It's about imposed unionization. It's a bill for the union bosses, and nothing the Labour minister says in this chamber is going to change that. This is a bill for the union bosses.

The process that went into the formulation of this bill is as badly flawed and as lacking in public confidence today as was the process that went into the formulation of Bill 19. This is a back-to-the-future labour bill that simply intends to gut the provisions of Bill 19 but makes no provision for the reality of the provincial economy today.

The Labour minister assumes, in looking at the business climate in this province, that when we talk about large and small companies we are dealing with small companies that are merely clones of larger companies. He doesn't make the differentiation. But as anyone knows, when you look at small to medium-sized corporations in this province, their needs, goals, priorities, financial structuring and, indeed, their very business plans and commitment to the future are totally different than the requirements of big business.

This particular labour review panel had a representative of big business, big labour and big government -- a mediator who has done very well off both processes over the years. It's in no way a labour review panel that was reflective of the kind of economy British Columbia has. There was a segment of the economy left out of the equation, and when those commissioners went behind closed doors to try and hammer out an agreement, it was the same type of agreement that's hammered out in collective bargaining backroom sessions throughout this province. What kind of a collective bargaining deal can we hammer out? How can we break the logjam? The assumption this government makes is that every collective agreement is a good one. Well, I've spent time in industries which have signed disastrous collective agreements that under ordinary circumstances they wouldn't sign, but feel they have to. There's absolutely no guarantee that because representatives of big government, big labour and big business sit down in a room and cut a deal, somehow that's going to be what's needed in the provincial economy.

[4:15]

I am convinced that the Minister of Labour doesn't understand that this type of process for renewing labour legislation is just not the kind of consultative process needed. Our initial amendment to refer this to a committee and send that committee out on the road has been totally rejected by this government. This leads us to the amendment we have on the floor today, which probably isn't as good an amendment as the last one we dealt with, but nevertheless is an amendment that we have to support.

Why can't we send this bill to the people of the province yet again? Why can't the people, like the people in this letter, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce...? Why can't these major employers and small businesses in British Columbia be given another kick at the cat with this bill? Given the fact that the provincial deficit, we've just learned, is at an astronomical height, and given the fact that job losses are mounting in this province and investor confidence is dwindling, is it not ample reason to delay the passage of this bill for six more months? Surely a government that purports to represent the broadest interests of British Columbians instead of the union bosses would make that kind of decision in the interests of the province, given the situation it's in now. But we heard from the Labour minister that he is determined to see this bill pushed through this House by whatever means possible. He's not too concerned about the deficit; he's not too concerned about job losses in British Columbia; and he's not too concerned how many business leaders realize that the process he put in place was flawed, and are now prepared to turn their backs on it. He's not concerned about any of those things, because he wants this bill passed before the B.C. Federation of Labour convention. I say shame to the hon. minister, who is 

[ Page 3881 ]

supposed to represent the interests of the people of the province and has abdicated in favour of Ken Georgetti and the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Looking down the list of changes to the bill, we can see all kinds of problems ahead. The big problem with labour legislation is that the changes don't happen immediately, because they have to be interpreted by a bevy of labour lawyers, who over the years in this province have become wealthy individuals indeed by representing the interests of unions and big business and making the applications before the LRB and the IRC; labour lawyers who will make money off this bill regardless of what it says, because they will have to interpret it or will go to court and have the courts and the Labour Relations Board interpret the provisions in it.

It's very easy for us to stand in this assembly and argue about what the absence of replacement-worker legislation will mean or what secondary picketing will mean, but the interpretation is only going to happen over time. It's only going to be when labour lawyers take their cases before the LRB, and argue as they do at whatever rate they charge an hour, that we'll arrive at exactly what the limits are of these individual clauses in the bill.

That's the real problem with major changes to labour legislation. They unfold over a period of months and years, and work their way through the provincial economy, and it's the lawyers who benefit. They always do. And the members of the committee: lawyers, people who benefit from these kinds of major labour legislation changes. It's like putting a couple of foxes in a hen house, given the kind of economy we have in British Columbia.

I can understand the Labour minister being bitterly disappointed with the fact that we are still here debating this bill and that the people he thought he had cut a deal with have decided they want no part of it. The reason they don't is that these business leaders, who employ thousands of British Columbians and represent many diverse industries in the province, realize the peril that this province is in. They understand what a $2.7 billion deficit means. They understand what it means when investment dries up in the province.

In preparation for debating this bill, I want to tell you that the Liberal opposition thought about going to the very people who will benefit from the bill. We talked to labour lawyers, and they told us that there will not be a sudden flood of investment disappearing from the province; it will be a slow and steady erosion. In this modern era of a global economy, you simply cannot pass labour legislation as an island. Capital, unfortunately, can go anywhere in the world; it can go into Whatcom County, for example.

It's not good enough for three commissioners to simply tour the province and talk to the old, tired war-horses of labour management and somehow come up with an idea to have a made-in-B.C. labour bill without any reference to what's happening in the western United States or in the rest of Canada. You simply can't draft that kind of legislation, yet this government insists on doing it. They insist on made-in-B.C. taxes and made-in-B.C. labour bills. Everything is made in British Columbia. Pretty soon we'll have to start printing our own money, because there won't be any of it coming in here.

What really troubles the opposition is the suggestion by this government that this bill has oppressed the workers in the province, that somehow over the past four years the working men and women in this province are living in shackles and chains and that we have to redress the balance. The Liberal opposition has travelled throughout this province, from one end of it to the other, to resource-dependent towns. I see people working in British Columbia, whereas in Ontario they're sleeping in the streets. I see workers who are contributing to their economy and who have seen their real standard of living improve over the last four years.

Why is it that not one member of the government has offered us an explanation for the fact that under the old labour relations rules in this province, people and workers have prospered? They have seen real material gains in their standard of living, yet we have this labour bill before us, a decision by this government to completely rewrite the labour code on the basis of some completely fictitious view of what has been happening in this province over the last four years. It's little wonder that the business leaders in this province, in the letter that was received in this chamber today, have shown a complete and utter lack of confidence and faith in the Labour minister. They've jumped ship. All I can say is, it's about time they did.

I know we'll be getting into some of the highlights of the bill in a clause-by-clause analysis. But the one that really sticks in the throats of a lot of workers and people I talk to is the absence of a secret ballot. The major assumption by this government -- and I think it reflects the kind of judgment they have about labour relations in the province -- is that if you have a secret ballot, it will mean intimidation in the workforce. That's the kind of philosophy that really lays bare the philosophy of this government when it comes to labour-management relations. How could anyone interpret a secret ballot as being an opportunity for intimidation? How could anybody, any government, perceive a secret ballot vote, which is guaranteed under the Charter and is the inalienable right of every person in this province, as an opportunity for intimidation, rather than what it is: a free expression of will by the workers in this province?

The workers in this province, union and non-union, are not stupid individuals. They understand when their rights are being trampled on. The idea that a union can come in with 55 percent of the workers and sign up a plant without any recognition of the rights of the other 45 percent is an absolute scandal. When you talk about the prospect of 45 percent of the people being denied their fundamental democratic rights, you're talking about a recipe for union discord and violence in the workplace in British Columbia. The workers of the province will not accept that provision. The union bosses are certainly delighted with the prospect. They don't have to justify why a plant needs a union. Furthermore, the ability of the employer to communicate with his employees and to tell them about the financial situation of his plant will be reduced during 

[ Page 3882 ]

that period, because it will be perceived by this government and the Labour minister as intimidation.

The Labour minister and this government appear not to realize that the world has changed. People in this country and this province are now demanding their individual rights. I think the Charter of Rights of Freedoms in this country is one of the major reasons for that. People realize that you have to be guaranteed individual rights over collective rights. When you look at the language that has been deleted in this bill, there's no question that individual rights have been sacrificed. Individual workers are not going to be trusted under this bill, because they will not have the opportunity to go into a voting booth free of interference and cast a ballot for or against union certification.

There are a lot of nuances in this labour bill that I don't think the Labour minister realizes, but the idea of first-contract certification is one that I find really interesting -- the idea that the Labour minister will be able to impose a first contract on a new business. The labour lawyers and experts in the industrial relations field tell us that when you look at how that provision worked in the past for the companies that had a first contract arbitrated and forced on them, you don't see one example of a company signing a second contract. They didn't get a second contract. The provision in the last Industrial Relations Act, prior to 1987, was a failure. It didn't work. The proof was in the industrial relations environment. Yet in this bill they are reviving a provision that has been demonstrated to fail. The provisions in this bill have not even been tested against the history of labour relations in this province, and they expect us to buy into this bill and not oppose it with everything in our power on this side of the House. It's clearly out of step with the economy the way it was ten years ago, much less the way it is today.

The Labour minister is seeing the carefully crafted work of the last year begin to unravel. He is beginning to see the orchestration that was part of changing labour law in this province come unglued. He is seeing the very real possibility that the B.C. Federation of Labour president will not be able to stand at his convention in early December and triumphantly hold forth this bill, because the opposition in this province will be doing its job by saying "no way" to Ken Georgetti. I think it's important for us to do a thorough job of expressing our opposition to this bill on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Why aren't they going to be asked to express their views on items like secondary picketing, which is now in the bill and going to be enshrined in law at some future date? What could any responsible government fear from its own citizens in taking a bill like this on the road to solicit their opinion? What government would not be willing to take a second look at a piece of legislation like this one, resisting the pressure of the special interest groups and the union bosses who have been so instrumental in getting them elected?

There has to be a time when a government stands aloof from the special interest groups in this province and tells the union bosses in this province: "Things have changed since the election, and we have a deficit on our hands. We have a sensitive provincial economy which is teetering on the edge of major economic problems. We can't deliver." They have said it in another 24 of their 48 election promises. Why not this one? It's not like there isn't a precedent out there for broken election promises. This is a broken promise that the people of British Columbia would welcome. It's only for six months. They'd be able to honour it down the road. But they would be able to have solicited the opinion from the business community, which isn't represented in this labour bill.

But you know, hon. Speaker, we're not seeing that kind of flexibility from this government, and we're not seeing it from the hon. Minister of Labour. He's going to see this bill passed in its current form. There won't be any amendments. And we're going to see a lot more letters like this one, from business leaders who have had the chance to read Bill 84. More importantly, they've been able to consult with their lawyers and legal advisers. They've been able to try to interpret the provisions in this bill and what they're going to mean in a labour relations court or other court, which is where they have to be interpreted anyway. They realize that this bill spells real trouble for workers and business leaders, and for the economy of British Columbia.

[4:30]

They know too well, and therefore they have stood today and said that they cannot support Bill 84. They've indicated that if the government will not take a second look at this bill, the broad level of consultation which the Premier sought to establish with the business leaders of this province will go down the tube. That's the price being talked about in this letter. The business leaders in this province, the employers, understand only too well that if this government refuses to take a second look at something as fundamental as labour legislation and refuses to weigh the package of labour reform in light of the broader economy then any other consultation on the economy is nothing more than a sham, because ultimately this government will take whatever course of action it wants to.

They have indicated in their correspondence that they are not prepared to participate any further. That's a serious development in this province, when the business leaders in British Columbia suggest that they have lost confidence in the government to do the right thing when it comes to labour legislation. I don't care how much the Labour minister tries to sugarcoat this kind of opposition and tries to suggest to the chamber that they had their chance and now it's over. I tell you, hon. Speaker, any prudent and responsible government is always willing to take a second look. Nothing is cast in stone, even after it becomes law. This government should be willing to look at the provisions of this labour bill to determine how they're impacting on the economy. But the Labour minister won't undertake those kinds of responsible government initiatives, because he is responding to a narrow, special interest view of the provincial economy. He's responding to the rancour that occurred in this chamber over Bill 19. He's living in the past with this bill, when the protagonists were a different set of parties in this assembly, and when big government and big labour were at war with each other. This bill will only ensure that that type of discord and 

[ Page 3883 ]

disharmony continues in the province. The labour lawyers will have a field day, as they always do, going before the various tribunals and labour boards to determine exactly what the bill means.

The government seems to have a totally fanciful and unrealistic view of what constitutes business in British Columbia and the struggle that exists on the part of small and medium-sized firms. Over the past two years in this province these firms have suffered a crushing weight of increases in government fees and taxation. The last straw, the last crushing blow is a new labour code, which, as I say, will only be interpreted over the next few months. It will directly affect their businesses, and they have no input or control over it.

These businesses don't have the money to hire high-powered labour lawyers. They don't have access to the resources that Ken Georgetti and the B.C. Federation of Labour have. The firms in this province cannot resist a top-down organization. They are struggling to survive every day. If a major union with the backing of other locals in the province comes along and wants to organize a business, who in this province -- what small business in any of your ridings -- is going to be able to resist a top-down union organization with a certification process that involves signing cards. Who is going to be able to hire a lawyer to get decertified? It's impossible. The only way you'll be able to decertify is to go bankrupt, and that's going to happen with increasing regularity in this province.

It seems rather ironic that in the very days we're debating the labour bill Douglas Kerley, the job protection commissioner, would issue his report for the past fiscal year in the province vividly detailing the trials and tribulations of the small and medium-sized business sectors in this province.

If this labour bill had been in effect during the period of this annual report, I'm convinced that half of these businesses would never have made it out of the self-imposed receivership they were in. That's the other reason why this labour bill is so totally out of step with the provincial economy. The figures on the state of the provincial economy are in reports like this one, and they are landing on ministers' desks; yet nobody over there seems to understand how the imposition of a labour bill like this one will simply dry up the very investment that these companies need to survive and to protect jobs. It's something they've been able to do in the last four years in this province. They've been able to go through their start-up problems. They've been able to experience the inevitable frustrations and pitfalls of all small and medium-sized businesses. They've been able to come out, because they didn't have a certification hanging over their head by some union boss who has seen membership in his union diminish and wants to get membership in a company at any cost.

How in the world can a company resist a top-down certification? It's out of the question. We're going to see more businesses like this that are struggling to survive out there, that are probably dealing with the biggest crisis since they got started in business. The certification process isn't designed to provide fairness to them. It isn't designed to ensure that they inherit a union by fair and equitable means. Why? Because the workers in these struggling companies will not even be given a chance of voting on a secret ballot as to whether that company can survive. The only thing they will find out is that one day the job protection commissioner or Coopers and Lybrand or some other bankruptcy trustee is in there cataloguing their assets and they're out the door.

I hear member after member on the government side of the House standing up and saying that the biggest fear workers have in this province is replacement workers.

Deputy Speaker: I regret to advise you, hon. member, that your time has expired.

L. Hanson: I am pleased to stand up and support the amendment, hon. Speaker. Almost a year ago this government was sworn in, and the leader of this government said it was a day dedicated to the ordinary men and women of British Columbia. He said he would provide open and fair government for all British Columbians. Hon. Speaker, I ask you and this House to consider: is it fair to remove the right to vote and be protected by a neutral observer to ensure secrecy in an organization campaign? Is it fair to subject British Columbians to this legislation which has an overall philosophy of organizing every business in British Columbia? It has that philosophy, while it is taking away the rights of the individual and the rights of the employer to have equal opportunity to force economic hardship on the other party during a strike -- all of this in the context of a fair government to British Columbians.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I heard the previous member mention several times that this was a carefully crafted bill, and I think that description of this bill suits it very adequately. If you look at the bill and you look at the different changes that have been made -- small changes -- and then add them all up, what do you get? Let me use the example of replacement workers. When you add up all the different clauses of this bill, the bottom line is simply that if there is a strike the business is closed. The employer then has the opportunity of going bankrupt or leaving the country. And I say that he has no right to replacement workers. British Columbia does not have a record of hiring replacement workers in the case of strikes. Yes, the members will refer to things like the Post Office, and they will refer to that strike in a mine that wasn't even in British Columbia. I might point out that under those conditions, this bill does not apply in any case. The jurisdiction lies with the federal labour relations board, not with the provincial labour relations board. The instances of violence on the picket line caused by replacement workers in British Columbia's recent history are absolutely nil.

You combine that with a narrowing of the definition of exempt personnel. In simple terms, a business that may have 40 or 50 employees will now have about half as many people at the management level exempted from the union certification because they've narrowed 

[ Page 3884 ]

that description. You now have an operation which can't bring in any outside workers. You now have an operation that has fewer exempt personnel at the top. What does that mean to the ability to operate? It almost stops it completely. Add to that the clause that says employers cannot order an exempt person to do a striking worker's job unless they have that person's agreement. Imagine what that does to the British Columbia government in the case of a disagreement in a strike. It's closed down. Add to that clause the clause that says you can't transfer in any personnel from other operations. If we have a strike in British Columbia, the government literally will close down, because it has no option. You take that scenario and add it to the burden that small business already faces in British Columbia -- add that prospect to their future....

Somehow there seems to be an attitude that profit is a nasty word, but unless there are profits in our businesses in British Columbia, there never will be any expansion of our business. Where does it come from? It doesn't happen miraculously. We don't get a printing press and print more money. It's because businesses are able to operate in a fair and reasonable climate, provide a profit, keep that profit here in British Columbia, reinvest it and create more jobs.

We had the Minister of Labour in here a minute ago, and he was telling us about a wonderful process that he had gone through to arrive at this point with this legislation. He said that 95 percent of the items -- I think it was 94, actually -- are agreed to by that committee. As I have said on many occasions in this House, I have the greatest respect for the members of that committee. But they are three members: a lawyer who is well known to be representative of large trade unions; another lawyer who is well known to be representative of large corporations; and, in between that, another individual who is a mediator, depending on both of those two. What do those people have in common? They owe their livelihood to labour relations -- large organized business. They don't owe their livelihood to small business. They don't have a concern in their past experience.... I'm not criticizing or saying that they are not good humanitarians, but they don't have the experience of a small business or the public at large as they relate to labour relations and what effect this bill will have on them.

[4:45]

I think that the minister was misleading us in that, quite frankly. The suggestion was that business and labour had been brought together and had agreed on those members as being suitable members to form this committee. But I think he left out one small thing: those people, when they agreed to this, expected that the report which came back would be tabled for comment, for inspection and for analysis before legislation was brought to this House. If he had told them at that time that when the report was tabled, it was going to be tabled with the legislation in the House and that that would be the first you'd see of it, I wonder what their answer would have been. I wonder if they would have agreed to that same process as being a process that represented everyone in British Columbia.

If you look at this bill, you might draw the conclusion that it causes some difficulties for business. When the minister was speaking, he was accusing the Liberal opposition -- and I suspect that he included my party in that -- as being anti-union. Hon. Speaker, I ask you to look again at this legislation. If you looked at it carefully and were fair about your analysis of it, you might come to the conclusion that this legislation is anti-business. The minister keeps suggesting that this is balanced legislation. He has mentioned that several times in the House. I've heard members of the government mention numerous times that it's a wonderful piece of balanced legislation. I suspect that the scales were supplied by the B.C. Federation of Labour and that they were delivered by Mr. Georgetti to that committee. I suggest that they take those scales and send them to the weight and measures people who make that determination, because there sure is something wrong with them.

The minister tells one side of the story. He says that this legislation protects the rights of the individual -- from the employer. He says that the committee looked back on 40 years of experience, and they deemed that it was not necessary to have the certification vote, which has been cancelled by this legislation.

Something that really astounds me is that these big bad employers, who are so unrealistic and act in an irresponsible manner in the case of certification, only act that way if 55 percent of the employees have been signed up. If only 45 percent of the employees have been signed up, as opposed to 55 percent, then they act very responsibly, and of course we do need a vote. That just doesn't make sense. That creates a reason that I don't understand. The two don't equate. On top of that you compound the fact that if there is an interest in decertification, then we have to have a vote. There's no suggestion that that vote might allow whatever union is having the vote to provide some unfair labour practice or some coercion or intimidation. It's only in the case of 55 percent or more of the people being signed up that the employer might do that. There are all sorts of remedies to that. I don't think that the minister or the government can justify taking away the right of an individual to vote and give their opinion in secrecy.

I believe that the minister suggested in one of his conversations that there's a safeguard there. Between the time that the employee signs the membership card and the union actually applies to the Labour Relations Board for certification, that member can go and withdraw his card. That's some protection, isn't it? I'm not accusing anyone of this, but if that vote or union card was acquired by intimidation or coercion, why would that person suddenly think: "Oh, I'll go and get that card back. I signed it because I was scared, but now I'm not scared and I'm going to get it back." That's a farce. It really does not mean anything. The only true way of ascertaining that individual's desire is in secrecy, so that he cannot be coerced by anyone, including the employer, the union or the public at large. Let him or her go into that booth and show exactly how they feel about unionization.

An Hon. Member: Pretty basic democracy.

[ Page 3885 ]

L. Hanson: It is. And it absolutely astounds me. Are we going to start having votes for us here by signing cards? Are we going to have votes for our municipal people by signing cards?

D. Streifel: We've got that now; it's called enumeration.

L. Hanson: No. The member says we have that now, and it's called enumeration. If that member doesn't understand the difference between enumeration and the secret ballot, then we really do have trouble.

The minister referred to Paul Weiler. During some past experiences I've had in the labour relations field, Paul Weiler was quite often referred to as the guru or know-everything expert philosopher of labour. Let me read from Paul Weiler's book about strike replacements. He's talking about the banning of replacement workers in the case of a strike:

"The essence of collective bargaining is an economic struggle. Strike action is the union's chief weapon. The trade union attempts to deny the employer its supply of labour until the latter is willing to improve its contract offer. But the employer is perfectly entitled to resist that effort. Its major instrument is its property right, its control of the means of production. If the employer can find enough workers who are willing to work for the offer which has been rejected by the union, then it should be entitled to keep producing."

Here is the key:

"Only in this way will corresponding pressure be placed upon the strikers to moderate their demands. That in essence is the common law position, one which is still largely prevalent in British labour law today."

I quote from the same author in the same book, again talking about replacement workers: "It tells the employer it cannot operate during a strike, but it does not tell the employees that they cannot work while on strike." I heard the minister say that the idea of an employee finding work while on strike is so far-fetched that it's really not a practical problem. Well, I go back again to the record of British Columbia. British Columbia has not used and does not have a record of using replacement workers. The only reason that replacement workers were not banned in the past was that it was part of the bargaining process. There was the threat there, and the employee also had the threat of being able to go out and find other work. But balancing the scales.... Where did those scales come from? They weren't scales measured to balance the issue.

Paul Weiler goes on. He says: "I would not advocate, both for reasons of principle and of administrative feasibility, any restriction on the right of strikers to seek work..." -- nor on the employers to seek replacement employees.

While I'm in the quoting mood here, I have another piece of information dealing with the same issue. This is on Canadian industrial relations and is part of the Woods report. He says:

"...it is important to note that the employer's capacity to take a strike depends largely on his right to stockpile goods in advance...and to use other employees and replacements to perform work normally done by strikers. Together with the lockout, these possibilities constitute the employer's quid pro quo for the workers' right to strike; and this is as it should be, in our view."

From the Globe and Mail:

"If the...government cares to listen, the sober truth under the testimony from the business community is that" -- the province -- "will experience slower growth in the future because this bill will discourage business investment in the province. The damage will result from the bill's most controversial proposals, the provisions that ban the hiring of replacement workers during a strike.... These provisions introduce an entirely new calculus in labour-management negotiations. Quebec is currently the only other jurisdiction in North America to have such rules. The balance in the current law gives labour a chance to close a business down by striking, and management a chance to keep it open by hiring replacement workers or by inducing unionized employees to cross a picket line."

You'd think that was written about this piece of legislation that we're discussing. Actually, it from the Toronto Globe and Mail, Monday, September 7, 1992. It's referring to the legislation introduced in Ontario. But it proves that the concerns of business and their ability to handle a strike, if there is one, must be balanced. To bring this piece of legislation forward, which would change the workers' rights and the employers' rights and tip the scales directly in favour of the striking worker, is going to be very harmful to British Columbia -- not only to the businesses that are here now but to the businesses who may consider coming here. They'll take one look at that, and you can guess where they'll go.

There's just one other issue that I'd like to mention. And I still have an opportunity to speak on second reading, so I have enough ammunition to go for two to three more days. What I would like to know and understand is how this government, this minister, can expect us to believe that anyone from the public, small business or large business, went before this committee and advocated secondary boycotts. Tell me someone who did that. Show me one presentation from anyone other than someone from organized labour. Show me one presentation from an individual or the business community who advocated cancelling the right to a democratic vote. Tell me about one presentation made by an individual or by a business that said: "We want to narrow the definition of exempted personnel."

[5:00]

B. Jones: Why did Leslie resign?

L. Hanson: Why did Mr. Leslie resign? Not for the reasons he published. If the members of this House would like to debate the record of Bill 19 and how British Columbia has done under Bill 19, we would be very happy to do that, but the fact is that we're debating Bill 84.

There are so many things in this bill: the secondary boycott, removal of the democratic vote, narrowing management exemptions, removal of certification if bankruptcy happens. Just think about that for a second. In the case of a bankruptcy, this new bill is written so that the assets of that entity are sold, but certification will follow to a new entity. There's nothing wrong with 

[ Page 3886 ]

the certification of an organization, providing it is done in a fair manner and the employees are allowed to express whether they want to belong to the union or not. But to make certification follow into a new entity certainly isn't fair, in my opinion, and I don't think it's fair in the opinion of all British Columbians.

Think of another aspect of that. The financial institution comes forward and says: "I will loan you so much money to get this operation going, but if you go bankrupt, I have to sell that asset -- because it belongs to me -- with this certification that follows it." The bank is going to look at that with a very jaundiced eye. I don't think that is good for British Columbia, the economy or the creation of jobs.

We have a $2.7 billion deficit forecast, and we have a high unemployment rate. We need to encourage people to take risks and start businesses; we don't need to put more obstacles in their way. The only reason we're even considering doing this is because the government made a promise to one of their allies during the election campaign that this is what they would do. It was not based on a need in the economy or in the labour relations world or because British Columbians said: "Things are terrible. We have to have this changed." It was simply to pay off a debt that was created during the election campaign.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: As I said earlier.... I hear the members across the way talking about my bill. I would have been absolutely overjoyed to sit in here and debate the record of Bill 19 while it was in place, but that's not what we're here for. We're here trying to talk, debate, analyze and give the public and business out there an opportunity to analyze a bill that will be harmful to British Columbia. This bill should not be called Bill 84; it should be called Bill pre-'84, because that's what we're going back to -- the days of Dave Barrett. This bill will do more harm to the economy and the working people of British Columbia than any other bill that has been introduced by this government. I urge the Legislature to support the amendment.

D. Streifel: It's my pleasure to stand in my place in this House and speak to Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code. It has been a long time coming. I look upon the bill as CPR for labour relations in British Columbia. We've heard a lot of debate and talk from this group off to the right these last few days about the effect that this bill will have on the sector that they purport to represent: the small business community and the unorganized workers in the province. The group off to the right hasn't done its homework. A labour relations code such as this one applies to unionized workers; it doesn't apply to non-union workers. They are covered by another act called the Employment Standards Act. That's their protection. This bill doesn't protect labour or unions or employers; it protects workers. That's what a labour relations code is all about: it gives a fair, representative voice to workers in the workplace.

I come from a worker's family. I've been a worker most of my life. I've been a member of three different unions. I worked for a union in support of workers, and I'm proud of that.

We hear from the group off to the right about the democratic right to vote and a 55 percent limit on certification. They stop at that point and refuse to recognize that when you sign a membership card in a union, you're asking a body to represent your interests and needs. The democratic vote, as provided in this legislation, comes with a collective agreement. The newly assigned members of that union enter into collective bargaining with their representative body and their employer. They strike a collective agreement, and they vote on it. I haven't seen that removed in this labour legislation, but I haven't seen the opposition -- the group off to the right -- admit that it exists.

I heard members of the opposition talk about a negative approach to discouraging the vote. I've a great deal of experience in the negative approach that is used to discourage a vote.

Interjection.

D. Streifel: I hear: "What's he talking about?" Check Hansard, hon. member. It was your leader that mentioned this negative approach and discouragement. How about proven criminal assault as a negative approach to discouraging a vote? How about driving over a picketer to get into a scab location with an 18-wheel vehicle? That's a fairly negative approach. How about phone calls at 3 o'clock in the morning, threatening families to discourage the vote? How about emptying dry-chemical fire extinguishers on picketers who are trying to protect their livelihood and their workplace? Are these fairly negative, hon. member? How about bullets in heating barrels outside Canadian Tire in Prince George? How about organized baseball gangs? How about braces of dogs set on picketers? We're not talking about the last century; we're talking about very recently in this province in front of retail locations.

I don't want to dwell on that aspect of why workers need representation in this province, or to talk about Bill 19 -- more appropriately, the legislation brought about by Bill Vander Zalm in secrecy from the former Labour minister. We hear about how great and how stabilizing it was. Well, the fact of the matter is that it wasn't used. It wasn't used by labour; it wasn't used by business. And most particularly, it wasn't used by the very government that crafted it behind closed doors, brought it out and forced it on the labour relations atmosphere that was in the province at the time. It was a fairly good labour relations atmosphere.

We talk about some of the highlights of this labour legislation. We talk about representation for rank and file. There's a great deal of representation for rank-and-file workers in this legislation. There's one insidious little clause that the group off to the right down here hasn't spoken about yet. It's a way that, I guess, emphasizes the focus of this labour legislation to promote harmony in the workplace. It's on page 39 in the briefing book, and it's called "Joint consultation," section 54. It says: "A collective agreement must contain a provision requiring a consultation committee to be 

[ Page 3887 ]

established if a party makes a written request for one after the notice to commence collective bargaining is given or after the parties begin bargaining. The consultation committee provision must provide that the parties consult regularly during the term of the agreement about issues relating to the workplace that affect the parties or any employee bound by the agreement." It goes on to describe the methods and the areas for the committee, and the reasons that a consultation committee exists.

Oddly enough, we find that same process under workers' compensation legislation, where a joint committee is set up to discuss workplace problems and to dispense with them before they exist. I think that that very strongly emphasizes the focus of this labour legislation -- a fair and balanced piece of legislation that gives all a voice in labour relations within their workplace. It doesn't stop free speech by the employer; it encourages it through joint consultation committees.

We hear the concern about automatic certification and the other side of it. Well, what about decertification? You may or may not have realized that once you're certified there's a legal binding contract in place, and it's a little more difficult to break out of that contract, so there must be a clear indication....

I'd like to share with the House an experience on decertification under Bill 19, and the reasons it had to be changed. There was a group certified in Richmond, as a matter of fact. There was an attempt at decertification within the workplace. Nobody knows how or why the decertification petition began, but a number of signatures were collected on the petition, which was sent to the Industrial Relations Council. The Industrial Relations Council counted up the number of names on the petition and sent it back to the employer -- not to the employee representative, who should have legitimately passed the petition -- and said: "I think you've made a mistake. When you do the arithmetic on this, you come up with only 44.4 percent of the employees. You need one more to sign in order to apply for a decertification vote." The employer said: "We have to find one." They went to Kwantlen College and hired a special education student, who normally wouldn't get a fair shake in the workplace under any circumstance. The demonstration in this instance was that there was no chance that that young woman would get a fair shake. In order for her to be hired, she was asked to sign a decertification petition to allow the employer to get one more person for the 45.1 percent of the workplace in order to apply for a decertification vote. Well, the union involved was a union I worked for, and I represented that store. We won the decertification vote.

[5:15]

This is some of the stuff that the group off to the right says doesn't happen in 1992. Workers should be welcomed by their bosses, and the bosses are all great. In most cases they are; they work just fine with their employees. The problem is that we have groups out there that don't respect workers under any circumstances, and we must find a way to balance that disrespect. We found that way in this piece of legislation, Bill 84. The title of it represents fairness and balance: Labour Relations Code. It's not Industrial Relations Act, where we're dealing with industrialized individuals. We're dealing with workers, labour and a code of ethics and a code of performance for all parties involved in a collective agreement. That's what this legislation is about.

I haven't heard any concerns from the employer groups in my community about the whole bill. There were some things they wrote me about, one called sectoral certification. We don't find that in here. In the community I live and work in, we haven't found a concern for 55 percent certification, because it's fairly common in labour relations. It was commonplace in British Columbia until it was changed in Bill 19. We do have a letter that was referred to by the opposition -- this group off to the right -- and signed by six or seven individuals. I have some questions for these individuals. Did they get their position by secret ballot? Have they been duly elected? Do they represent all retail merchants? Where do they come from? Who hires them? Who pays their salary? If the opposition wants to be honest, they will ask these folks some of those same questions. What changed your mind? What faxes came out of the Social Credit caucus right to negotiating tables in this province the day before yesterday to interfere with free collective bargaining that's in process right now? I don't understand their position.

We have a new piece of labour legislation. Admittedly it's not all new; there's lots of traditional stuff in there. It's interesting to note that most of this labour legislation is based in jurisprudence and labour law. There are requirements in here that are required in labour legislation in almost every jurisdiction in the free world. We have them in here.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

So if we were to trot this stuff out or throw it away, we'd be doing a huge disservice to all those who have come before us and have stood for workers' rights and have stood to represent those who have been suppressed. We have words in the anthem of trade unionism that say: "When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run...." That's a powerful force. That powerful force in British Columbia is looking for fairness and balance, and this legislation -- Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code -- has delivered that fairness and balance.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise this evening and debate the amendment that is before us. This is a bill that perhaps is going to go down in the history of this government as one of the most odious we have seen for a very long time -- certainly since '72 and '74.

In amending or defining the boundaries for industrial relations, governments must respond to and not ignore the accelerated pace of technological change, the growing competitive pressures from the Pacific Rim countries which affect British Columbia directly, European economic integration, free trade agreements and other factors that are of great concern to the business community in British Columbia today, and our economic problems that are simply ongoing and that we 

[ Page 3888 ]

have to resolve. These weaknesses include lagging productivity growth since the 1970s, the high rates of increase in unit labour costs, a steady upward rise in the unemployment rate together with widening disparities, the poor record of investment in upgrading skills and technology, chronic government deficits and a rapidly growing public debt.

If balance is the intention of the amendments to this Industrial Relations Act, then a responsible government will make changes that will not favour one party over another, as we have seen in some of the legislation and amendments in the past. Weiler and Gall assess that a process of labour law reform which is perceived to be one-sided and unfair will have a corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the law it produces and the degree of voluntary acceptance of that law. The law should establish standards that will minimize the harmful impact of conflict and promote harmony. Ontario's example in past changes to labour legislation is proof that one-sided amendments do not promote harmonious labour relations.

As the minister knows, Paul Weiler has written that there are two parts of a labour code central to the balance of power between union and employer. One is the use of the law to facilitate the growth of union representation of unorganized workers. The other is the use of the law to limit the exercise of union economic weapons such as strikes and picket lines once a collective bargaining relationship has become established.

Let's have a look at this new labour code that is before us and see if it is indeed balanced and fair. On Tuesday, October 27, the draft legislation was introduced in this House. Bill 84 will repeal the Industrial Relations Act and enact a completely new Labour Relations Code. This code will, in fact, take labour relations back to about 1984 -- with some notable differences, including a new prohibition on hiring of replacement workers during a strike or lockout. In most other respects the code is similar to the law that was in effect in British Columbia prior to the amendments of 1984 and 1987, so we're back to the seventies.

In the area of replacement workers, the ability of employers to operate during a strike or lockout is severely restricted by this new code. Section 86 prohibits an employer from hiring replacement workers, transferring a person from another of the employer's operations to do struck work, or arranging for the supply of workers to perform the ordinary work of employees who are themselves replacing striking workers. There is no similar prohibition on the ability of striking or locked-out workers to obtain alternative employment.

In the area of picketing, the law of common site picketing will be amended to give the board more discretion to allow picketing where there is a third party sharing the site of lawful picketing. Under the Industrial Relations Act, common site picketing is prohibited if the picketing adversely affects third parties. The new provision also allows picketing of non-struck divisions of the struck employer in some circumstances.

Secondary boycotts have been a particular concern to small and medium-sized businesses. I have a large number of letters from firms all over British Columbia who are extremely concerned about this particular provision in the new code. This is, I believe, called the "self-help" code, which enables the spread of unionization. Sections 4(1) and 9(1) of the current Industrial Relations Act will be repealed. These sections nullify collective agreement provisions which, for example, gave unions the right to refuse to handle non-union goods or work with non-union or non-affiliated workers. Consequently, "hot" declarations and union protection clauses such as restrictions on contracting out, restrictions on the types of goods and services supplied to an employer, and other top-down organizing tools, will once again be lawful.

The repeal of these provisions will allow third parties to become embroiled in the labour disputes of other unions and employers. An even bigger fear is that such clauses will be agreed to by government and Crown corporations, effectively cutting off non-union suppliers.

Bargaining rights. The trade union will be entitled to certification without a representation vote if it can demonstrate that not less than 55 percent of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit are trade union members. Again, hon. Speaker, every single letter that I have received from these employers -- every one of them without exception -- has protested this undemocratic provision that the workers are not given their democratic right of a secret ballot.

Unfair labour practices. A new expedited procedure for adjudication of unfair labour practice complaints requires the board to hold a hearing within three days, and the Labour Relations Code introduces a general unfair labour practice provision which prohibits coercion or intimidation of any kind by an employer or a trade union.

N. Lortie: You don't like that part?

L. Stephens: That's a wonderful part. I think that is excellent. That one is certainly well done. There is no complaint on that one -- none whatsoever, hon. member. You see, you're not listening. If you were listening, you would see that fair labour practices are something that this opposition agrees with wholeheartedly. Freedom of speech is something that this Liberal opposition agrees with wholeheartedly. Fair representation of employers and employees is something that this Liberal opposition agrees with wholeheartedly. There are some odious things in this bill that we don't agree with. Those are the ones that we're trying to point out to you, so if you would kindly listen, you would probably learn.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Yes, there will be a test.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: In three years, hon. member.

[ Page 3889 ]

There is one section in this new labour code that particularly concerns us, and that is successorship. This is a new provision of the Industrial Relations Act that has been amended to bring the law back to the pre-1987 provisions. The specific subsections introduced by Bill 19 will be repealed. Successorship will now be triggered under the code by a sale of a business or a part of it rather than by a sale or transfer of a business or a substantial part of it. So where you have a business going into bankruptcy, should anyone come along to buy it, they will be responsible for any successorship provisions in the current collective bargaining agreement, which is why we saw Mr. Pattison decline the offer of last week.

N. Lortie: For the B.C. Lions.

L. Stephens: No, not for the B.C. Lions; for a business where a lot of employees, a lot of working people, could certainly use that employment before Christmas -- and for the rest of the year, for that matter.

The revocation of bargaining rights. The code repeals a provision permitting an employer to apply for decertification where there have been no employees in the bargaining unit for two years. Here we have a situation where if you apply for decertification, everyone gets to vote; if you apply for certification, there is no secret ballot.

Intervention is another area that is particularly difficult for the opposition. The mediation and intervention powers in the Industrial Relations Act will be moved to the office of the Minister of Labour from the commissioner of the Industrial Relations Council, so we will not have an arm's-length process from political interference. I think that is an important change to be noted. One of the difficulties with the previous act has been that it has not seemed to be at arm's length from the political process. If there is a government that has some difficulty with credibility as being independent and impartial, I would suggest that it is this one when it comes to labour relations. I think they would have been far better to have left this particular provision.

The Labour Relations Code sets out a long list of purposes, which are intended to guide the board in interpreting this legislation. The code emphasizes mediation and cooperation. Within the context of encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, the references to the rights of individuals and participation of employers and employees in a competitive market economy are gone. It should also be remembered that this Labour Relations Code is only the first plank in the NDP labour platform. Amendments are still to come to the Employment Standards Act, and pay equity, employment equity and pension legislation. So I am sure we will see a lot more of this kind of debate and discussion in this House in the years to come.

[5:30]

I have a news release from the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. The minister says: "The concerns of the business community were strongly communicated to me, and I listened." I would suggest that the minister needs a hearing aid. The minister told the B.C. Legislature during debate of the new legislation that standing still is not an option for British Columbia. He also said that growth cannot occur without change. As I have said, and as others have stood here before me and reiterated time and time again, this particular legislation is not progressive or forward-looking. People and members of this House have time and again pointed out that this is regressive; it is 1970s-style legislation. The absence of sectoral certification in this code is not a clear demonstration that small business has been heard.

This particular legislation has also been criticized, if I can use that word, by the business community, which has finally understood and seen what is in this bill. The Business Council of B.C., along with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Retail Merchants' Association, put out a press release today. I'm sure other members have made reference to this. They say:

"The introduction of Bill 84 creates major problems for the economy in British Columbia. This legislation adversely alters the balance of power between employers and trade unions. It attempts to turn the clock back some 20 years by reintroducing measures of the past such as certification without secret votes, secondary boycotts and expanded successorship and common-site picketing rights. Business strongly believes that these changes will weaken the competitive edge of the economy in this province by hardening attitudes between employers and trade unions."

They go on to say: "The unfair labour legislation that you propose to enact will force business in this province to the sidelines and will ultimately result in lost jobs and investment needed to create new jobs."

There are a couple of letters here that I would like to briefly comment on and a few remarks that business people around the province have written to me. I must say that some of them must have thought that I was NDP or government, because many of them were really upset about what "my" government was doing. I just thought I would bring that up, because many of these letters are.... I'm sure if the members opposite have received the same ones, they'll know what I'm talking about, because there are some pretty strong feelings out there about what this government is doing. I hasten to write to them and tell them: it is not my government that is doing this.

This particular one is from Delta, and this is an industry that has been in business for quite some time. He says:

"During this time of economic downturn, our business has to be more flexible, more productive, more competitive than ever before in order to survive, while continuing to treat everyone with good, fair wages and benefits. We don't have anyone looking over our shoulder offering a helping hand in the form of subsidies, grants or loans. Governments express concern over the plight of small business, yet we know what would happen if we delayed PST and GST payments!" We certainly do. "When our backs are to the wall, we work harder and negotiate our way through, so that everyone can maintain jobs and wages."

As a small business employer myself for 13 years, I can tell you that your employees are the last place where you want to cut or economize. They're the people 

[ Page 3890 ]

who make your business run. Employers understand that it's their employees who make a viable business happen for them. So one of the effects of this legislation, I think, will be that a lot of businesses have to downsize. A lot of businesses can potentially be out of business, and then no one has a job.

He says: "We cannot afford to stop work or go on strike like big business, unions and governments can to solve employee-employer problems." Small business has to work through them.

"The existing labour code provides a perfectly good framework for us to work, while safeguarding the rights of employers and employees alike.

"Please consider any changes carefully. Don't eliminate the certification vote, or eliminate the employer's right to free speech during attempts to unionize a business, or restrict construction to union firms by permitting secondary boycotts. Finally, don't, by changing the labour laws, arbitrate a first union agreement on an employer when unions and employers can't come to an agreement on a first contract."

A lot of these businesses are very concerned about their livelihood and that of their employees. I've got lots here that I will be happy to share with the members opposite. This one is from North Vancouver. They talk about allowing secondary boycotts and common site provisions. It puts us back decades on the right to work. They eliminate the secret ballot. These are all areas that.... It's just so repetitive -- every single letter says exactly the same thing.

This one says: "Over the last few years there have been certification attempts where the vast majority of employees were carrying union cards and the certification was turned down...by those same card-carrying members." He goes on to say: "It is no wonder that the unions want this right to vote taken away." Even though the people do carry cards, many times they don't prefer to have a union represent them.

This particular fellow is from Kamloops. There is elimination of the certification vote again, secondary boycotts again and first-contract arbitration again. These are all serious concerns to small and medium-sized businesses.

This one should be interesting to members opposite. It is from a gentleman in Ladysmith, and he is a construction worker. He says:

"I have worked in the construction industry since I was a teenager, first as an apprentice, then as a journeyman carpenter. Your proposed changes" -- I would correct this gentleman; they're not my 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 a foreign-controlled trade union is the best thing for me; however, by dispensing with voting for certification in favour of certification by a majority carrying union cards, you are not giving me the choice. Don't force unionization on those who don't want it."

There are a number of those letters.

I would just like to close with a quote from the present Attorney General. This was in debate during Bill 19. I must say that when I read this quote I was a little disturbed, and I think that some members will probably see why. "We think that the rights of labour are actually more important than the rights of capital because the rights of labour are rights of people and the rights of capital are simply rights of money."

Deputy Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

An Hon. Member: We surrender.

K. Jones: They're already giving up. I'm glad to see that. This means that maybe we'll have an openness in the backbencher part of the government side that will show that this legislation needs to go out to the people. I'm sure you would believe in doing that. After all, this is what the New Democratic Party has always been talking about: their need to have it open, and not trying to rush legislation through, but making it what is best for the people of British Columbia. We believe in that too -- absolutely. [Applause.] Thank you. That's the member for Delta North. It's the type of thinking that I think all of us believe in: an open and democratic process.

But at the present time it's an unfortunate situation that the opposition has to bring forward amendments like this to call for this to get further review and for the opportunity for the public of British Columbia to be able to know what is specifically being proposed as legislation. Not only was the previous report developed by experts and lawyers on behalf of large industry, the large labour movement and a person who has worked as a mediator and arbitrator dealing with those industry decisions, but those people really brought forward a report that didn't include a large segment of our community. It didn't include the workers themselves. It didn't include the general public having an input into it. But even the fact that it was a limited-viewpoint report.... It was never made an open report, with the recommendations going to the public for a review. That seems like a very undemocratic process to me, and I think the people of British Columbia are saying that it's an undemocratic process. We're hearing it, and I'm sure that members opposite are hearing it in their ridings. If you're listening to business interests or to the membership in your ridings and unions, they're all telling you: "Give us some answers to this. Give us the opportunity to see what you're bringing forward that's going to affect our lives."

P. Ramsey: It's in the bill.

K. Jones: That's right; it's in the bill. But the bill came out at the same time as the report, and neither of them has been seen by the general public. People in this House need to bring this message out to the community, just as we did with the referendum. We don't need all of the flurry but just the facts of this legislation. Let the people see it. Let them show you and me what this is all about, what their concerns are.

There is a lot of good material in this bill. We want to have full community support for a bill that's going to be successful in bringing peace to our labour-business relationships, but only if there is that type of acceptance by everyone. We have previous experience, with the 

[ Page 3891 ]

Freedom of Information Act, where the public was given a full opportunity to see it and to have input into its development. The people of British Columbia have some great ideas on how to bring in the type of labour relations legislation that we want to have in this province.

[5:45]

It would be very progressive if the government of this great province made sure that everybody had an involvement and bought into this labour law reform. There should be that kind of essential support for it. Without the type of support we're talking about, we will never bring peace to what is an essential factor in our economy. The investment climate and hope for our young people, even the feeling of people moving into our province, are all tied to how well we relate to the employer, the employee, business and management -- and the rest of the people affected by those decisions: the general public.

Maybe we should look at that aspect of it. There are more than just two parties and a third party -- namely the government -- involved in this. There's a fourth party, and that is the general public. Decisions made by labour and management in their negotiations to settle disputes affect not only those parties but the surrounding community. In education they could close down the schools and shut down the education process. They could affect the provision of government services, a small example of which we saw here today when this House was delayed while some other means of printing Orders of the Day had to be found due to a strike that is occurring at the Queen's Printer.

Surely we have a proper procedure for this. We should try not to have shutdowns of our process. I understand that it's strictly a matter of getting the financial package worked out, which is being determined by the government of the day. The workers at the Queen's Printer are asking for a little bit more than the government is prepared to pay. That's what these labour negotiations are all about. As a result, they're now getting into the next stage of that bargaining process, and that means the withdrawal of services. The withdrawal of services, to me, is a failure of our process to properly bring about a satisfactory negotiation of the interests of both sides. Ultimately they will have to make that decision. There's always going to be a settlement to this; it's just a matter of time. The more bitterness or stubbornness on either side in that process, the longer it will take. But there will ultimately be a decision that will bring the parties together. What we want in a labour relations package such as this is one that really brings those parties together -- not separates them -- and gives them a vehicle to continue working and be productive. Our communities and our economy really hurt, and now is not the time for our economy to be hurting. Our economy really hurts when there is a dispute that brings about a work stoppage or even a slowdown.

Hon. Speaker, this process is not going to build the economic growth that is needed in this province. We have a restructuring of our province that is necessary at this time. We need greater involvement of everyone in that process. We've got great ideas in this province, and we should be utilizing all those great ideas -- not restricting them to three lawyers and the Minister of Labour. The business community announced today that they were totally dissatisfied with this legislation and wanted some changes in it. They feel that, in the best interests of this province, they need to have some changes made. In order for British Columbia to continue as an economically vital community, we must have that type of change and involvement.

The area of the rights of employee and employer is very vital. It's important that those not be ironclad rights so much as responsibilities and commitments to bring an agreement. Unfortunately, when we have it in legislation we tend to stick to very complex sets of rules, and we tend to look at the individual wordings in order to demand our position, or that position or the other position, in the form of rights that becomes a roadblock to peaceful settlement of a contract or dispute that has occurred in the process of working together as a common-bond unit in our economy.

Hon. Speaker, it has been suggested that it would be appropriate to adjourn debate, as it's getting near quitting time. I would therefore move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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