Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1992

Volume 6, No. 7

[ Page 3901 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. T. Perry: We have in the buildings today a number of representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students who have been visiting members of the Legislature. I'd like to invite all of my colleagues to show them how welcome they are here today.

G. Wilson: Mme. la présidente, il me fait grand plaisir de présenter � la chambre un groupe de huit participants du programme Les Jeunes Voyageurs du Canada qui sont les invités de l'école Chatelech � Séchelt.

Hon. Speaker, it is my honour to introduce to the House today a group of eight participants of the Young Voyageurs of Canada program who are the guests of Chatelech Secondary School in Sechelt. I would like to welcome Léonie Maquin, Sophie Lemieux, Kristie Greenwood, Jérome Mercier, Patricia �mond, Rod Lizée, Valérie Bouchard, Mélanie Naud and Mélissa Charbonneau, de St-Bruno et de Chambly, Québec, and also their accompanying attendants, Nadine Carr and Rachel Mercier. They're also accompanied by Mme. Janet Trousdell, and their guide officiel -- their student guide -- my daughter, Christina Wilson. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: I would like to introduce to the House a group of 15 political science students who are here from Western Washington University. They are accompanied by Prof. Don Alper. This morning I had the opportunity to meet with them, as did the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I ask the House to make them welcome. They're in the Speaker's gallery.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have in the gallery Ms. Carole Massot from Grenoble, France, who befriended my daughter there over the summer. Carole is in Vancouver to study and attend a computer science conference and to visit some family friends. She's accompanied by my wife Alice. If I could have made the introduction en fran�ais, I would have. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: It's a pleasure to welcome into the gallery today my ministerial assistant, Shelley Canitz, and her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Canitz, who are enjoying the wonderful Victoria weather. They're visiting from Saskatchewan. Please join me in welcoming them.

Introduction of Bills

INITIATIVE ACT

J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled Initiative Act.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, in tandem with the Recall Act introduced last week this bill presents a practical framework for implementing the people's expressed desire for direct democracy. The bill would allow citizen-initiated referendums on matters of provincial jurisdiction where 10 percent of all registered voters have signed a petition. It ensures that the results of votes would be binding on the government and promptly implemented by the Legislature. The bill provides an important role for MLAs in the initiative process, both before and after the vote is taken. It promotes an informed decision-making process at every stage, including televised legislative committee hearings, fair and balanced information, full financial disclosure and ample time for public consideration.

I urge all members to heed the message we were given last year. British Columbians want and deserve a direct say in the decision-making process. A lack of political will must not be allowed to frustrate public will. Standing committees shouldn't stand still. Their activities should not be an excuse for inaction.

Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS

L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Finance. According to the federal Department of Finance, British Columbia had the key information to do their own calculations regarding sources of revenue at least six weeks ago. The Minister of Finance, on Thursday of last week, stated that he had just received that information. Will the minister retract his statements and acknowledge that he knew about the taxation shortfall prior to last Thursday?

Hon. G. Clark: Contrary to the impression left by the federal Minister of Finance, British Columbia was not given official information in September and October. Provincial officials received some preliminary information in September. This was very preliminary, and extensive discussions took place. As a result of those extensive discussions, we did lower the provincial estimates of our share of personal and corporate income tax revenue.

In October we received some information on a completely unrelated matter, which led us to believe that there may be further downward pressure. The federal government officials advised us in October that this was not to be used in revising provincial revenue estimates. It was not until November 3, the day before my press conference on the budget, that an official federal estimate, which indicated considerable weakness in income tax revenues, was transmitted to the provincial officials. As a result of that information British Columbia has revised its 1992-93 revenue forecast downward by about $450 million.

L. Stephens: The Finance minister stated that the province's revenues are down an unsubstantiated $500 million due to miscalculation by the federal govern-

[ Page 3902 ]

ment. In reality, the province is short only $200 million due to the established program financing system of transfer payments, and this will provide an extra $240 million. Has the minister provided the wrong information to the House, or does he simply not understand the transfer payment system?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I mentioned last week that I would be delighted to have my officials give a detailed briefing to members of the opposition. I make that offer again.

I want to be clear that there has been absolutely no increase in federal transfer payments to British Columbia. Quite the opposite is true. The EPF transfer is set each year and is calculated by a formula. The formula is a cash component and an income tax point component. As the income tax revenue drops, the cash component increases, but the total contribution to British Columbia stays exactly the same. This is what has happened with the latest surprise federal downward revision of the income tax estimate. To imply that the cash increase is attributable to federal generosity is extremely misleading, to put it mildly.

The federal government and the opposition -- particularly the federal government -- are using this manipulation of data to divert attention from the fact that they have been systematically off-loading their deficit problems onto the backs of British Columbia taxpayers to the tune of $1.6 billion this fiscal year. We've been shortchanged time and time again, and they can use all the fancy numbers they want to say otherwise, but the facts are clear.

[2:15]

L. Stephens: If the Finance minister wishes, the opposition would be pleased to instruct him in how the transfer payment system works.

To the Premier. Your Finance minister, who was following your orders, doesn't seem to understand the provincial economy -- or the budget process, either. His own figures state that the revenues for the first quarter are up 6.3 percent over the previous year, yet his gross incompetence has led to an increase in expenditures of 8.8 percent. Will the Premier instruct his minister to take some real action, as opposed to the $82 million smoke-and-mirror round of last week?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Minister of Finance, as I think the member has already been made aware, is taking further steps. He will be announcing further cuts to spending. We are going to be making sure that every ounce is squeezed out of every tax dollar so that we can provide the basic services that our citizens want in the face of $1.6 billion of off-loaded health, education, social and other services. I don't know why the opposition is defending that unfair treatment of B.C.'s taxpayers by the Tories in Ottawa.

B.C. HYDRO ADVERTISEMENT

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Premier. Thursday we learned that British Columbia was headed toward an unprecedented $2.7 billion debt, yet on Saturday the Times-Colonist ran a full-page colour ad, paid for by B.C. Hydro and promoting NDP MLAs and MPs in British Columbia. Who instructed Hydro to pay for this political propaganda? Was it indeed a minister, or is this the direction the Crown corporations are now getting from Bob Williams and the Crown...?

If the ministers are wondering what it looks like, that's what it looks like.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows full well that exhibits are not allowed in the House.

J. Weisgerber: I understand that. I was just.... The ministers were gawking.

GOVERNMENT POLLING COSTS
AND RESULTS

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier agree with a former member of his own caucus, who said in this House two years ago: "When public money is expended for political purposes, the people of the province should have a right to do it." Does he agree with that?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think, hon. Speaker, rather than answering a hypothetical question for which I have not been provided the context or the name, I'll just wait for the next real hooker that is going to come from the....

The Speaker: I would urge the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove to make his questions specific.

G. Farrell-Collins: They are, hon. Speaker. It was Mr. Hanson, who no longer sits as a member, but is, I understand, employed by the government.

Given the government's commitment to openness and honesty -- I'm quoting the Premier now -- will the Premier table the cost and contents of all polling paid for with taxpayers' funds since his government took office a year ago?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I'm sure the member is aware that we have brought in the most extensive freedom-of-information legislation anywhere in North America. It will provide people with that open and accessible government.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question again is to the Premier of evasion. We used the Freedom of Information Act to try and get a copy of the labour report, and that was also kept from us until the last minute. It would be nice to see what the action of the government is on freedom of information.

Several years ago the former Premier of this province was asked in this House if he would be willing to collect information from all ministries involved so we could see the amount of polling that was done and the details of the polling. The current Premier asked that question: "Can the Premier assure taxpayers of 

[ Page 3903 ]

this province that they will see all polling data paid for with their own money?" Will the Premier commit to the words of the question he asked in this House two years ago?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, now that we're finally getting to some specific questions from the member, the answer is very clearly yes. If he had read the legislation, he would see that there is a provision that polling done with the taxpayers' money will be released six weeks after it is completed. All he has to do is to read the legislation, and do his homework.

WORKING OPPORTUNITY FUND

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Premier. The Working Opportunity Fund was created with $2.6 million of taxpayers' money. At the recent NDP convention the Working Opportunity Fund had a booth, and also paid for a full-page ad in your political brochure. Can the Premier explain why taxpayers' dollars are being used to support the NDP in this way?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to say that the Working Opportunity Fund is a great innovation that has brought business, labour and others together to build new businesses in this province. I'm sure the leader of the third party is as proud as we are on this side of the House that we can bring that kind of cooperation together. I can assure the member that my understanding from the principals of this independent fund -- which was launched with a small amount of seed money from the government; that is completed now -- is that they are quite willing to attend not only New Democrat conventions but also Liberal and Social Credit conventions, so they can find out about this great opportunity for British Columbians. I'm sure they'd like to visit your convention too, hon. leader.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not aware of any requests from the Working Opportunity Fund in early October. Indeed, tax money has been used directly by the Working Opportunity Fund to support the NDP. Will the Premier ask Mr. Hughes to investigate this matter?

The Speaker: Order! In framing the question I do ask the hon. member to confine it to those areas within the responsibility of the Premier and this government.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly the actions of the Premier, as head of the NDP, would seem to be quite apparent.

The Speaker: Order! Unfortunately, hon. member, the role of any member in their party is not a subject for question period.

J. Weisgerber: Will the Premier then agree to ask Mr. Hughes to investigate this matter and decide whether or not the use of tax dollars in this way is an appropriate expenditure of funds?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the minister responsible for the legislation, which was passed by the previous government -- the program was implemented by this government -- I can assure the leader of the third party that there were no government funds expended on that ad. The fund is independent. It has other sources of income. The head of the fund, whom I spoke to today, assured me that there was no government money spent there. He also indicated that the brochure and prospectus they used for advertising was not printed in time for your own convention.

DOCTORS' DISPUTE WITH GOVERNMENT

J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Health. Federal NDP member Ray Skelly is exploiting this government's mishandling of the doctors' dispute by picketing doctors' offices. Does the Minister of Health condone the harassment of B.C.'s patients by her federal friend?

Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows full well, the B.C. Medical Association and the government are currently in discussions in an attempt to resolve our dispute. We have been meeting on an almost weekly basis. We have also agreed, as these discussions take place, not to comment on what's happening at the table, not to make any statements about progress and not to become engaged in that kind of dispute. My being drawn into this dispute, as you're trying to do now, would be in violation of my agreement with the doctors of the province.

J. Tyabji: We're not so concerned about what's happening at the table as we are with what's happening to the patients of B.C. who are being harassed by her federal friend. As far as commitment to the doctors.... What about her commitment to the patients?

PHARMACARE

J. Tyabji: A supplemental to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health has said that there will have to be trade-offs in the Pharmacare budget to get costs under control. Will this minister commit that one of those trade-offs will not be implementing user fees for Pharmacare?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm surprised, given the temperature around the doctors' dispute, that the members on the other side would try to inflame this issue further. We have made it very clear that by the actions we are taking, we are standing up behind patients.

With respect to the Pharmacare issue, it's quite clear that we are opposed to introducing new user fees to the health care system.

L. Fox: Pursuant to standing order 35, I rise to ask leave to adjourn the House on a matter of urgent public importance. Canadian Airlines employees have been advised today that urgent provincial government support is needed to complete the deal between Canadian Airlines and American Airlines. A message faxed out 

[ Page 3904 ]

today by the Council of Canadian Airlines Employees urges them to contact their MLAs to "persuade them to work in our favour on this very important decision by the governments."

Thousands of jobs are at stake. Time is rapidly running out. The Council of Canadian Airlines Employees advises that today it has completed all of its discussions, with two exceptions. They need a firm commitment from the federal and provincial governments on loan guarantees that are essential to complete this deal.

Hon. Speaker, in view of the urgency of this matter and its impact on the provincial economy, I would ask you to review this request and give it your prompt consideration. I also request leave to present a copy of the faxed message.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member send the documents to the Chair.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'm sympathetic to having a debate in the House on this very important question. The government has been working on this extensively.

On the other hand, in terms of giving advice to the Chair for a ruling, the only problem I have with it at the moment is.... The member is correct. We are, as we speak, in very intense discussions and negotiations on this subject. Developments are happening literally hourly. Lots of work has been done, and I wouldn't want to have a debate in the House and jeopardize the deliberations that are taking place across the country.

It may be somewhat premature in terms of moving forward on this subject at this time, so I'm not sure that it constitutes an emergency. It is an urgent situation, but I think it would probably not qualify at this time as an emergency in the technical sense. I wouldn't want to foreclose, and I would say as House Leader -- with the indulgence of the Chair -- that we may wish to have a debate on this subject at some point. I would be delighted to talk to the opposition parties about that.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members, for your submissions. The Chair will return to the House on this matter.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

On the amendment.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to thank the government members and backbenchers for their recognition of our presence over the weekend at the NDP convention -- a very informative weekend. I had the opportunity to meet with many of your members and was able to give them some ideas other than the ones they had been originally working with.

This afternoon I'd like to address some of the concerns on Bill 84 that have caused us to bring this amendment forward. We received a tremendous amount of input, both verbally and by letter, from members of our constituencies. This has become of great concern to a lot of people throughout the province. I think this government should be paying attention to the items that have been brought forward by my fellow members on this side of the House.

I'd like to give you a few samples of some of the comments that people are expressing to us. We heard from a business that employs 12 to 16 people. They're all local people working and living in the Surrey-Langley area. They have a good working relationship with their staff, and they have very little staff turnover. In a letter that was sent to the Minister of Labour and the Premier they said:

"We're very concerned about the changes to the labour laws which you are proposing. We feel with these changes we would not be able to stay in business, as you would be taking away the right for us to operate our own business in response to the local market demands.

"As you are aware, the business practices of today are changing at a very fast pace, and we have to react quickly to keep up. With your proposed changes, you would handicap us to the point where we would not be able to survive. You should support small and medium-sized businesses more and be more attentive to their needs rather than treat us all the same" -- as the bigger businesses.

"You are also aware that small and medium-sized businesses provide the large majority of jobs in this great province of British Columbia. We encourage you to focus your energies on promoting labour to cooperate with business, and to create a cooperative rather than an adversarial environment where labour and management can only talk to each other through union representatives."

I believe there are some aspects to this bill that are going in that direction; although by putting them in a legislative form, they will probably not have the kind of support that they really need. We should be making an educational presentation of those concepts rather than a legal presentation -- or do it on a demand basis. This creates a very counterproductive environment, and one which restricts both the growth and the development of new business.

In today's global economy we must remain competitive. With increasing costs, such as those you are promoting, local businesses will not grow. They will move to other areas of North America, or they will die. All of these are bad. We must cooperate and build up the economy so that we can all benefit, both labour and business. With no business there is no labour, and everyone is a loser. Please reconsider your proposals and also listen to small and medium-sized businesses. They are the backbone of the B.C. economy and generate the required taxes to maintain social programs.

Interjections.

K. Jones: I find it most unfortunate that the members opposite are seeing fit to denigrate the 

[ Page 3905 ]

concerns that people in our business community have, as if there's only one view of labour and labour relations. I'm afraid they must not have read most of the act, or else they would have realized that this is a Labour Relations Act; it is not a labour bill.

D. Lovick: That's a really telling point. I feel chastised.

K. Jones: I'm sure the hon. member shouldn't feel chastised, because he is very cognizant of these issues and very knowledgeable. I would think that he should not feel that way.

I'd like to bring to members' attention the concerns of a very special area, and that's our education area. We have had very clear indications of concern from representations by the teachers -- as the demonstration at the NDP convention this weekend showed -- and from statements released by the B.C. School Trustees' Association. The B.C. School Trustees' Association president, Jack Finnbogason, who's been elected to the school board in Surrey as an NDP member, is a very talented, far-thinking gentleman, and one who really cares about the future of our children. I think all the members in this House care about the future of our children. They are the future of this nation and this province. Our economy is dependent on the proper treatment of the educational process. This bill has brought a great deal of concern to these people, who are mandated with the responsibility to look after the education of our children.

I'd like to just give you some little segments of the press release that has been presented. The school trustees' association president "urges the government to amend the provisions of Bill 84 which put the safety of schoolchildren at risk." With regard to section 68, replacement workers:

"This provision would prevent any use of management staff from district offices, or other schools, or volunteers" -- that's parents, usually -- "when the school is faced with a withdrawal of services. This goes beyond any of the recommendations in the report of the subcommittee of special advisors, in which the strongest recommendation for replacement worker legislation permitted the employer to use management staff from other places of operation."

Now I ask the Minister of Labour: does he really believe that the rigid way he's had this bill drafted...? Is it so important to keep it in that form -- that accommodation for such an urgent need as the protection of our children at a time when there is a work stoppage...? We recognize that teachers have been given the right to take job action. They have been given the privilege of being in a union, and this government has supported that. Therefore we have to recognize that there will be work stoppages, and there has to be some provision for the safety and custody of our young people when staff is not available to teach and to carry on. One principal in an elementary school is totally inadequate to look after the supervision of an entire school.

"In schools this means that the only people who can perform any duties of a person who is on strike or locked out are the principal and vice-principal, if any, of a school, if they choose to do so. All other management staff of the school district customarily ordinarily work at a different location.

"Schools have never attempted to maintain operations in the face of a legal full withdrawal of services by teachers. Although teachers might in the past" -- before Bill 20 -- "have crossed picket lines of other unions when they were not legally entitled to withdraw their own services, it appears to be unlikely now that they would not respect a picket line by non-teaching employees. Therefore a school would not attempt to maintain operations in the face of picketing by non-teaching employees.

"However, the sudden appearance of a picket line around a school can create a serious safety problem as children arrive at the site and there are no staff to take charge of them. Principals must be able to call on help from the district office in such a situation to supervise children until they can be safely returned to the charge of their parents. Parents are another resource in such a situation. It must be remembered that these students may include some who are medically fragile and need special care.

"The government must also recognize that the replacement worker legislation will increase the shutdowns of educational services, since schools will not be able to maintain operations in the absence of non-teaching personnel."

With regard to section 60 -- strike notice:

"I have referred...to the 'sudden appearance of a picket line' around a school. If employees of a school board are on legal strike, the school board will have received 72 hours notice of the strike. However, it is not uncommon for school board employees to delay exercising their option to strike, or to have rotating strikes. School boards are under a legal obligation to offer educational services unless it is not possible to do so safely. Unless they choose to lock out employees, they cannot close schools" -- in apprehension of employees striking.

"There is no provision in the Labour Relations Code...for requiring additional strike notice, as is permitted where perishable property is at stake...." That's amazing. We can give special provision for perishable properties, but we can't give provision for perishable children. There is also no provision for "renewal of strike notice if it is not exercised on the expiry of the 72 hours, as is possible where there has been an essential services designation." In the eyes of this government, education is not considered an essential service. It doesn't have the same provisions that are provided for essential service operations. That's really sad.

[2:45]

Common site picketing is another concern they have.

The 'sudden appearance of a picket line' may also occur where there is picketing by striking employees of other employers who work on the school site, such as...health employees who work in the school or construction contractors. Some school facilities are jointly owned and operated with municipalities or recreation commissions; these would be especially vulnerable."

And we certainly have a lot of community schools. My community has a lot of community schools, and they're very valuable. They are very vulnerable under this legislation.

[ Page 3906 ]

"In these cases the school board may have no notice of the picketing. The removal of the prohibition against common site picketing means that schools can be shut down by third-party labour disputes. School boards would not have access to essential services designation in such cases to maintain educational services.

"For these reasons BCSTA" -- the B.C. School Trustees' Association -- "urges the government to amend Bill 84 to: (1) remove the prohibition against the use of management employees from other parts of the employer's operations as replacement workers; (2) remove the prohibition against the use of volunteers as replacement workers; (3) require renewal of unexercised strike notice where the operation of public schools is affected; (4) enable the Labour Relations Board to order additional strike notice where the operation of public schools is affected; (5) prevent common site picketing where the effect would be to interrupt delivery of educational services."

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, your time has expired.

P. Dueck: I will not take half an hour. I think everything I have to say has been said many times over in the past few weeks, so it's actually repetitive. But I will make some comments on the concerns that I have.

Most of my adult life has been as an employer, not as an employee, so some people in this chamber may think that perhaps I am biased. In some sense I guess we are all biased one way or another. There's no question about that. I like to keep an open mind on these matters. As a matter of fact, all the time I've been in business, which is my total adult life, I've never had any problems with employees. This is just information to show that I'm not too biased.

I am pleased, however, to join other people who have expressed concern about Bill 84 and have supported the amendment that second reading should not proceed. I have to agree with them. I think this bill is flawed to a degree that it should not proceed; it should receive further consideration and perhaps have some changes made.

I am well aware of the fact that this government has a large majority in the House and that this bill can proceed in the form that they wish. Therefore I plead with them to look at it very seriously before they take advantage of their majority and do just that. It would be regrettable. Since many small and medium-sized businesses will be severely impacted by Bill 84, they should have the opportunity to voice their concerns other than with the committee that went around the province, which I don't think really represented the small business man.

Some of the issues that the small and medium-sized business people have asked me to bring forward are, of course, those that have been discussed ad nauseam here in the last two weeks. One is certification. Although it has been repeatedly spoken about, it's still very important that we emphasize it once again. They are deeply concerned about amendments introduced in Bill 84 to allow unions to obtain certification solely on the basis of membership cards. I think that's regressive legislation. We had it before, and it was changed with Bill 19. I believe that we had fewer work stoppages.

As a matter of fact, the more I look at this bill, the more I'm inclined to think that Bill 19 wasn't all that bad. Just give it some thought. The removal of the secret ballot vote cuts right through the heart of democracy. It virtually destroys the foundation on which healthy collective bargaining must be built. The secret vote eliminates any doubt about the employees' wishes and provides a firm and clear signal to begin the collective bargaining process. That gives the signal: first the card and then a secret ballot. I for one will submit that I do not wish to vote on anything, at any time, when someone else knows what I'm voting on or how I am voting. I won't even tell my wife at times, because it's my business and my business only. I like to go into that little booth and mark my X, or my information, without any interference.

I want to tell you something. I have experience. I've only belonged to a union once, and that was when I was a young lad in my early twenties. I had a job already lined up, but I had six months to wait for the opening. I went to work for a sawmill where they did approach everyone, one on one. The pressure was so severe that although mine was temporary employment, I signed the card. When I look back at that today, I have to tell you that I would not have signed the card had it been a secret ballot, and perhaps others wouldn't have either. Perhaps others would have signed if it had been a secret ballot and now would not. So a secret ballot is very important.

We're talking about the individual freedom of non-union workers, who are the target of most of the provisions and who constitute more than two-thirds of the working force today. We know that small business is the engine that drives the economy; we've said that over and over again here in the last couple of weeks. We all agree about that.

Can you imagine the jeopardy in which it places ordinary workers in an enterprise targeted for unionization? The union will be facing employees one on one, as I've just mentioned, in private. Talk about pressure. I have experienced that. It's tremendous pressure. That should not happen from the employer's side nor from the union side.

Hon. Speaker, I agree with the amendment that this bill should not receive second reading and should be sent back for redrafting. I'm afraid the government has not thought this through clearly. Otherwise I think they would have made some changes before it hit the floor. However, if the Minister of Labour insists on going through with this bill in the present form, I think the government will do so at their own risk and their own peril.

Another concern that's been pointed out to me by many people is the section on replacement workers. Bill 84 is barring replacement workers during a strike. A ban on replacement workers could very well wipe out a small or medium-sized business. They generally don't have the resources to ride out a storm. Many small businesses are risking the family home. They've borrowed perhaps thousands of dollars, and if anything goes wrong, their only choice perhaps is to declare bankruptcy. This shouldn't happen, especially in times when the economy is not all that swift.

[ Page 3907 ]

The striking employees are free to seek other employment, or they get strike pay or both, and perhaps they can weather the storm. I'm not saying that is a good situation. Any strike is a bad situation, and I don't approve of any strike if it can be prevented. But for goodness' sake, let's be fair to both sides.

This whole bill should be reconsidered. It goes back to the adversarial system that we had in the seventies, which we all remember too well -- at least I do. Is this what we want? I say no, it's not what we want. I don't think any of us in this chamber, or anyone in the province, wants that. But we have locked into this Bill 84, and I do think there's been pressure on this government from outside to put this through the system.

The other concern that has been noted to me by many people, especially in small and medium-sized businesses, is secondary boycotting. I think this is a very dangerous section in the bill. I believe that unions should not be allowed to enter into an agreement to boycott or prevent a unionized firm from dealing with other non-union firms. This is a very great concern to small unions and to firms that for some reason or other cannot afford to go through this process. They will face bankruptcy, as many have done in the past when this was the case.

Top-down unionization in order to stay in business is not what we want. We want it to be free for all, in secret, to put your vote where you want it without anyone knowing how you voted. Again I would like to speak from experience. The members on that side say it's freedom and that you have a free choice. Not really. I remember that when I was just in my late twenties, my first time in business for myself, I staked all my money, borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars from the bank and went into business. It was a Ford dealership. I thought I was doing well until one morning -- we were expanding the business, adding a huge body shop -- five burly fellows came into my office. They were about the size of our former MLA Jack Kempf. They asked to see me, and they came into my office, and would you believe what they told me? They had a contract. Some of the firms that were supplying products to my firm had in their agreement that our business was declared "hot."

D. Schreck: What year was this?

P. Dueck: This was in the early fifties. I was to pay off the non-union contractor who I had an agreement with; pay him off -- pay him for profit -- and then call in a union contractor to finish the job. I'll tell you, I was in my late twenties -- my first time in business -- and I was scared. I was really scared. They said that they'd call back in about three or four days.

I went home and I thought this over, and I said: "What am I going to do?" I didn't have much experience in the business area. Then I got angry. I got so bloody angry that I went back and I said: "No one in this world is going to tell me by force what I am to do and what I am not to do." And they came back to see me, and you know what they told me? They said: "You have choices. You either unionize or you change contractors and it may cost you $50,000 -- that's okay -- or we will break you." These are the exact words.

N. Lortie: Forty years ago.

P. Dueck: Well, I don't care. We're getting into that area again: "We will break you." I'll tell you what happened. They darned near did break me. They put up picket lines. I had a contract with B.C. Hydro and B.C. Telephone; I had a contract with all the big firms; we were open 24 hours a day. They all left. A friend of mine had his automobile in my body shop. He came to me and apologized and he said: "I'll have to pull it out, even though it isn't complete, because I'll lose my job." He pulled it out with a wrecker. Thank goodness all that business came back after.

[3:00]

But I'm saying that I'm seeing some very dangerous areas here in this secondary boycotting. It could happen again and it will happen again. So we should mind very clearly what we're doing when we're voting for this bill, because it will impact on many people and many more than you would think. I would say: is this fair? That's not bargaining; that's coercion and that's pressure. It's not bargaining. Is this the open, honest government that promised to consult with the ordinary people?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

P. Dueck: It certainly isn't.

I am also disappointed that education has not been declared an essential service, because I think it should be. Although my children have gone through the school system and have graduated, I think there's a great danger in schools striking when it affects our children's education. We talk so much about education -- everybody's talking about education -- but when it comes to a strike, we say: "Well, so what? They'll catch up next year." Not so. It's an essential service and should be regarded as such.

There should also be provincewide contract bargaining for teachers. They should not be allowed to pick them off one by one and then go through the whole system and just.... I believe that those areas should also be looked at.

In closing, I fully agree that we must always strive to develop better collective bargaining relationships. Our economic climate is constantly changing and we know that. The influence of other countries, the influence of other markets, the influence of labour and the economy of other countries have a tremendous impact on this province and on Canada in general. That is why an ongoing discussion between employers and employees is essential to foster healthy business relationships. The focus must be directed to the health of the enterprise and the needs of everyone who has a stake in its success. Because we often talk about them and us; they're really both important. If the enterprise doesn't succeed, neither will the employees be successful, and vice versa, so it's important that we consider that.

Bill 84, in its present form, fails to do that. I support the amendment not to proceed with second reading and to consult with the recommendations that are accept-

[ Page 3908 ]

able. A complete redrafting is necessary, in my opinion, and further consultation is in order. I hope no more promises were made by this government during the election that may further impact this bill and many others and that will cost this province more money. I hope we've come to the end of the payoffs to certain organizations and special interest groups that we've seen here for the last two weeks.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity, and I hope that the three or four members who are in the House will take it to heart. I shouldn't have said that; I'll take it back. I hope everyone takes it to heart and considers redrafting Bill 84.

F. Gingell: It also gives me pleasure to rise and speak on this amendment to Bill 84.

Unquestionably Bill 84 is the single most important piece of legislation that this government will introduce. We all recognize that labour peace and harmonious relationships between employers and workers are important to economic growth and the standard of living of all British Columbians. Secondly, labour legislation in British Columbia is critically important. It is one of the most important factors to set the climate for economic growth in our province.

Entrepreneurs and investors from other parts of the world look at the southwest corner of British Columbia as a fine location for them to create organizations and enterprises that will sell into the North American market, which is now available to them. We spend a great deal of time in this House talking about the economic advantages of being in British Columbia or Washington State or Oregon or Alberta. We on all sides of the House and in all political parties want British Columbia to be the location of choice. To make it the location of choice we have to create the right climate. Fortunately the good Lord created the right weather climate here, so it is up to us, as legislators, to ensure that the other factors that are necessary in an economic climate are here also.

This new labour code is, in my opinion, a veritable minefield. It is as though we have gone out and seeded our beautiful golden beaches with land mines. If we are going to get people to come and invest here and create industries and businesses and good jobs, they have to be assured that they are in the position to make their own decisions and are able to operate their businesses in a way that is open and fair.

If I may, I'd just like to turn quickly to the remarks that were made by our Premier. I recognize, as I've just said, that all of us in this House are on the same side when it comes to the question of economic development in British Columbia. We on this side of the House, much as we may have brought attention to some of the ways in which this government quickly moved out to countries in the Pacific Rim and Europe to encourage investment in British Columbia, really are concerned that on the one hand they say, "Come here; we are entrepreneur friendly," but on the other hand, they do not follow through.

Last week the Premier, in his remarks on this amendment, said that this new code will bring stability and security to British Columbia's workplaces and to the economy. I believe there is nothing further from the truth; this will not bring stability and security. This will bring opportunities for businesses to be effectively unionized from the top down. It will give the opportunity for businesses to be unionized through the use of sign-up cards without the owner and management having any say in the matter.

Sign-up cards without a secret ballot are not seen by entrepreneurs and business people in the rest of the world as bringing stability and security to the workplace. Sign-up cards with a secret ballot are seen as the basis of stability and security. The right of workers to unionize is paramount, but it must be done without coercion, and it must be done clearly aboveboard. It must be done so that when it's through, all parties believe that it was truly the wish of the workers to unionize. Otherwise you're off on the wrong foot, and you never get that first problem out of the way.

The Premier went on to say that Bill 19 was based on the wrong premise, and that collective bargaining has no place in a competitive market economy. If this government believes that a competitive market economy has a place in British Columbia, then why was it not left in section 2 of the bill? To take the words "competitive market economy" out of the purposes of the act does no more than clearly indicate that this government does not believe that there needs to be a climate in British Columbia in which a competitive market economy can flourish and prosper.

The premier went on to say: "When that panel reported to me in June that they needed more time, you'll recall, hon. Speaker, that I said: 'Take more time. Do it right. If there are people who need to be consulted, and more work needs to be done to build a consensus labour code, then take that time'." That is precisely what we are asking for. After Bill 84 came down and we had the opportunity to read the report of the three wise men -- Messrs. Baigent, Roper and Ready -- two things were apparent to us. First of all, 70 percent or so of the people of British Columbia had been cut out of the exercise. That report was a negotiation by two lawyers, one representing big business and unionized business and the other representing organized labour, with a mediator sitting between them. There was no one there representing the 70 percent or so -- whatever the appropriate number is -- of the workers of this province that are not unionized. Not only was there no one to speak on behalf of those workers, but there was no one to speak on behalf of the employers.

It's no good just talking about things in generalities. You need to float a White Paper. You need to have exactly the kind of report that they have come up with. It's well done, and a great deal of work, energy and effort has gone into its preparation. I'm not saying that I agree with what is in it, but it is the basis for there then to be a public discussion. You need to go to the public and say: "This is the kind of labour bill that we are proposing. Come and tell us what you think about it."

You would have had an entirely different reaction on October 27, when the labour bill was finally brought into the House, if it had been handled in that fashion. To me that is the obvious and sensible way of doing things. 

[ Page 3909 ]

People would have known what was in there and would have had the opportunity to respond. The Premier said -- and he's right: "Take more time. Do it right." As I started off saying this afternoon, this bill is unquestionably the most important legislation that the government will introduce. Let's do exactly what the Premier said.

We proposed an amendment whereby this bill would be sent to a select standing committee to hear further input and to travel around the province. Although the Premier says to take more time and do it right, this government evidently doesn't support that. But there is an opportunity now, though it's not as good a way. Let's just not discuss this bill; let's not debate it any further. Let's have this government, if they so wish -- and it is their right, obviously -- bring a new bill forward in the next session.

[3:15]

In the latter part of last week and over the weekend I really did become convinced that there had been some kind of a quiet deal made between big, unionized business and unions when we discovered that other people in this province -- business leaders and union leaders -- had the report of Messrs. Roper, Ready and Baigent two weeks before we did. That is a disgraceful state of affairs.

We are elected by the people of British Columbia to represent them in this House in dealing with all matters that are within the legislative jurisdiction of this government. For us to ask for that report and plead for that report day after day, and be told that it isn't ready and that we can't have it, and then to discover afterwards that it had been given to their friends and the people they had made a deal with, is a damnable disgrace. It is a shame.

Freedom, democracy -- you talked about it all the time when you were in opposition, all the time. You talked about backroom deals all the time, and when you have your opportunity to start doing it right, as you promised the people of British Columbia that you would do, you go and drop the ball. Hon. Speaker, they dropped the ball. They've dropped it on their own feet; that's what they did. I think they will discover that the ball is a little heavier than they thought it was, and it's probably made of lead. Maybe they will have sore toes for a while to remind them in the future that they must make this information available to the legislators. How members across this chamber can talk about whine and cry is really beyond my belief.

The Premier of this province, when he spoke the other day, also said: "...I think that they" -- meaning us -- "should focus on the areas where there appears to be disagreement or some other area for debate." Well, as we stand here and speak, and as we listen to the members of the government benches, and as we listened to the words of the Minister of Labour last week, we've unfortunately come to the conclusion that we would be foolish to have faith that this government is willing even to think about or accept any changes in this bill. They have said it time after time. Their whole attitude in hiding the report and tabling it on the day that Bill 84 was tabled is just more grist for the mill to show everybody that they have no intention of changing things. "Let's not give people time to see it. Don't give the opposition time to read it, bring down the bill, get it debated as quickly as we can, and get it pushed through the House."

If the Premier really means what he says, and there is an opportunity for there to be some changes to Bill 84 in areas where he actually admits that there could be some disagreement or some areas for debate, then the obvious thing to do is to let the House adjourn, put this matter into the public forum and all of us go out and listen to what the people of British Columbia will say. I will happily suggest some changes, hon. Speaker, and I will do that at its appropriate time during second reading.

The Premier also compared Bill 84 to a level playing field. Well, I don't know of any member of this House who really believes that Bill 84 creates an environment that is a level playing field. The playing field in this bill has really been tilted. It's been tilted dramatically in favour of the labour unions. We all talk about level playing fields. I honestly don't believe that the government understands what a level playing field is.

The Premier of the province went on to speak about the question of replacement workers.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Aren't you running out of time?

F. Gingell: No, I learned to tell the time when I was small. Anytime you want to know what the time is, let me know. You can tell me that the big hand is on this and the small hand is on that, and I'll work it out.

In speaking to this amendment last week, the Premier brought up the proposition that the way to cut down on picket line violence is to stop the use of replacement workers. That may very well be one of the ways to cut down on violence. I really feel that it is irresponsible for the government to propose that the way to get rid of violence is to basically ignore that it can happen.

[E. Barnes in the chair]

Cutting down on replacement workers will put a series of businesses into bankruptcy. For a small hotel that is unionized -- many of them are -- when their second monthly mortgage payment comes around after they have been in a labour dispute and have a picket line around their hotel or restaurant.... That will probably be the triggering point for when that particular labour dispute gets settled. Small businesses, particularly in the tourist industry, simply cannot afford to be closed down for a week, let alone a couple of months, because the capital investment, which is so large in relation to the revenue stream, is usually financed. I would be happy to guess that it is financed in 80 to 90 percent of the cases. They have to make their monthly mortgage payments. They either have to have customers coming into their restaurants and guests staying in their rooms or they are out of business. To suggest that all these small businesses will be thrown to the wolves by barring replacement workers, because this government admits that it doesn't have the ability to keep law and order in this province and stop violence on the 

[ Page 3910 ]

picket line.... Replacement workers are not an issue for large unionized companies. They have not made a practice of bringing in scabs or replacement workers. It is the small businesses, which have not been tested in the past, that will be the ones to suffer.

In the Premier's speech last week he said: "I heard one of the speakers in the opposition talking about the freedom of individuals. That has been an important consideration in this labour code." Well, we all know that the greatest freedom for individuals is a fair vote. The ability to go into a polling booth and make their own secret ballot is the very basis of our democracy and freedoms. For this government to suggest that it should be taken away is a strange approach for a political party that calls itself the New Democratic Party. That's taking away democratic rights. Is this such a big deal? We have had it for the last four or five years.

I read the report of the Industrial Relations Council. From 1989 to 1991 there were roughly 350 certification applications every year. Of those 350, roughly 70 percent passed and 30 percent failed. In the normal course of events, other than discussions about the size of the bargaining unit, as I understand it, they were required to have 45 percent sign up. In the majority of cases there was more than 45 percent. It would normally be something over 50 percent. If in 350 cases each year about 50 percent signed up, why did 30 percent of them in every year fail when there was a secret ballot? There's only one conclusion you can arrive at: somebody signed a card and later changed their mind -- freedom of choice. I'm sure that someone will suggest that it's because of pressure put on by the employers. They told their employees that if they unionized, they would move the plant to Alberta or somewhere else. I understand it, and it's only one example. I don't have a series of examples. I hope my example is valid.

I understand that one of these applications in one of these years was 16 office workers at the Northwood Pulp Mill. The Northwood Mill is all unionized other than the office staff. I hope I've got all my facts right. I understand that there were 16 people working in the office; of those 16, nine had signed cards. A threat by the employer in this instance would be absolutely worthless. How do you pick up a pulp mill and move it to Alberta? I'm sure it would be a very difficult job. But when that secret ballot was taken, 12 of the 16 voted no, and four of the 16 voted for certification.

[3:30]

We can unquestionably, in that particular instance, eliminate the threat by the employer that the business would be closed down or the business would be moved. Where did those threats come from? Where did the coercion take place? I leave it to you to draw your conclusion.

I really believe that coercion has taken place on both sides. It happens all the time, I am sure. Maybe it's meant; maybe it's not meant. Maybe it happens in the pub; maybe it happens at lunch time. Maybe the employer gets all the employees in and talks to them of doom and gloom or phones them. But there are better solutions.

There is a better solution than just getting rid of the secret ballot or than an automatic 55 percent sign-up. If we were not to debate this bill in the Legislature anymore, and we were to go to the people of British Columbia and look for a solution for that problem, I'm sure they would come up with one.

You could cut down the period of time between the application for certification and the date of the secret ballot. I believe that at the moment it's something like 45 days, but you could cut it down. I'm sure there are ways of solving that problem.

The Premier went on to speak about his belief -- mistaken, I believe -- that this bill is going to lead to far better labour-management relations. One of the problems we have with labour legislation in this province -- where we tended to be on the outcamps of Canada in our early development with people coming here for gold rushes, mining, fishing and logging -- was that we tended to....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, with the greatest of respect, your time has expired.

F. Gingell: One last plea: let's please....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, only with leave.

J. Tyabji: On a point of order. We have an agreement that there is another speaker from the government side. That is my understanding. We are not ready for the question to be called, because that was the agreement -- and this member is ready to speak. If that is not the case, we have two more members who would like to speak to this amendment.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair, as you know, has no knowledge of agreements. However, there is a member on his feet.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I hadn't intended to speak at this time because, as the Opposition House Leader points out, there was an agreement on who was to speak. The government side had voluntarily placed members on that list, and I assumed that they would honour that commitment.

However, let me point out that that particular move by the government members is indicative of what we see with this legislation. In fact, the process was started and put together.... I believe that small business felt that in the initial stages they could trust the word of the Labour minister and the Premier, and that their wishes and concerns would be recognized in the drafting of this legislation.

In recent meetings with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, the B.C. contractors' association and other business organizations, it has been made apparent to me that in fact those particular commitments made by the Minister of Labour and by the Premier were not kept, just as this commitment has not been kept by government.

I do speak in favour of this amendment, although I find it rather awkward and interesting, as I note in the Blues that when I moved a hoist motion, the 

[ Page 3911 ]

Liberal opposition suggested through their House Leader that they wanted to move on to the third reading stage. They did not want to waste time. I quote that House Leader: "We know, as unfortunate as it is, that this government does have a majority. As unfortunate as this legislation is, it is inevitable." Well, I found it very interesting that immediately thereafter two amendments were made by the Liberal opposition which, in fact, have delayed that process. Even though I support the intent of those particular amendments, as I've stated before in speaking to the last amendment, I'm not naive enough to believe that the 24 opposition members in this House have the ability by themselves to move this government into some reasonable amendments on a stage-by-stage basis. But we do have the ability through the orders of this House to allow some time for the public as a whole, for small business leaders, for individual workers, many of whom are unionized, to consider this legislation, look at the impacts, and in fact realize that there are no longer any individual rights within this code; now there are only collective rights. Individual rights have been removed.

When I look at that fact -- and I read with some interest some statements made by Mr. Georgetti and other union leaders with respect to the fact that an individual vote is not required.... In their view, 55 percent signing cards is sufficient to indicate that the majority of that body in fact wants to unionize. Part of their rationale for stating that is the fact that, according to these union leaders, there was previously a two-week period from when that signing was announced to allow individuals to collect their individual thoughts, and during that process management used to lean on these prospective union members and try to convince them to vote no to certification. I recognize that in many cases that probably happened. But I also recognize that in many cases a lot of individuals were leaned on by union members to sign that particular card at the outset. So what's right? Should this individual not have the opportunity to go behind closed doors and vote on a secret ballot where no one, neither union nor management, knows how that individual votes? That's a fundamental democratic right, and Bill 84 removes that right.

I also find it almost a bit of a hypocrisy. Only last Thursday in this House we could not open on time at 2 o'clock in the afternoon because the union that represents the Queen's Printer employees had walked out at 12:30. As a result of that, they were not able to produce Orders of the Day. And what happened, hon. Speaker? I'll tell you what happened. Orders of the Day from then until today has been done by replacement workers. Had Bill 84 been in place, we would not have Orders of the Day sitting before us in this Legislature. I find that to be a good example of what this Bill 84 will do not just to small business but to government itself. The government and the Legislature would not be operating today if Bill 84 had been in place.

When we look at replacement workers, we hear all kinds of arguments from the government side about how this is going to stop the violence. The only violence that I know of in British Columbia with respect to replacement workers has not come under provincial legislation but under federal legislation, and that has been the violence that has happened through strikes by postal workers. The only other violence referred to in this Legislature in support of this was in the Yukon. This legislation, hon. Speaker -- I'm sure it comes as no news to you -- will not cover workers in the Yukon.

Much of the argument that's been put forward about the necessities for these kinds of issues is in fact totally false. Why then have those issues been brought forward? Clear and simple: because of a commitment by the Premier, the Minister of Labour and this NDP government that they were going to do away with Bill 19. It didn't matter whether it was doing a good job for British Columbia or not. It didn't matter that we'd had fewer worker days lost in the last five years than in virtually any other period in B.C.'s history. That didn't matter, hon. Speaker. The fact that an affirmative vote was still 75 percent of all those who wished to unionize didn't matter. Democracy was working. That didn't matter. None of the facts mattered. The only fact that really mattered was that this NDP government owed the union bosses of British Columbia.

When we look at the issues on a one-to-one basis, and at a particular situation with respect to those clauses, we also find a very significant fact: 124 individuals, because of their religious or fundamental beliefs, opted to have their cases heard before a court as to whether or not the union was looking after their rights or if they were actually being forced into a situation that their consciences did not allow them to take part in. This legislation would no longer allow such individuals to fight for what they believe are their rights as individuals. There have been cases in law where, based on religious or other convictions, they have won the right not to be a part of the union. Those rights are now denied.

[3:45]

Why this structure? Look very closely at the makeup of it. Big business, big labour and a mediator put this proposal forward. Members on the government side suggest that there has been public input. There were 296 written submissions and 304 oral submissions. I wonder how many submissions this panel would have had if either a White Paper or this bill had been floated as a discussion document, and it pointed out the fact that these individual rights were no longer available to them. You would have had small businesses, individual British Columbians and all those who were not represented by those three individuals coming forward to tell you why they dislike this legislation. That would have been a meaningful process. If this legislation does not allow big business to do away with competition from small business, if it does not allow big affiliated unions to do away with the independent unions and non-union workers, then I will eat my tie, because that's exactly what's allowed in this bill. Big business and big unions are going to do away with competition, pure and simple.

Let's suggest how it's going to be done. Under Bill 84 it would take very little effort for the affiliated unions to negotiate a clause in their next collective agreement that would allow them the opportunity to discriminate against a government or industry that they wouldn't 

[ Page 3912 ]

wish to purchase either goods or services from. For instance, you could quite easily see B.C. Ferries employees refuse to allow doughnuts to be taken on board that were not made in an affiliated union shop. It's as simple as that. You could find that pulp workers would refuse to allow chip trucks from an independent-union firm or a non-union company to come in and dump their chips. That's how the big unions intend to grow bigger. That's how big business intends to grow bigger and do away with their competition.

When the NDP government talks about labour rights, they're not talking about the labour rights of the individual labourer; they're talking about labour rights as perceived by the large-labour leaders. What's their agenda? Their agenda is exactly the same as this government's. It is to get bigger, provide more coffers and higher-paying jobs, and expand their unions. Their secondary purpose is to look after their membership.

I find it of extreme concern when I find that a group of business leaders, whom other people have quoted, have made a very firm commitment, which will hurt them as much as it will hurt the government, to no longer be part of trade missions or summits. That is a real commitment by a large group of the business community of this province. When they're going to cut themselves off from opportunities of growth based on a principle, I commend them.

We see many instances of this government not being informed. Almost constantly we see things come forward in this House where the government has been wrong. I don't want to harp too hard on the last referendum within Canada, but just prior to that this government was debating the NAFTA. Several members stood up and said that British Columbia could not compete with the cheap labour in Mexico. But when this bill was put forward, they talked about the fact that if we're going to have a strong economy in B.C., we've got to have strong unions and high-paying jobs in order to stimulate our economy. We can't have it both ways. If we can't compete with Mexico because of cheap labour -- look at the millions of people and the opportunities that are there in the lumber area alone -- then how are higher salaries and bigger labour unions going to improve the economy of this province? I submit to you that that in fact cannot and will not happen.

We saw an incident lately, in fact only last Thursday, where the Finance minister openly admitted that his projections were way off, and that our deficit was going to climb by $500 million. In fact, it was more than that -- it was $800 million.

D. Symons: $900 million.

L. Fox: It was $900 million. I stand corrected.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we allow mines to close, if we allow the forest industry to virtually shut down in many sectors of the province, if we reduce confidence in the business sector, if we continue to push forward with this labour agenda that gives nothing but uncertainty to the investors of this province and to outside investment coming into the province, then the percentage we get through the federal income tax levy will decrease. In Cassiar alone we lost 500 jobs -- 500 productive people in the Cassiar mine who would have contributed 17 percent of their payroll over the next five years had this government come to the table instead of shutting it down. But what do we have? We have a liability on government instead of people being allowed to work and contribute their income tax back to the provincial coffers.

We, and the Premier, also talked earlier about a level playing field. I feel quite qualified to talk about a level playing field. If anybody notices a difference on a level field, it's certainly me. But in any case, this is anything but a level playing field. We have shifted the balance of power substantially. Bill 19 allowed all parties to come forward. Hon. members should look at the statistics on all of the positive things that have been done over the last five years. Look at the growth in our economy and at the number of worker days lost. This particular bill wipes it all out.

I'm having difficulty, hon. Speaker. When I read one article in the paper, the Premier says that he's prepared to look at some amendments. Then I read another statement by the minister, and he's not prepared to do that. I'm not too sure who's leading here. I'm not sure whether there's any discussion between them or whether they say what's right at the time, depending on who they're talking to. I really have difficulty figuring out exactly whether or not this is the agenda of the Premier and the Labour minister or whether it's Ken Georgetti's agenda. Perhaps the problem is that Ken had only spoken to one of the hon. members and not the other and that's why the difference in their statements.

In a very exciting speech given by the member for North Coast a few days back, he suggested that we as the third party, the Social Credit Party, should not be arguing for a secret ballot, because we didn't even have one for our leadership. Hon. Speaker, he made a statement in this House that was totally incorrect, and if he's listening, I really believe that he should come and apologize. There has never been a leadership campaign within the Social Credit Party that has not been decided by a private vote, a secret ballot.

I'd like to talk a bit now about succession rights. As this bill sits, small unionized companies are going to have extreme difficulty putting up their equipment as collateral for loans. Let me tell you why. Let's take a printing shop for instance. Their major tool for doing business is their press. In the rights within this bill, the union has succession rights that go along with that piece of equipment. So should that company go broke and declare bankruptcy, that piece of equipment still has certification attached to it. If I as an individual decide that I want to start a small print shop and bid on that through the bidding process, and I'm successful, I'd have to take the certification with it. I'm not a banker, but I can assure you that if I was, that particular clause, and using that piece of machinery as collateral, would cause me great difficulty when loaning that particular business money, because I know that not too many individuals are going to be prepared to buy that and take those succession rights. Virtually all businesses, whether it's machinery, contracting or whatever, are impacted in the same way. This legislation is going to 

[ Page 3913 ]

dramatically hinder the opportunities for those companies to do business.

I am really sincere when I ask this government to reconsider pushing this through the House using their power of 51 members. Every day that we stretch this out, we find more and more about this bill that is of concern. We find more and more British Columbians who are concerned. As I said before, this labour bill is the second nail in this government's coffin. There's no question in my mind that they're already on the downhill slide. I have had phone calls from union members. Out of appreciation for those calls, I won't mention the individuals' names. They are extremely concerned.

Let me point out one other concern parallelling this, which I found extremely interesting. In Prince George, Local 1998 actually had their apprentice requirements decreased from a minimum of 7,200 hours to 5,000 hours. Let me tell you how this impacts with this bill. What this does now is qualify an individual as a journeyman after three years. Part of that initiative is in light of the fact that they're having great difficulty meeting the fair wage or fixed-wage policy. They've decreased the hours necessary so that they can qualify more individuals. What does that do to the legitimate journeymen? It puts them alongside individuals who do not have sufficient practical experience in order to carry their fair share of the workload. All this is promoted through the fixed-wage policy and this labour bill, and I find it appalling that this should be the case.

[4:00]

I'll take my place, but once again, I do want to ask that the government and the minister reconsider, and listen carefully to the business leaders and individual British Columbians. Put this labour legislation out and allow individuals to give them directly what they feel very strongly about, and I'll guarantee the right to vote will be at the top -- right, front and centre. I guarantee that succession rights will be extremely concerning to union members as well as to the average business person. I guarantee that the secondary boycott issue will be right, front and centre. This government, if it opens its ears, will find out that it's not reflecting the interests of British Columbia with this legislation; it's reflecting only the interests of big unions.

C. Evans: I'd like to thank the member for Prince George-Omineca for speaking in my turn so that I could wait until Bonnie Evans got here. I would ask the House to make her and her friend Ann McMillan welcome.

I rise to oppose the amendment and to get on with second reading. I've been listening for days and days to the rhetoric in this House. I think we ought to get on to committee stage so there will be some substance to the debate, but given that what we've heard from so many members is essentially their ideological position and their politics, instead of any response at all to the substance of the bill, I thought I would try to phrase my comments in terms of my life experience, because I'm sure you don't want to hear any more plagiarized intellectualism or words that somebody got out of a book.

Interjections.

C. Evans: It's neat to see them wake up. It gives you somebody to talk to.

I don't want to tell you what I think about the bill, so much as why I think it. We have heard the hon. members opposite -- I wrote it down here as I heard it -- saying to the government members: "You are just a bunch of union hacks. None of you understands small business. None of you understands the new business reality." I want to say, to the contrary, that I am not a union member and haven't been for almost two decades. I have spent 15 years running a small business. I have listened to college professors and all kinds of people with safe jobs telling me that I don't know how to make a payroll, which is almost all I've done in my adult life.

In talking about the new reality, the business of change.... I have seen change upon change -- not like the old days when it was change and then a plateau of stability; just change since the woods industry went into recession in 1982.

I want to say to the opposition and to the people of B.C. that there are some members of the House who support this legislation and will vote for it because they believe it's right, not because of their self-interest.

A. Warnke: On a point of order, I respect the member for Nelson-Creston, but I want to point out that.... Perhaps, since the weekend has passed, hon. members have forgotten that we are speaking to an amendment.

Deputy Speaker: I would point out to all hon. members that the Chair has tried to allow sufficient latitude for members to approach this debate. However, your point is well taken. Would the speaker please keep that in mind.

C. Evans: I intend to speak to the amendment with the same directed energy with which the previous speaker spoke to the amendment -- and the speaker before that.

There are a couple of main points in this labour bill. One has to do with organizing drives and how we organize unions. The second major issue has to do with what has been called in this House -- I suppose because of the gentility of where we work -- replacement workers. That is not, of course, the vernacular. That is not how we grew up referring to these people. But the second major issue is replacement workers, so let me tell you of my experience with each of those two subjects.

The first one has to do with organizing drives. About 15 years ago I worked in a logging camp. I worked union and then I worked non-union. We worked side by side in those days, union and non-union. The non-union were contractors, and the union were company crews. One time at breakup the non-union contractor I was working for cut our wages in half, so the men had a meeting in the evening in the bunkhouse. In the morning we said to the boss: "You know, we don't think it's okay to cut our wages in half in one day because of 

[ Page 3914 ]

the state of the road, so maybe we should consider joining the union." By that night that particular individual had fired every single one of his workers, and there was another crew at work.

Ten years went by and in the meantime Bill 19 came in. I was working in another valley next door and was one of about 35 contractors, if you counted the truckers, and an amazing thing happened. For the first time in my experience we had a meeting of contractors.

We've heard a whole lot about small business and the intricacies of small business, but these small business persons and their employees had never in my 15 years of experience had a meeting about marketing, prices, technological change or even the environmental issue. We had never been in one room before, but we met to organize because the small business sector of this province was going broke. The IWA was in the room as well as the company, all the contractors and all the employees. At the end of the night we were informed that because of the dependent contractor clause in Bill 19, not only could we not organize, we couldn't even threaten to organize. The company put into place a sort of nonsense association -- which we used to call a yellow dog union -- with the contractor who had fired us for wanting to organize ten years earlier as its head. In the three years since that experience, that contractor has seen to it that seniority in that valley is now a saleable commodity.

I speak against the amendment because it is worse than the fact that you can't organize a union. You now have to buy seniority over people who have worked twice as long in that profession. Even contractors who have employees like myself can't go to the company and ask for a volume raise, because our workers can't organize and threaten a strike, and the company knows it. So everybody is under the companies. That is the small business experience in British Columbia.

That brings me to the second major issue: replacement workers; what we were taught as children to call scabs. The previous speaker was right when he said that it's the postal unions who have taught us in British Columbia what scabs are like to work with. Out of personal experience -- and not because a researcher in my office has told me to -- I'm going to explain some of the facts of life on the street to members contrary.

Two postal strikes ago the Post Office....

Interjection.

C. Evans: I'm going to explain from my experience in this province to members opposite what scabs can do to your community; and if you don't find it relevant, brother, walk while I talk to the other folks.

The Post Office decided they could run without postal workers. In order to do that, they had to get themselves some replacement workers. Months in advance, they advertised in all the local newspapers, and they hired children: people my children's age -- 17, 18, 19 years old; people who had never had a job before. They signed them up and paid them to wait. They said: "We'll call you when the time comes." Of course it wouldn't work just to put the children inside the post office unless they could get the mail there. In order to get the mail there, they had to get the trucks through.

Interjection.

C. Evans: I'm glad you're still here. Now listen.

In order to get the trucks through, they brought in a different kind of replacement worker: a kind they didn't hire in Castlegar or on the streets of Trail, a kind they hired in the karate clubs of Vancouver. These were also young people. My daughter was taking karate in Vancouver at the time. Again, these were people the age of my children. But they came to work for the Post Office to make a fight. They landed by air....

Interjection.

C. Evans: If it's fearmongering, it was an experience where I was terrified; and we were not in charge.

The Post Office, because it's legal, flew them in from another town, landed them at the airport, drove them to the post office, got themselves a searchlight and put it on top of the post office. Then they got themselves a camera, and they put it on top of the post office. Then, while the postal workers picketed outside with some of us who are their friends, they walked through that picket line with the rest of these scabs. When they got into the picket line, they started pushing and shoving the the women and men in the line, until somebody slugged one of them on camera. Then it stopped, and the film went to Cranbrook, and straight to court. They got an injunction to break the picket line, and then they said: "We have not only replacement workers," -- which I have learned to call scabs -- "but provocateurs in this province." When they got the picket line down to two people per entrance, the trucks came.

The trucks also were driven by very young people hired on their first trucking job and then sent to a town where they didn't live to move people with a tractor-trailer unit across the pavement. I was shoved, along with another person, 140 feet across the pavement by a guy driving a tractor-trailer full of mail, and he wasn't more than 19 years old. We were allowed only two people per entrance. That meant the trucker could shove the people all the way across the parking lot, and because the truck was so high and the people were so small, he couldn't even see us. Meanwhile the boss of the post office was yelling at him: "Drive...."

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca rises on a point of order.

L. Fox: I don't usually do this, but I would just like to ask if this member realizes that we're talking about provincial legislation, not federal legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, thank you for raising the matter. However, I should point out, as I did earlier to all hon. members, that the debate has been flexible to the extent that we've allowed members to elaborate on matters which they feel are germane to the amendment. The Chair finds that this member's 

[ Page 3915 ]

remarks are certainly consistent with the pattern that has been set. Would the hon. member please proceed.

C. Evans: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you, members -- I needed the drink of water. But listen, I want the five minutes back; I'm not finished with the story.

Hon. Speaker, the kid inside the truck couldn't see the people he was pushing. The manager of the post office was walking alongside, saying, "Drive, drive, drive" and pushing the people across the parking lot. When the truck got to the other end of the parking lot, I sat down behind the truck to keep it from backing up, and I was thinking about the situation of labour peace in British Columbia and about where we were in history. There was a young person of my son's age sitting in a cab, driving a machine that must have weighed 15 tons. He was 70 feet from where I was sitting, and he couldn't see me. His legs were shaking on the clutch, because he was as scared as we were, and a boss was screaming at him to drive. I was sitting behind his truck, and I was thinking about my dad, because my dad's generation made scabs illegal and made scabs afraid to go to work. It wasn't okay in the forties and fifties to break picket lines with provocateurs, and I was the generation of grownups who were blowing it for the generation of children who were now being hired to replace us.

Where we are in 1992 in British Columbia is at a turning point: we are either going to wipe out all the progressive history that our parents and grandparents put in place, or we're going to start today and find a vision for the future that accepts the rights of humanity, of people.

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to skip most of the rest of what the opposition doesn't want to hear about and go on to the future.

[4:15]

Members opposite.... Maybe they'll think this is talking more along the lines of the amendment: I am opposed to the amendment. Members opposite say that I am opposed because my government works for big unions. They have said that it is because we are backed by unions, and they are wonderful and independent -- both parties, the great speakers for independence. Well, hon. Speaker, I have a little exam for you. What is the richest union in British Columbia?

Come on, shout out. You've been heckling all afternoon. What is the hardest union to get into in British Columbia? Through you, hon. Speaker, to members contrary: what is the hardest union to get into, and whose leadership is most dictatorial with its rank and file? Everybody knows the answer: it's the British Columbia Medical Association -- the hardest union to get into and the toughest with their membership. They make the most money. Right after them, the next toughest union is the lawyers, and then the surveyors. Don't ever forget it: the rich people in this province believe in unions. They just haven't got the guts to call it that, and they are backed by the opposition in this Legislature.

I want to say a little bit to labour and business. Speaking to business, hon. Speaker -- through you, to the television and, I hope, to Mr. Matkin's office -- if there are folks out there, as the newspapers say, who wish to declare war on people like me for what we believe in, they should have done it a long time ago, because letting me get this far before declaring war on me was a big mistake.

To the unions of British Columbia, I have a couple of things I want to say. I do not take this position today because I am automatically a friend of labour in all things. I take this position because I think it's the position for human rights. The right to organize is a basic human right. I also want to talk about some other human rights. To the people in labour that I stand to support today, the construction workers: look to your membership. We did not bring in fair wage legislation to say fair wages only to Anglo-Saxon males. Look to your membership so that when we amend this legislation in future years there are all genders and all races in all unions.

I would like to say a few words to the industrial unions. Look to your overtime record. We've got lots of people walking the bricks because they haven't got a job. It could be that overtime is a subject that we ought to be discussing.

To the forest unions -- and I've belonged for years: look to the future. A macho stand with the environmental community is as inappropriate as the opposition's anti-union stand in terms of this legislation.

To the trade union leadership that you've been busting us for supporting -- and that's right, hon. Speaker, I support them -- this bill is essentially a charter of the right to organize. I would remind the unions in British Columbia that a raid is not an organization. Go organize in the banks, the fast-food restaurants and the day care centres, because work is changing. We give the unions a charter to organize, and I challenge them to go out and do that.

Hon. Speaker, I see the light is on. That means I've got two minutes. I'm going to have a drink of water. If you guys have anything to say, fly at it.

When Canada was unorganized -- and it was.... I suppose members opposite would have been happier living in that era. Once upon a time it was unorganized. It was organized in this country by brave people. They tended to be immigrants from countries where trade unions existed; they tended to be visionaries; and they tended to be brave people willing to withstand poverty and danger to organize in this country.

To the unions: now is the time to do the same around the world. The solution to globalization is not the right-wing vision of Bill 19. It is not to bring British Columbia down to the lowest common denominator. If there ever was a time for workers of the world to unite and for workers of a province that defends trade unions to go and organize in Mexico and Guatemala and Indonesia, now is the time. We're going to pass this law, and we're going to empower our brothers and sisters, but it's not to get rich. This is not the end of the Bill 19 era. This is the beginning of the next great organizing drive of civilization.

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment -- and to refresh the memory of the mem-

[ Page 3916 ]

ber opposite, the amendment is that in principle the bill erodes the fundamental individual rights of workers and employers -- I have great concerns about portions of this bill. I also have great concerns over things that I've heard the members opposite -- not to mention the previous speaker -- say over the course of this debate.

The hon. Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade put out a news release last week. In it he says, "British Columbia's new Labour Relations Code strikes a new balance between business and labour," and he goes on further. The reason I'm standing right now is that I'm concerned about what the word "balance" means. I will admit that we had an imbalance in labour relations legislation in this province under Bill 19, but to simply tip the balance the other way does not correct the situation. I'm afraid we still have an imbalance, not a balance, regardless of what the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade might say. That is of concern to me and is one of the reasons that I am going to speak for the amendment. The initial bill has some flaws that must be addressed before we can vote on the finished product. It has got to be improved. At that point I might be willing to support the bill.

We have a second quote from that news release. Further down he says: "The new code is designed for the challenges ahead." I would think that this new code is going to create challenges ahead for the province, not solve the problems that now face us. That is my concern.

Many things have been said over the past days in this House. We must look at those things and concern ourselves with where the province is going. The challenge is that businesses might simply decide to avoid locating in British Columbia. They may not invest in or develop their businesses here. They may simply stay small and wait until this government passes from the scene and some more favourable or fair legislation comes down.

Is this economic development, or is this bill bringing in economic disincentives? Is small business supported by this bill, or is this bill undercutting small business? Are we having trade? I'm just looking at the various parts. His ministry is referred to as Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, and it seems that this news release is the reverse of that. The "trade" is trading off the economic future of this province for a payoff to its union masters.

I'm somewhat upset that the usual courtesies and procedures were not followed by the government in introducing this bill. We find that a confidential report was given to the government a month ago. The panel and its recommendations were given to labour and business leaders a full ten days before the report was tabled in this House. It has generally been courtesy in the past that the bills are tabled first and then supplied to others, because those reports are the property of the members of this House. That property was given to insiders. Indeed, we find that the Premier of this province has stated, and I'll just find that quote here in a moment....

J. Dalton: Do you want some help?

D. Symons: Yes, I would like some help. I'm having trouble finding it here.

"There will be no backroom deals. That era has passed." Our Premier said that before the election, and he said it just last week in this House. Minutes later we heard from the Labour minister that, indeed, this was discussed quietly with some of the backroom boys. The Premier says one thing, while the Minister of Labour is behaving in another manner. So we find in this legislation that the government says one thing, but what they do is totally the opposite.

I think we have to have some real concerns about the intent of this bill. If it's intended to bring labour harmony and peace and develop this province in an economic way that will be of benefit to all citizens of the province, then I think that would be good. But if the intent is something other than that, we have to be very concerned about this bill. That is my concern: I am not too convinced that the intent is the former. I rather think the intent is somewhat more sinister, in the sense that it's to pay off the union labour masters that seem to be in control. Indeed, if you watched the convention, you would have seen who is the master and who is the slave in this situation. So we have that problem with the bill.

My first and, I guess, foremost concern here is really with the secret ballot. Believe me, it is beyond my comprehension that the government opposite simply cannot see that it's a small concession -- to bring a bit of peace on that particular portion of the bill -- to allow a secret ballot. It would seem to me that a government which has the word "democratic" in the name of its party could agree to simply say that it's not a big issue to allow people to have a secret ballot. Yet they've been standing up, member after member, against having a secret ballot.

We heard the hon. member speaking prior to me about intimidation on picket lines. I didn't hear the member say at any moment that he was a member of the union that was on strike at the time. In fact, he seemed to indicate that he was involved in other types of employment. I would wonder why he was there behind the truck -- which seems to be a foolish place to sit, as a matter of fact, but that doesn't seem to enter into the conversation. Indeed, we have intimidation on both sides. I would suspect that if he was there it was to give support or to help the labour members there intimidate these scabs, as he calls them, or replacement workers, crossing the picket line.

I'm not too much in favour of replacement workers, either, but I must say that intimidation works both ways. With a secret ballot, I think that is true. The members opposite have been saying that the employer, if given a chance to know that a certification vote is about to take place, is going to talk to the employees and convince them -- through losing jobs or whatever -- that they had better not vote for the union. On the other hand, it seems highly unfair to me that a union organizer can come in and speak to employees on the side -- take them out for a beer or whatever -- and convince them one by one that they should join the union, sign the card or whatever. Intimidation works that way as well. The surest way of making sure....

[4:30]

[ Page 3917 ]

Interjection.

D. Symons: The member opposite indicated that they can withdraw their cards. Certainly they can, but it's done as an individual, and who does it is known. When you go behind the curtain, or when you put the ballot in a box, nobody knows what you do. There cannot be the same repercussions as when you're identified as doing it. Therefore I think we're going to have to say that if you want true democracy in this, and want to remove intimidation by either side, it has to be done by a secret ballot. As I said earlier, I cannot understand why this is such a big issue with the members opposite and what they cannot simply say they will concede on it.

The Minister of Labour has said that he will not allow any changes to this bill. That seems to be a rather hard position to be taking, when we're looking for some accommodations in here that will make this bill acceptable to all concerned. The secret ballot would certainly be the easiest for members opposite to make a concession on.

There are other issues in this bill that concern me. The second issue is that of replacement workers, which was brought up a few minutes earlier. Fortunately we have not had the amount of violence on the picket lines here that has existed in other parts of the country, particularly in the Yukon most recently. But in the past we have had a reasonable trade-off during negotiations. The employees could withdraw their services, which they have every right to do when going on strike, and the employer had the option to continue operating simply by bringing in replacement workers or by using management. So in one sense there was a trade-off. The employees had to decide, when they went on strike, whether it was going to be worth what the employer might do. There was a balance to it.

In removing the ability of the employer to bring in replacement workers, this bill will remove that balance. Now the employee has the opportunity to withdraw his services through a strike vote, and the employee also has the opportunity to work elsewhere if he can find employment in the economic climate of this province that this government has put us in. That leaves the employer at a total disadvantage in the negotiations. He can't balance that with anything, because his employees are out, his plant closes down and he waits until he goes into bankruptcy or gives in to their demands. So he has that as his choice; it's not much of a choice.

So I think there's an imbalance in the replacement workers. There was a balance there in the sense that the threat of it.... It wasn't used very often in the past. I would defy the members opposite to come up with a half-dozen instances in the last five years where employers have brought in replacement workers in this province. It's not done very often. There is a social stigma -- and I think rightly so -- attached to somebody who will go in and take someone else's job. There is that problem here. If a person does cross the picket line as a replacement worker, he is going to suffer the social stigma and the consequences of it. So there are problems with that portion of it as well.

The other concern I have is that through this bill, we're going to discourage investment in the province. Unfortunately, the members opposite have said this won't happen. As a matter of fact, one member last week read out a headline from the Vancouver Sun on October 31 in Judy Lindsay's column: "New Code Unlikely to Cloud Investment Climate in B.C. as Ontario's Has." If you read further on in the article, it's not quite as glowing as it might seem from the government's viewpoint. The member didn't mention that two days before, the same writer in the same newspaper had a headline that said: "NDP Tips Scales Back to Labour's Favour." That's what I referred to at the very beginning of this dissertation. Indeed, the scales are not a level playing field, as the government claims, but they've been tipped the other way. So if you're quoting Judy Lindsay as supporting the investment one, I think you've got to look at her other headline that indicates that the labour bill has been tipped the other way.

As a matter of fact, we find in that newspaper on the same date as the Lindsay column that Trevor Lautens made a comment: "...if NDP policies, like their pro-union labour code changes, lead to fleeing investment, higher production costs divorced from real-world output or demand or the availability of alternative labour, and the export of Canadian jobs, let no one say they forgot their friends in their moment of power." I think we find that the columnists disagree somewhat on the effect of this bill.

We do find that there is one agreement here. I'm quite sure that as the Premier of this province went around to various countries saying, "Invest in B.C. The doors are open for investment," he did not add a little trailer to that statement to say, "And by the way, if you do invest in B.C., if you do open a business here, you're most likely to be forced into a labour situation," because we're finding that we have a clause in this that will allow businesses and unions to negotiate a secondary boycott arrangement. It could be quite possible that big businesses and organized labour would give in to that, because they're not going to lose a great deal by it. But that can have a top-down effect in unionization in this province. We can find that if some large business is getting supplies from a smaller business that's non-union and the union brings in a clause in the agreement with the company, there will be a secondary boycott clause there.

B. Copping: Signed by both sides.

D. Symons: Signed by both sides. But the company may be brought to a position in negotiation where that's the better trade-off for them. That can have an effect upon -- and here's the unfairness in the situation -- the smaller business that's a supplier to that company, telling it: "Either you're going to be forced out of business because you're losing the company that's picking up your business -- the larger business that you're supplying things to -- and we're going to be forced into going to a union company, or you have to unionize." Those employees may not be interested in joining a union, but they are basically going to be forced 

[ Page 3918 ]

into it or they lose their job, and that is not the employer's choice nor the employee's choice in that smaller business.

So we can have a real top-down, filter-down effect from large business and large unions in this province to other businesses within the province. I'm sure that that particular facet of this is not lost on the members opposite, and I'm quite sure it's part of the overall scheme and plan of the managed economy that this government has in mind. It won't work.

We find that we have countries in eastern Europe that have tried a managed economy on your plan, and it hasn't worked. We need the free enterprise spirit in this province, and this is not going to engender the investment climate in the province that's needed particularly at this time, with our economy being as sluggish as it is. It's the wrong time and the wrong bill to be bringing in at this time.

With those comments and the fact that the motion before the House is to the effect that the bill not be continued with because it erodes the fundamental rights of workers and employers, I would speak strongly against passing the motion, because that is indeed the case. This bill is not going to help the workers in this province, it's certainly not going to help business in this province, and in that respect it's not going to help the province itself as a whole.

G. Farrell-Collins: In checking through my records I realize that I have not yet had the opportunity to speak to this motion. In fact, I would ask that I be the designated speaker to this motion, so go grab your dinner and hunker down, because we'll be here a little while yet.

We have been spending some time in this House -- as a matter of fact, two weeks tomorrow -- on second reading of Bill 84, and I think it's extremely important that that time has been spent.

We've seen in that time the initial reaction from the public being one of: well, perhaps this bill isn't so bad; perhaps the fearmongering that has been put forth by the government and the sense of dread in the community that this bill was going to be similar or perhaps worse than the one in Ontario, was not as well founded as people had thought; and perhaps, instead of this bill being the draconian piece of legislation that we had all expected and that many members of the community -- both employers and employees -- had expected, we came up with something that was nine-tenths as draconian. Perhaps there was a collective sigh of relief -- very briefly, mind you -- in the business community and among the workers in this province that that wasn't the type of legislation we were going to get.

As we know, the government has a huge communications machine that works for it. I don't know how many people are in it, but it's a very vast communications network full of highly paid professionals -- more highly paid than they were under the Socreds, I might add; paid for by the taxpayers of the province -- and their job is to plan communications strategies when a major piece of legislation like this comes forward. They were working in high gear two weeks ago tomorrow. We had the spin put out there, and the press conference held by the Premier and the Minister of Labour, stating that these three people had been brought together: the person representing big business, the person representing big labour and the mediator, who makes his living off disagreements between the two of them -- all extremely credible people. These three people had gone out and held public hearings in the province, had taken input and come together and drafted a piece of legislation. Those three people alone knew what was in this report, and those three people alone had drafted the legislation. They had submitted the report to the Minister of Labour on September 11. He then took it into his confidence and took it to caucus and cabinet, I assume, and discussed it with the members of the government, and then he came forward with this legislation. He stated very clearly that 98 percent of the clauses in Bill 84 were agreed to unanimously among those three members of the panel.

What the minister and the Premier didn't tell us at that time was that behind-the-scenes, closed-door meetings had in fact been taking place between the Premier; the Minister of Labour; Ken Georgetti, head of the B.C. Federation of Labour; and numerous business leaders in this province. They had been horse-trading and negotiating on this labour bill. The business people -- you have to give them credit -- were trying to get the best deal they could for the businesses of British Columbia. And you have to give Mr. Georgetti credit. He was trying to get the best deal he could for the people he represents.

I don't lay any blame at the feet of those two groups for what went on. They were merely trying to represent their constituents as best they could. But I do lay a great deal of blame at the feet of the Minister of Labour and the Premier for going into behind-closed-doors negotiations on a piece of labour legislation that was this critical. It seems that the Premier was more concerned that he receive some sort of soft landing on this labour bill than he was about the process that went into it, about the openness and the honesty that he promised to the people of this province. I think that's a shame, because if we don't have honesty and openness from the government that got itself elected with those very two words, then where are we ever going to find them? The NDP promised open and honest government. Instead we have a bill that was negotiated in the back rooms. The final little text that was put in there -- whether sectoral certification was in or out, whether secondary boycotts were in or out, whether replacement workers were in or out of the bill -- all took place behind closed doors, down the hallway in the minister's office, not out in the public, where it should have been.

[4:45]

We have said in this House, and we have spoken at great length in the Liberal caucus, that this bill should have been referred to a legislative standing committee in this province. Yes, what we thought was open consultation that had taken place beforehand was good. In fact, I made a statement on CBC in the spring that we thought it was a good process and that we encouraged people to make representations to this panel. We supported it. But we were betrayed. Once that consultation was done and the report was tabled, it went to the 

[ Page 3919 ]

minister's office; and before it was tabled in this Legislature, the minister released copies of that report and that piece of legislation -- not to the Legislature or the public but to the individual groups that the minister felt he needed support from in order to get a smooth landing on this bill, so that there wasn't any fuss out there with the public and so that everybody was on board and happy. I think that's a shame. How is this House supposed to function? How can we be advocates of the people of British Columbia when the minister is giving out the report to his special interest groups, the people he needs support from, not only before he brings it to the public but before he brings it to the Legislature, to the representatives of the public?

The Premier was right when he had a press conference last Thursday after getting a letter from the business community stating that all deals were off on this bill because some of the deal wasn't followed through by the government. The Premier held a press conference and said: "There will be no more backroom deals. The days of backroom dealing in this province went out with the last government, and we're never going to do that anymore." What hypocrisy, when he had just been engaging in the types of backroom deals that he was saying he wouldn't engage in anymore!

B. Copping: It was consultation.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member opposite calls it consultation. I'm sure that's what the Social Credit administration called it too. When members of the business community picked up the phone and talked to the then Premier about emissions from pulp industries, I'm sure they said it was consultation. I'm sure the NDP members all stood up and said that it was backroom dealing. How come what's good for the NDP when they're in opposition is no longer good for them when they're in government? We all know that power corrupts, but does it corrupt that quickly? Why is it that when it took the Social Credit Party in this province some 30 years to sink to that level, the NDP government is sinking beyond it in 12 months? To say that it was open and honest consultation is simply not true.

F. Randall: On a point of order, the member has indicated that there are corrupt people in this Legislature. I don't think that's an appropriate comment to make. I think an apology would be in order.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, would you withdraw the offending remarks?

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I can clarify my comments. I certainly didn't intend that any members of this House were corrupt; I merely mentioned that the process had been corrupted. I wasn't attributing that to anyone in particular.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. You impugn no motives of any member of the House.

G. Farrell-Collins: Not at all, hon. Speaker.

We on the benches of the Liberal side in this Legislature have said over the last couple of weeks that the open and honest portion of the consultation that we thought had gone on beforehand -- not the backroom consultative portion that the member opposite talks about, but rather the part that was known to the general public, the non-secret part -- was a good process. In fact, I said that we encourage the government and the public to participate in that process. But that's only half the process.

In virtually every other jurisdiction in this country, in every province and also with the federal government, when a major piece of legislation such as amendments to the labour code -- which is always contentious in any jurisdiction -- comes before a House, consultation goes on beforehand. The NDP in Ontario engaged in consultation beforehand. They sat down and drafted a bill, and they took it back to the public. They had a legislative committee that toured the province. They spent some 18 months on their labour legislation before they brought it back into the House, and they did the other half of the consultation. As a result, amendments were made to the bill to improve it. That can come only if we actually have open and honest consultation and if we actually ask people what they think. This government has done only half the job. If you've only done half the job, then you've only got half a bill; you've only got half a piece of legislation. It's not the best we can do. It's not even close to the best we can do. So that's why we have been sitting here for the last two weeks, particularly the last week on this amendment, the amendment that this bill not be read a second time. This bill is not ready to be read a second time, hon. Speaker. It needs to go through the second half of this consultative process; it needs to go back to the public. We need to look at the various issues that need to be addressed in this bill.

Hon. Speaker, we have a lot of work to do yet with this bill. We have work to do in committee stage -- where the real meat and potatoes of this debate is going to take place. And when we get to that committee stage debate -- whenever it comes -- we will be offering constructive amendments, we will be offering criticism and we will be asking questions of the government to account for their legislation. But right now, we're in second reading, and this bill, because of its faults and because of the fact that it is merely half a bill, should go no further. The bill should stop at this point.

The government should rethink some of the more contentious aspects of this bill and go back to the drawing board. This government thought they had a deal. They thought that perhaps by giving information in backroom negotiations with the people who, to their credit, were merely trying to represent their constituents, both labour and business.... The government should have known better, hon. Speaker. Because they had given information to those people, they felt that they were going to get a soft landing on this bill. Well, the reality is that when you go out into the public and into your constituencies and you talk to business people and employees and ask them about the bill -- those who have read it and those who have taken the time to go through it -- you find that they are not happy with it. The government can learn from the public. There is a 

[ Page 3920 ]

lot this government can learn by taking this piece of legislation and going back for the second half of the consultative process, and we have asked them to do that.

Hon. Speaker, we sometimes, especially in second reading, tend to talk more about philosophies and principles than we do about the nuts and bolts of how this bill -- or any bill, for that matter -- is actually going to affect the public. It's always heartening to get a submission from the public, to get a fax or a letter or a phone call from someone out there who has a real-life example of the impact of this bill. I met such a person last Friday in my constituency office. This gentleman came into my office. He's a business person and has an $8.5 million loan that's signed, sealed and ready to be drawn upon with the Toronto-Dominion bank, and he's put it on hold -- $8.5 million. That's one-tenth of the budget cuts that this Minister of Finance brought in last week -- to put it in some scale. The minister brought out $82 million in budget cuts last week. This gentleman has $8.5 million that he wants to invest in a business in British Columbia, and he's got it on hold because of this bill.

That's one business person in this province. How many others are there in the same position, who have loans and expansions that are on hold? How many other people are out there? Another five? Another ten? Twenty? Thirty? Of the three million people in B.C., if there were ten people who had a similar loan to the one on hold, that would be more than the budget cuts that the minister tabled in the House last week. So we can see what the impact of this bill is going to be, and we can see why this bill is not fit to be read a second time. It's critical. It's very important. I'd like to read the letter from this gentleman so we can see what sort of impact this bill will have if it is read a second time. It's a letter from Len Remple to the Premier and the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, and it was sent on November 6, which was just last week. He says:

"Our family has been planning a new, very reliable business venture for the past year and a half. The business plan has been approved by the T-D Bank and all loans are approved. The business licence is approved and premises have been leased. We plan to employ 26 persons plus the owners" -- which are three people. "I have told the bank they must put everything on hold until we see the final form of your unfair labour legislation. If it is passed without revisions we are abandoning our plans to proceed here in B.C., even though we have spent over $150,000 thus far...." These are their start-up costs, hon. Speaker. "We are unwilling to proceed because the labour climate will then be intolerable and much too risky for a family business."

This is a gentleman who is ready to retire himself and is trying to pass on the businesses and assets to his family. He has been through the unstable labour climate that we have had in the past in British Columbia. This is a gentleman who knows what he's talking about. He continues: "And are you not aware that the largest percentage of B.C. employees are engaged in a small family businesses?" That is his comment with regard to the fact that he's not willing to start up a small family business. "In the Surrey Chamber of Commerce alone, there are 11 business owners, aged 55 and older, who would shut down their businesses -- not sell them -- and place 176 persons out of work if your labour legislation goes through as proposed."

Maybe some of those people will change their minds; maybe they won't. But that's what this gentleman is saying. "These are not posturing remarks. These employers are worried about their employees, but the employers are not prepared for the added risk and stress that you" -- your bill -- "will bring about. Please, please soften the anti-business legislation." It's signed Len Remple.

Hon. Speaker, that gentleman has $8.5 million to invest in British Columbia, and he's not going to do it if this bill is read a second time. He says that in Surrey alone -- one municipality in this province -- there are 11 other business people who are thinking of doing exactly the same thing. That is not insignificant; that is extremely important. As I said before, if there were ten people in the shoes of that gentleman, we could have dealt with the budget cuts that the minister tabled last week. If there were 100 people in the same shoes, we could cover the cost overruns of the government for this fiscal year. That is not a small amount of money; that is a huge amount of money. If we had the investment of $8.5 million, $82 million, or if it were 100 people, $8.2 billion into the economy of this province, what would the tax benefits be? What would the spinoffs be? What would the economic growth spinoff be from that and the taxes that would be collected from the workers in those businesses? What would the corporate income tax generated by those investments be? Would it be enough to cover the cost overruns for this fiscal year? Maybe it would; maybe it wouldn't. Maybe it would be more.

If you take the example of one person and extrapolate that throughout the province, you can see the economic impact this bill will have. That is why we feel it should not be read a second time.

[5:00]

We have taken the time in this House to debate this bill in principle and in second reading because we feel it's extremely important. We have taken the time to allow debate to develop outside of the House. In fact, if we come back to my earlier comments, when this bill was first tabled almost two weeks ago, we had a situation where the reaction perhaps wasn't as hard as many in the public expected. But like many other agreements, once the full implications of that legislation came to be known, and once the people of the province had a chance to look at it and the lawyers had a chance to go through the bill and prepare briefing notes and brief their clients, people realized, despite the fact that some of the more horrendous aspects are not in it, that this bill is still extremely poor legislation. There are still factors and sections in this bill that are going to cause great economic hardship to the public, and I've just itemized one instance of that.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

It took some time for the full impact of this bill to come forward. We were here the day the bill was tabled, and the day after, when second reading started, we were debating this bill and highlighting the problems 

[ Page 3921 ]

that we see with it: how it's going to affect businesses, employees and the general economy of British Columbia. It took some time for other people in the province to get on board and see exactly what the problems were with this legislation. But now that we've seen that, now that we know what the problems are, we're starting to see the reaction.

Last week the business community of this province came out with a resounding no to this legislation. They will no longer cut a deal with this government. They will no longer deal with this government. If changes are not made to certain provisions of this bill -- replacement workers and secondary boycotts, to name two -- if those provisions are not changed, amended or transformed to make them more balanced and fair, the business community of this province will no longer participate with this government on a number of issues as far as trade missions to other parts of the country and the world go. Those are critical things that we need to look at.

There are numerous reasons why this bill should not be read a second time. Debate has been going on for two weeks in this House. We have heard members of the New Democratic Party, both in government and on the back bench, stand up and go on and on. The previous speaker went on and on. He was going back in labour history by 20 and 30 years, giving us all a history lesson in labour legislation. While it was very entertaining, and while he's a very dynamic speaker, the reality is that we're not in 1962 anymore. We're not in 1972. We're not even in 1982, and nor are we in 1987 with Bill 19. We're now in 1992, and we're dealing with Bill 84. That's the legislation that is before us.

I wish the members opposite would come out of their Stone Age history and start to look at the future. Quit looking at the past with your back to the future. Turn around and face the future and see what types of things this bill is going to do.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: The members opposite seem to be upset that I would ask them to look to and actually plan for the future of this province instead of grinding the axes that they've had since they were involved in a postal strike in 1963, or whatever it was.

The reality is that this province is part of a global economy. We are being called upon to become more competitive all the time. That means that we have to invest in our education and infrastructure. We have to ensure that we have a harmonious labour climate and that we're not putting added burdens on the people of the province. We need as much investment as we can get.

Hon. T. Perry: His voice is more and more relentless.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member opposite is complaining about my voice. Perhaps if he'd rise and engage in this debate, we could have the pleasure of hearing his voice. But he obviously doesn't feel it's important enough. If the member is going to heckle me, I think I have the right to respond, and I'll probably continue to do that.

Hon. Speaker, in Bill 84 we have a bad piece of legislation. I'm not saying it's all bad, but to say that certain parts of it are extremely bad is certainly not an understatement. As we mentioned, some of the provisions -- section 6, as far as fair representation and unfair labour practices go -- are better. They're improvements. We are very glad that that type of section is in this code. We think it's important. But just because there are some good things in it doesn't mean we have to accept the whole thing. There are some serious flaws with Bill 84. It should not be read a second time. It should not be imposed upon the people of this province.

The Labour minister has walked into the House, so now we have an audience.

If we were to go through this bill piece by piece and concentrate very closely on the contentious sections, we would see some problems. One of them that the member for Nelson-Creston went on about so eloquently for some time was that of replacement workers. The reality in British Columbia is that it hasn't been a huge issue. The use of replacement workers has not caused huge problems in this province. We don't have the history of violence. We may have had it with the postal strike, but that's not under provincial legislation, and changing this code is going to make absolutely no difference the next time the postal unions go on strike or the next time there's a labour conflict in the post office. This bill will have absolutely no effect on it whatsoever. So to say that somehow with this bill we're going to stop the violence on picket lines as far as the post office is concerned is simply untenable. It's not a fact. I don't know what it is. It's an extrapolation, hypothetical, but it certainly has nothing to do with Bill 84.

The provision of replacement workers is an important issue, and the Minister of Labour has used an argument that I think is probably one of the worst we can use when it comes to replacement workers. It is a shame, because it instils fear in the public at a time when law and order in British Columbia seem to be unmanageable. Every night on the news we see violence; every day in the newspapers we see violence. For the minister to pull that out as his reason for bringing in section 68 as far as replacement workers go is, I think, fear-mongering. It is extremely unfortunate.

There are laws in this country that say you don't break somebody's windshield if they're driving a truck across a picket line, and there's another one that says you don't drive over somebody if they're trying to stop you from driving your truck across the picket line. There are intimidation and violence perpetrated on both sides sometimes. But does that mean that this type of legislation is either warranted or needed? I think not.

C. Evans: Yes, absolutely.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I know it's sometimes difficult to restrain oneself from entering the debate. However, I will remind hon. members that one can do so only from one's own seat.

[ Page 3922 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't mind if the government members choose to heckle, whatever seat it is, because it merely makes the debate more interesting, and I think it also.... Well, it certainly adds to their level of debate, anyway.

We are dealing with replacement workers, an issue integral to Bill 84, and the minister in his press release and certainly in his press conference the day he tabled Bill 84 in the House talked about the incident at Royal Oak's mine and the fact that there was violence and a tragedy when workers at that mine were killed. I'm not sure if management people or supervisors were involved or not. The fact that anybody would be injured or, God forbid, killed in a labour dispute is a disgrace. But to try and change that or stop it by implementing this type of regressive legislation is extremely unfortunate.

To say that because people are perpetrating crimes we have to take away by law the temptation of the crime is extremely unfortunate. I could use equally as ridiculous an argument by saying to the Minister of Labour that because violence occurs on picket lines we shouldn't have picket lines. Does that make any sense? I don't think so. I don't think that's fair. Workers should have the right to picket an employer if they're engaged in a labour dispute. Certainly they should. Does that mean they have a right to perpetrate violence? No. Does it mean the employer has a right to perpetrate violence? No, it doesn't. We have criminal law in this country that deals with those types of things.

I could equally as ridiculously state to the minister that because violence occurs on picket lines, therefore we shouldn't have any strikes, and therefore no one should have the right to strike, because that will stop the violence. Well, that's ridiculous also. People have the right to strike, they have the right to picket, and management has the right to hire replacement workers. It's an economic battle. It's a leverage back and forth between the two that are engaged in the collective bargaining process. As flawed as it is, it's the process that we have, and each should be entitled to the economic leverages that they would use. I think that's extremely important.

C. Evans: Well spoken from the safety of a job where it will never happen.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says: "Well spoken from the safety of a job where it will never happen." Perhaps that's so. I don't plan on being in this business all my life; perhaps that other member does. I plan on being out there engaged in a number of issues and a number of careers in my life. And who knows, maybe I will come upon it.

My father participated in many labour disputes. He was a member of a union in this country and fought many strikes. He dealt with these types of issues, and I have talked to him about them. I grew up in that house and I know what it's like. But just because it's uncomfortable or just because it hurts doesn't mean it's right. Just because it hurts to have replacement workers, just because it hurts when there's a strike, doesn't mean it's right to bind one side more so than the other.

An employee in this province has the right to strike, a group of employees has the right to strike, and employers have the right to continue to do business as best they possibly can. Some employers -- the fact of the matter in British Columbia is most employers -- do not use replacement workers. They don't want to use replacement workers, because damage is done to the work climate when that happens. Just because they don't want to, or because the past history has been that in the majority of case they don't choose to, doesn't mean that you should remove that right.

I quoted from a case, and I'll quote from it again, because I think it's very pertinent to this issue. The case took place in Illinois, I believe. I quoted it once before, and I'll be glad to get the actual case for members opposite who would like to see it. I don't believe the member opposite from Nelson-Creston was in the House when I stated this, so I'll do it for his benefit.

It was a case where anti-replacement worker legislation was overturned by a federal court because the judge said that it unfairly bound one side as opposed to the other side. Unfairness is something that we do see throughout Bill 84, and that's why it should not be read a second time. It says:

"The enactment of the Striker Replacement Law has materially altered the...equilibrium which exists between management and organized labour in collective bargaining negotiations. It is this alteration which gives rise to...controversy.

"It is settled that one of the economic weapons available to an employer is the right to hire...replacement workers in the event of an economic strike.

"The presence of economic weapons in reserve" -- and "in reserve" is underlined -- "and their actual exercise on occasion by the parties is part and parcel of the system.... The enactment of the Striker Replacement Law has removed this weapon from the plaintiff's bargaining arsenal, affecting the subtle balance between" -- the two. "This subtle but substantial shift in bargaining positions is neither hypothetical nor abstract.... This material alteration of the collective bargaining relationship obviates any need to await a strike and actual invocation of the law."

So in that case the judge is saying that it's not so much whether replacement workers are used during a strike; it's that an employer can say to the employee bargaining unit at the negotiating table: "We've never used replacement workers in the last three or four negotiations we've been in, but the economic climate is such that this time we will. We can't take another strike. We can't afford to close down, and we will have to use replacement workers and get by as best we can while the strike is going on."

It may never come to that. That may never have to be used, but the fact that you remove that leverage from the employer to even put that out as one of the bargaining chips upsets the balance. The member has been involved in enough labour negotiations, I'm sure, to understand how important some of those levers are. He knows how important it is to have a strike vote in your pocket when you go to the negotiating table. He knows that that sort of thing is important. That's how Mr. Bob White has managed to build the strong union that he has.

[ Page 3923 ]

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: He says that even his kids negotiate better than he does. Perhaps that's why he was sitting behind a truck instead of working.

[5:15]

Hon. Speaker, I would rather not have to respond to the heckling. But if it's coming my way, I feel I have to.

The Speaker: I would remind the hon. member to address the amendment before us. I would remind other hon. members in the House that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has the floor at this time. Please proceed, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know that sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes it's difficult for people to absorb or understand it. But I try to stick with that, and that's why I use some of these documents to support it.

We've dealt with replacement workers to some extent, and we've seen what sort of impact that will have. If I may go back to the letter I read earlier that was sent to the Premier and the Minister of Labour.... It doesn't say so in the letter, but in my discussions with the gentleman it was quite clear that he had been in business for some time. The Teamsters union was certified at his corporation, and there were a number of occasions when it was on the edge because of labour disputes. The ability to use replacement workers was critical to him and his corporation, as to whether or not they stayed in business. So it's not an intangible, and it's not merely philosophical. It has practical applications and goes a long way to dealing with some of the problems in Bill 84. I think it's critical that we look at them.

One of the other issues that we've been looking at in Bill 84, and one of the other reasons that we feel it should not be read a second time, is a more subtle provision, but it's certainly something that the business community in this province has started to focus on. People who aren't even necessarily in business have been calling my office. They work for companies somewhere down the road, and they've taken an interest in this bill because they're those types of people: political junkies or people who are aware and who follow public policy very closely.

Some of the provisions in the change in the purposes section are extremely unfortunate. It was brought to mind when the member for Richmond Centre was talking about our competitive economy and that this NDP government has a fundamental belief in a managed economy instead of a free and open competitive market economy. Those words are important, because the purposes section of any piece of legislation is the guiding principle around which the rest of the bill must be interpreted.

When one is looking at a section of a bill or a piece of legislation -- whether it's a judge, a tribunal or an arbitrator -- one looks at the section of the legislation that's pertinent. Then they always have to go back to the purposes section to get some sort of a parameter, a focus or a guideline around which they should be interpreting that section. So the purposes section is critical. In fact, the members of the three wise people who put together this report -- the labour report that went to the Minister of Labour....

F. Gingell: The secret one.

G. Farrell-Collins: The secret one. Well, the sort of secret one. Even they knew how important the purposes section of the bill was because they moved it from section 27 all the way up to section 2. In a piece of legislation the first section, of course, is all the definitions of what everything means, and the second section -- the most important section after the definition -- is the purposes section. They specifically moved it to that position because they felt that it was important enough. I too think it is important enough. So when I'm reading through it, I ask myself the question: why would a government want to change and take out the words "competitive market economy"? What sort of signal does that send to the public? What sort of signal does that send to business? What sort of signal does that send to employees? What sort of signal does that send to the investors around the world when the Premier does one of his little tours? I wonder if, when he is in Hong Kong and Geneva and Tokyo, he says, "Oh, by the way, British Columbia is no longer a competitive market economy, but we want your investment anyway."

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Advanced Education says that we don't want the Premier to travel. We'd like the Premier to travel if he's going to produce something in the end, but we have yet to see it. When he does, then I'll pay his way myself, if he can actually return with something.

When the Premier tours around the country, or tours around the world, does he tell these investors that British Columbia, according to his own legislation tabled in this House, is no longer a competitive market economy? If so, does he tell them what kind of economy it is? I'm wondering. I don't know what kind of economy it is that the government has in mind. Perhaps it's the managed economy that the member opposite talks about, a prosperous economy. Well, we've certainly seen that in the last week, haven't we: a $1 billion cost overrun.

Hon. Speaker, we have some other issues to look at in the purposes section, including that of individual rights. Why is it that the government has chosen to neglect the provisions of individual rights, and the recognition that individual rights in this province are extremely important? We understand that labour legislation deals with the collective. It deals with the collective of workers, and it deals with the collective of business, the debate and the negotiations and the ongoing collective agreement -- or attempt to get collective agreements -- and the collective bargaining that goes on between the two. We know it deals with those things. But a piece of labour legislation deals with more than that. If all it were to do was to regulate or allow guidelines between those two groups, then it wouldn't 

[ Page 3924 ]

need specifically to deal too much with individual rights.

The reality is that it also deals with how one gains entrance to, or gains exclusion from, those collective rights. It deals with certification and decertification. It also deals with something called the secondary boycott, which is a provision that we all know by now, if we've been spending any time in the chamber here at all, is a provision whereby the collectivity of a union and an employer can get together and negotiate a contract, and one of the clauses in that contract can say that the employer can only do business with unionized firms. More than that, it can also dictate which union has to be organized in those firms. It's called top-down organizing. It's one of the critical reasons that I think the business community has come out so strongly against this bill. And it's one of the reasons I feel strongly that this bill should not be read a second time.

The member for Nelson-Creston, when he was talking, said that somehow that was okay, because the two parties would negotiate, they'd have their collective agreement, and through that negotiation they would come to an agreement that that was okay. They would say, "Okay, as an employer you cannot use anything but union firms," and that was okay because the two parties agreed to it. The reality is that that agreement doesn't just affect those two groups; it affects every supplier to that company.

They don't even have a choice whether they can vote. They don't even have a choice whether or not they can sign cards. Their choice is either you work for this firm and become unionized under this union or you don't work for this firm, you don't supply to this firm. What kind of a choice is that? Where are individual rights for that entrepreneur who's got the company that's supplying to the larger firm? Where are the rights of the individuals who work for that smaller firm as to whether or not they want to be part of a union, or whether or not they want to be part of a particular union? It's amazing that in this piece of legislation the government has gone in there and said -- it's written right in there; it's a change that this government brought in -- that the employer cannot make any representation, cannot sway or try and convince the employees to join any particular union.

An Hon. Member: I hope not.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member from the NDP says: "I hope not." Then why is it that the union and the employer in the larger firm can determine what union those people belong to? Because that is in fact what will happen. It has happened in the past, and it will happen again. Some of those provisions are already written into contracts. The only reason that they haven't been working for the last five years is because section 4.1 and section 9.1 prohibited those types of clauses because they're fundamentally anti-democratic. It's against the rights of individuals in this province, and that's why this bill should not be read a second time.

An Hon. Member: That's what they mean by New Democrats.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's what they mean by New Democrats, hon. Speaker; they're as bad as the old ones.

In this bill, why would the government go to such lengths to say that an employer can't influence what type of union or which union the employees can join, but somehow it's okay for the big union and the big business to write that right into their contract and force certification on employers and employees whether they want it or not, and tell them which union they must belong to? Because that's what's happened. That's what will happen if Bill 84 goes through.

The member is shaking his head, but he obviously hasn't read it. All you have to do is look at some of the collective agreements that are already in place. They had those provisions. Sections 4.1 and 9.1 were put into the last labour legislation we had in order to stop that type of thing. As soon as they go out, all those provisions that are already written into collective agreements will now come into full force. They don't have to sign anything or renegotiate; they don't even have to consult with unions or employers. They come right back into full force the day this bill passes through this House and gets royal assent. Heaven forbid if that ever happens.

Business people and individuals are upset with Bill 84 because it is fundamentally anti-democratic. It impinges upon their rights. We're dealing with secondary boycotts on one hand, but on the other hand we have this issue of certification and decertification and how individual rights are affected there. One member of the government stood up and said that there was no need to have a vote, because you sign a card. We were saying: "Why is it that we have the right to vote for municipal councils, school boards, provincial politicians and federal politicians, and we even have the right to vote in referendums in this country?" The member's reply was that a card is like being enumerated. That's the comparison. Somehow being enumerated is parallel to signing a card to join a union. It's simply not true. That might be the case if a vote followed, but this government is trying to do away with the vote. They're trying to say that when a British Columbian signs a union card, that's it. You're in or you're out, and you have no right to vote on it.

Hon. T. Perry: Why do you think most other provinces don't have a vote?

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the member asks why most other provinces don't have a vote. There was a time in this country when women didn't have the vote either. We've done away with that, and that was the right thing to do. If that member doesn't agree with that, perhaps he should stand up and say so. There are a lot of archaic pieces of legislation, not only in this province and in this country but right around the world. Just because it's done somewhere else doesn't mean it's right.

I could throw it back to the same minister. His argument is that we don't need a vote for certification. Why would the government leave in the vote for decertification? There are two sections in this bill: one 

[ Page 3925 ]

gets you into the collectivity, and one gets you out. The process that this government is trying to put in place says: "If you want to become certified and part of a collectivity, you don't have the right to vote; you just sign the card." However, once you're in that collectivity, it's harder to try and get out. You can't just sign the cards or sign a petition or sign a letter; you also have to vote.

An Hon. Member: An oversight on their part, I'm sure.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe that's the technical amendment the minister is planning on bringing in. I don't know.

A member of the government stood up in this House and said that the reason that provision is there is because once a union has gone in and organized a work site, organized a bargaining unit, put staff in place, put an office in place and all the support and the money they've invested, it really should be hard to decertify. What about an entrepreneur who has gone in and invested money, signed a lease, bought property and built up a company for a long period of time? Shouldn't that employer be protected in exactly the same way the workers are? Why not?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member asked if I think unions are a good thing or a bad thing. If it was put in front of me and I had to vote whether or not I wanted to be in a union, I would decide then and there. I don't say it's bad; I don't say it's good; I say that the people should have the right to decide, not the government, not that minister and not his colleagues. They shouldn't be the ones deciding whether or not unions are bad or good. It should be the people deciding whether or not they want to join a union or leave a union.

[5:30]

I can't understand it. I imagine the members of the government lay in bed at night wondering how they're going to work out that dichotomy in their argument: "How can I stand up in the House and say it's not right to vote?" That's a tough one. How do you rationalize taking away someone's right to vote? I don't see how it can be done, except....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Here we have the same argument again: it's done in seven other provinces. There are lots of nasty things done in the world. Does that mean they're right? No, it doesn't. The right to vote is fundamental in our society. It's fundamental in this province, and it should be allowed to stay. Just like it stays in decertification, it should be allowed to stay in certification, because employees, not this government, should be determining whether or not they want to be certified, whether or not they want to be part of a collective group doing their negotiations.

I wonder if the government would be as prepared to take out that provision for a vote in the event of decertification. I think it's quite clear that they won't be; certainly, by the statements of the minister and the statements by some members opposite, that won't be happening.

Nothing in this bill highlights more clearly the unfairness and imbalance in this bill as do the certification and decertification rules. All you have to do is look at those two provisions to know where the mind-set of this government is. That's why, when you read the paper and look through the letters to the editor and the comments that are coming in, you see that the general public is getting upset enough to sit down and write a letter and send it into the newspaper knowing full well that it may never be printed. They are upset enough at least to give it a shot. A vast majority are writing in and saying that the vote has to stay; they want the right to vote. That is a fundamental right that everyone in this province can relate to, that everybody, as a human being, should be able to relate to: to have a say. So why can there not be a vote? How do you rationalize that? How can you possibly, in this day and age, bring in a piece of legislation that pulls people's right to vote? That is one of the major, major flaws with this bill, and that is why this bill should not be read a second time.

We've looked at a couple of other issues, and as time goes by we're getting more and more letters from different groups in society, from different constituents, who have different views on this bill. They have now taken some time to look at it and have said: "This is how this labour legislation is going to affect me." One that came in late last week.... Actually, in this case, it was a press release from the British Columbia School Trustees' Association. I understand that a good number of trustees -- ones I know, anyway -- are members of the New Democratic Party, so it's funny to find them writing letters to their party representatives through press releases.

Anyway, I'd like to read from it. It deals with the issue of replacement workers, in particular, and how that will affect the day-to-day operations of schools in British Columbia. It says with regard to section 68:

"This provision would prevent any use of management staff from district offices, or other schools, or volunteers when the school is faced with a withdrawal of services. This goes beyond any of the recommendations in the report of the subcommittee of special advisers, in which the strongest recommendation for replacement worker legislation permitted the employer to use management staff from other places of operation.

"In schools this means that the only people who can perform any duties of a person who is on strike or locked out are the principal and vice-principal...."

If there is one, and my understanding is that most schools -- most elementary schools anyway -- do not have vice-principals, they merely have a principal. "In schools this means that the only people who can perform the duties of a person who is on strike or locked out are the principal and vice-principal, if any, of a school, if they choose to do so. All other management staff of the school district...ordinarily work at a different location."

So therefore they're not allowed to go into the school to help clean up, etc. If the engineering staff goes on strike, for example, and the government, or the school 

[ Page 3926 ]

board -- the elected school board -- decides to keep the schools open, management staff cannot go in there to provide security, to ensure that the school remains a safe place for the children to go as far as health goes. That, hon. Speaker, is a problem.

"Schools have never attempted to maintain operations in the face of a legal full withdrawal of services by teachers. Although teachers might in the past -- pre-Bill 20 -- have crossed picket lines of other unions when they were not legally entitled to withdraw their own services, it appears to be unlikely now that they would not respect a picket line by non-teaching employees. Therefore a school would not attempt to maintain operations in the face of picketing by non-teaching employees."

What sort of an impact is that going to have on students in British Columbia?

Hon. Speaker, this government is going to have to face up to it sooner or later: in this province in the next 12 months we are headed for some severe disruptions in school districts. We have teachers and other unions asking for things in collective agreements that school boards are saying they cannot provide. There's a conflict between the two. They're at present miles apart. And it doesn't matter which side you're in support of -- if you're in support of neither or in support of both -- the fact of the matter is that they're miles apart and it's going to be extremely difficult for them to come to some conclusion, and it's very likely that we will have labour disputes in this province. That's why this letter is so critical.

It goes on to say: "However, the sudden appearance of a picket line around a school can create a serious safety problem as children arrive at the site and there are no staff to take charge of them." Here's an angle that perhaps is something the government hadn't considered, and I think it's something they should look at.

An Hon. Member: Three hours ago it was the same letter.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the attendance of the members opposite changes from time to time so we have to make sure that they hear it and understand it.

"The sudden appearance of a picket line around a school can create a serious safety problem as children arrive at the site and there are no staff to take charge of them. Principals must be able to call on help from the district office in such a situation to supervise children until they can be safely returned to the charge of their parents. Parents are another resource in such a situation. It must be remembered that these students may include some who are medically fragile and need special care."

It's not saying in that last paragraph that the superintendents, the management or even the trustees of that school are trying to break a strike by using replacement workers. All they're asking for is the chance to use other staff and volunteers -- parents -- to help deal with these children to ensure that they get home safely, to ensure that parents know they're on their way home; and that parents are there to greet them, to open the door, to let them in, and that there's some provision for supervision of those children -- if it means hiring a babysitter or one of the spouses or a single parent coming home to take care of the children.

All they're asking for is some change to this legislation -- that it not be read a second time, that some changes be introduced to ensure that the interests of the children are taken care of.

The member for Nanaimo is laughing and giggling. Perhaps he might want to go back to one of his school board meetings or a PTA meeting and explain this to the parents. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear his comments.

Interjections.

D. Lovick: On a point of order, the member opposite has an uncanny ability to attribute motive and sentiment to members opposite without foundation, and I suggest that is an abuse of the privilege of speech in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair always regrets interrupting debate, but I would remind all hon. members that comments of a personal nature addressed to other members of the House are not proper avenues of debate. I appreciate also that members feel strongly about this issue, but I would ask members who do not have the floor to respect the fact that the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has the floor. I would remind the hon. member who has the floor to address the amendment and to address his comments to the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm trying to address my comments to the Chair. Unfortunately, I'm being interrupted on occasion.

That is a serious issue, though, and I think in all sincerity that the government certainly should be taking a look at the comments of the British Columbia School Trustees' Association and should bring forth provisions to ensure that, at the very least, if a picket line appears around a school at the last moment, once the children are either en route or have arrived and some accommodation has to be made.... There will be amendments made in committee stage; we will certainly bring them forward. I hope that government members will respond to them in the spirit in which they're offered, to ensure that if that scenario arises, there is a provision in the bill to allow for the children to be taken care of and to ensure that everybody operates safely, in order to deal with the concerns of parents. It's an important issue, and I hope that the members opposite will support that amendment when it comes forward.

There are a number of other issues that we need to look at with this bill. One in particular has caused some consternation among a number of members of the business community in this province, and that is the provision for what used to be called technological changes. There were provisions in the labour code that when technological changes were on the horizon, the union and the employer sat down and tried to work out some adjustment plan to ensure that there was retrain-

[ Page 3927 ]

ing; if there were going to be layoffs, perhaps they could be done by attrition or early retirement and benefits could be extended, and perhaps there could be positions found for those employees in other parts of the firm. It was meant to ensure that there was a smooth adjustment, and that there was no unwarranted opposition to technological changes.

I personally believe that any company that wants to do well in British Columbia -- or anywhere -- has to treat their workers properly. Why would someone want to get rid of a valued employee who had been working with the company for some time, when that person could easily be retrained for another position within the firm? They already understand what the company is about; they have a history and a background. I would think that most businesses would choose to do that.

Whether one likes it or not, it was in the labour legislation. The problem, however, is that Bill 84 now takes it one step further. It's no longer just consultation on technological changes; it's consultation on "any matters relating to the workplace." On any matters relating to the workplace, either party -- either the union or the management -- can sit down and say: "I want to start negotiations on this. I want to talk about this. I demand to talk about this." Whether the other party wants to or not, they are forced to get together, share information and do whatever is necessary on whatever that workplace issue may be.

On the surface, one would say that if there were changes in the workplace on the way, an employer -- or the union, for that matter -- would want to engage in some sort of consultation on that. That makes sense, and in fact, I think most would. But to put it into the legislation that the consultation must take place, that it has to take place by law -- any matter on workplace issues that the union wants to have discussed, any matter whatsoever, must come before this committee by law.... Why do we need a law to do that? What is the government trying to force to happen? You make a law to ensure that something happens. Why do you want to force that to happen?

The member for Langley has highlighted a number of times the Premier's summit last spring, where the buzzword that seemed to be flying around there was co-management, or co-determination, and the union representatives wanted to somehow ensure that they had somebody on the strategic planning committee of the corporation to ensure the direction of the company. Well, the fact of the matter is that in this province -- whether it's the best system or not -- the system we use is collective bargaining, which sometimes involves a bit of stress and a bit of tension. In fact, we sometimes go to the point of strikes, and the members opposite have highlighted the fact that sometimes we even go to the point of using replacement workers. It's not always a harmonious feeling or a harmonious relationship between those two. When businesses do strategic planning, they're not just planning for technological changes. There may be strategies to deal with their competitors. There may be proposals for new ways of management and efficiency that they want to bring into the workplace. The reality is that they may be certified and may have a union representing their workers that has direct ties to the competitor. In fact, it could very well be that the same person who is sitting on the strategic planning committee of one company is sitting on the strategic planning committee of the competitor. It's up to the union to decide which representative they send. That doesn't mean that either of those companies aren't willing to discuss issues with their employees; it means that they have certain trade secrets or practices that they do not want to get to their competitors.

The Attorney General has stood up in this House a number of times when we've called for the AirCare contract and said that parts of that contract contain trade secrets that the company does not want to release to the public. As far as I'm concerned, that's a very credible answer. So if the Attorney General sees that, then the members of the government should also see that within a company there may be trade practices, trade secrets, strategic advertising or marketing plans that are negotiated and are going on in the workplace. That's the way our economy works. Remember, it's a competitive market economy -- or at least it was until Bill 84. That means that the two firms are competing, and the last thing they want is to have the same person from the union sitting on their strategic planning board and on their competitor's strategic planning board.

[5:45]

So I can see their opposition. It's not that they don't want to talk about these things; it's that they don't want the government to force them to do it. They don't want the government to say that if the union or the management wants to discuss matters relating to the workplace, they must discuss them: "You must sit down and talk with us about it." There may be some things that the company doesn't want let out. Companies go to extreme lengths, in some cases, to ensure that their trade secrets, their trade practices, are kept under wraps, because it's their competitive edge. They've invested a lot of money in that technology. They've invested a lot of money in the strategic plan. They've invested a lot of money in the marketing plan. And they want to keep all that quiet. They want to keep it from their competitor, because it's something that they're using to advance their business -- and there is nothing wrong with that. I know that might be a bad word opposite, but competitive market economy is not a bad word, hon. Speaker, certainly not on this side.

That is one of the critical issues that we need to look at when we're determining whether or not Bill 84 should be read a second time. I think it should not be read a second time. There's a problem with it. There are lots of problems with it, and we've just highlighted a number of them. I think it's extremely important that those changes be made. If they're not going to be made here in second reading, if the government is not willing to pull this bill for a while, to sit down and fix the problems that exist with it, then I certainly hope that they will support some of the amendments that the Liberal opposition is going to bring forward in committee stage to deal with just that issue of consultation.

Hon. Speaker, Bill 84 has caused a good deal of unrest already. We've seen an example of what it has done with the investment of Jim Pattison's company in relation to the Balmer mine. It excluded them. They 

[ Page 3928 ]

decided that they simply would not engage in the bidding process because they did not feel that the successorship rights that existed in this bill would allow them to negotiate a contract that would make the mine viable. Successorship rights are an important part of Bill 84.

Some of the fundamental laws that govern this country are the laws that govern bankruptcy. When a company or an individual declares bankruptcy, they are then protected from their creditors. They're protected from those people that they have contracts with. A business is no different. When a business goes bankrupt, it is protected from its creditors. It is also -- up until Bill 84 -- protected from the contracts it has signed. It may well be that that company went bankrupt because of lousy management. It may well be that they went bankrupt because of the price of the resource. It may be that the product they were trying to sell dropped due to conditions they had no control over. It may be that their product has just become obsolete and needs upgrading. It may be that they have become inefficient. It could be lots of things. It may also be that the collective agreement the company got into doesn't work; that it binds the company and makes it uncompetitive; that it binds the company and makes it less able to continue to operate and produce a product that will be sold at a reasonable price. That is no good for the employees either. Bad management, commodity prices, the dollar or interest rates dropping or increasing -- all of those things hurt the employees just as much as they hurt the employers. So too does an unworkable collective agreement. If one of the reasons that a company went bankrupt was a collective agreement that didn't keep it efficient and that wasn't suited to the company and its employees, then shouldn't that contract come up for renegotiation? Shouldn't that contract be protective of the corporation, just like the other contracts are? If they had a supply contract, that contract is broken. All of those things are broken, because the company can't fend for itself anymore.

Within 24 hours of this bill being tabled in the House, we had a prime example of one investor in British Columbia who was not going to go through with an investment because of the successorship provisions contained in that bill. That doesn't mean that all the investors in B.C. are gone. It doesn't mean that nobody is ever going to invest in B.C. again. It does mean that at least one isn't.

E. Conroy: What do you do with the pension plans for the workers?

G. Farrell-Collins: We'll be dealing with pensions. Pension legislation is coming in, and we can deal with that when the time comes.

It's no benefit to the employees to have that company go out of business because of poor management or a collective agreement that doesn't work. They want to see the company up, because they want to get back to work and collect their pensions in the end. Those are all important things.

A philosophy seems to be coming forth from the other side. If we've heard it from members opposite once in this House, we've heard it a hundred times -- certainly from the member for Nelson-Creston and a couple of other members. They have this illusion that somehow there's this big box full of money. Businesses and corporations own this big box. They've got all this cash, and they won't give it out. They're greedy. They won't give it to the workers; they're trying to take it from the workers. All you have to do is look at some of the balance sheets in this province and in this country for the last few years to know that there's not a very big box of money out there. The box of money is pretty darned small. Many companies have a red box, not a black box, because they're experiencing red ink and not black ink. There's not some sort of a huge corporate Canada or corporate B.C. out there that's got all this cash they're trying to steal from the workers. It's just not a reality. It doesn't happen. We have to come into the twentieth century and realize that conflict all the time between labour and management is simply not the way to go.

E. Conroy: Let's make the rules even.

G. Farrell-Collins: He says: "Let's make the rules even." The member obviously wasn't here when I was talking about certification and decertification. I assume that when this Liberal caucus puts forth an amendment in committee stage to reinstate the vote for certification, that member will vote in favour of it, because it will be making the legislation fair and even. I'll hold him to that.

An Hon. Member: We've got one now.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, we've got one, and 50 to go.

The concept behind successorship rights isn't that the company wants to suddenly beat down the employees, put them back 20 years into the ground and stomp all over them in order to create a company that's going to work on the backs of the employees. That's not the idea.

If you go in and buy a company, try to get it started up again and infuse capital into it, you want to ensure that it is going to be viable. You want to ensure that the workers are going to continue to be happy. You want to ensure that they're going to be working hard toward the economic success of the business, because that economic success is directly related to their own personal economic success. You would hope that that would happen. If somebody was going to buy a corporation that had gone bankrupt, that person would have to take very serious note of the collective agreement in place. If they could match it at all, you can bet they would try to, because that's the way they're not going to have problems with their workers.

You may have problems with your suppliers because they're out of a deal, or you may have problems with the bankers. You may have problems getting support from some of those other people, but it would sure be nice if you didn't have problems with your employees. That would be the goal of a company coming in. You need the experience of the employees to ensure that that 

[ Page 3929 ]

company is going to continue to be viable. A company taking over a bankrupt firm would want to ensure that the employees were happy, that they would continue to work towards the economic benefit of that company.

If concessions had to be made, you would hope that the company would make them minimal and realistic. You would hope that the employees, in the hopes of keeping their jobs, benefits and pensions, as the member mentions, would want to ensure that they were reasonable. Maybe the last company wasn't successful for a lot of reasons. "Well, let's sit down. Let's look at all those reasons. Let's try and come up with a new arrangement, some new suppliers or some new contracts. Let's try to become more efficient -- some technological changes perhaps, or an infusion of capital to adjust the balance sheet. Let's try and come up with a collective agreement that perhaps has a little more flexibility, that perhaps deals with some of the things that will ensure the company remains competitive." Those are all very critical issues.

Bill 84 has substantial problems, and I've tried to highlight a number of those here today. Other members in the opposition have highlighted some of the other problems. as a matter of fact, even some members in the government benches in their debate have, perhaps unwittingly, highlighted other problems with Bill 84.

Bill 84 is, as some members have said, a good start. Even Ken Georgetti said it was. I think it's a good start for different reasons than he thinks it's a good start. He thinks he can amend it, change it and make it more to labour's liking. I think it's a good start because we've gone part way through the consultative process and now the other half has to come.

There are some good sections in Bill 84. We've named a couple of them and we've talked a little bit about them. I'm not saying the whole thing is a disaster. There are some good points in there. There are a couple of amendments which actually improve the rights of individuals. I don't know that the government tried to do that, but they did it. However, there are a number of changes in Bill 84 that in fact beat down some of those individual rights and ensure that individual rights are certainly not paramount in this piece of legislation, as was highlighted by the purposes section.

Bill 84 fails as far as replacement workers go. It doesn't work. It won't work for British Columbia. It fails as far as successorship rights go. It fails as far as the provisions for joint consultation go -- and co-determination or co-management, as the government has said.... It certainly fails as far as secondary boycotts go. It will not be good for British Columbia at all. It certainly fails as far as certification and decertification go. The rules are simply not fair. It is not balanced, it is not a good piece of legislation, and it should not be read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, given the hour I would like to move adjournment of debate until tomorrow.

Motion negatived on the following division:

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on the amendment, I would call the question on the amendment to Bill 84.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:09 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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