1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 6, No. 8
[ Page 3931 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
The Speaker: I would like to advise the House that there will be a Remembrance Day ceremony in the rotunda this morning at 11 o'clock. With agreement of the House, we will be recessing the House at approximately 10:50 for half an hour to allow members to attend the ceremony.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 84.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
A. Warnke: For the past number of days we on this side of the House essentially tried to issue a warning to the government. We've taken into consideration statements made by the government side. On our side of the House we have issued some reservations on this particular bill. If I may say so, I'd like to extend thanks to the Chair for allowing the tremendous latitude to flush out some of the issues on Bill 84. I know it's a very difficult task for the Chair from time to time. I certainly appreciate it, as I'm sure all members do.
When flushing out the issues, a pattern does emerge. While we now refocus on the principles and philosophy of the bill itself, it would be worthwhile for me to establish at the outset what some of the problems are. As I look at the remarks of the Minister of Labour, I find some interesting ones that need to be further examined. They reflect a premise that the government has embarked on in initiating this particular bill. For example, the Minister of Labour said that we have been engaged in broad consultation with the labour community, the business community and, as the minister has defined them, "neutrals." He went so far in his introductory remarks to state that there is unanimous consent among business, labour and neutrals. Since the introduction of this bill, we have found that that particular statement is highly questionable.
The hon. Minister of Labour has also suggested that there may be some minor quibbles. He said that 98 percent of the items before the House have been agreed to by both business and labour. I don't know how the minister came to such a definitive number. There are 176 clauses. If I take 98 percent of 176, I come up with 172.48 clauses that are acceptable. I don't know how we come up with such a figure as that. That 0.48 especially bothers me, and the fact that we find 0.52 unacceptable. I'd like to know which clause the Minister of Labour is referring to there -- half wrong; half right.
With regard to the fact that under this bill we are supposedly establishing some sort of framework of cooperation and goodwill, the minister made a reference to the analogy of marriage. The analogy is incorrect; it's highly questionable. But a framework of cooperation and goodwill.... When we take a look at some of the statements by members on the government side who have expressed so vociferously the side of labour -- the member for Nelson-Creston did it yesterday, some would say eloquently -- far from a framework of goodwill and cooperation, they indicate that we've got something else presented here.
Regarding the references by a number of members on the question of violence on the picket line and the problem of brute force, this is not looked at in terms of some sort of balance. Balance is a favourite word of the minister, but if the minister takes a look at his own members' statements, I think he would recognize there's no balance here, because the violence over the years, over this century, has certainly been expressed by both sides.
There are little problems like that, but I have also been struck by the tone. We've been accused in the opposition of being naysayers and nitpickers and being on the negative side, and so forth. But I must confess, as I listen to members opposite, that they've also focused primarily on the negative, and not enough on the positive, not enough on where we're going with the relationship between labour and management -- or what I would prefer to call the relationship between employees and employers.
I have not heard of what we need to do to promote good contracts. Interestingly, I find the term "contract" itself is avoided. What we need is how to promote good contracts between employees and employers. People rely on an income. Therefore it is most important to create and foster sound relations between employees and employers. That will be so essential in the century coming. Indeed, we do not have to wait that long. We find ourselves in a very difficult situation, as many people have pointed out. Even members of the government side have pointed out that we're in a global economy, in a very competitive situation with regard to the world. Perhaps that's looking at it too gloomily. The fact is that if we come to terms with the nature of the relationship between employees and employers, we can build on that for the future. We are therefore going a long way toward producing a tremendously profound substructure, which is so essential for the development of our economy.
[10:15]
References have been made -- and I would give members on the government side their due on this -- to the objectionable clauses of Bill 19. We on this side of the House have pointed out some of the objectionable clauses of Bill 84. I would see Bill 19 and Bill 84 as the twin pillars of what is objectionable in terms of the Big Brother labour policy that was advanced by the previous government and now by this government. Surely to further contribute to polarization is not needed. Bill 84 has been expressed as a way to challenge Bill 19. "Here are two conceptions of the world: Bill 19 and Bill 84. Choose either one or the other." You have no option, no other alternative. Surely what we need is not a further contribution to this polarization.
Labour, working people, employees of all categories must be integrated into an industrial social system. No
[ Page 3932 ]
one -- and I've maintained this very strongly over the years -- should remain outside of it.
The great sociologist Emile Durkheim once put it this way earlier this century, and he provides a lot of insight that is still relevant to our age. What is emerging in the twentieth century is a new form of society. Prior to the earlier stages of the industrial age was something that Durkheim described as mechanical solidarity. For those who are not acquainted with the jargon, it simply means that all people in a society engage in the same kinds of activities, and that is what bonds people together. This is the bonding power of tribes -- so-called primitive societies. I don't think they're primitive; they're different forms of society. But they are the essential bonds of what constitutes a tribal society, because everyone is engaged in the same kinds of activities and has the same kinds of belief systems, ideologies and so on.
Durkheim recognized that what we've got in the twentieth century is something entirely different: a division of labour that becomes more expansive as industrialism grows. In our own age industrialism has taken off to the point where we're now engaged in all sorts of high-technology forms of economic and industrial activity. But the principle is the same: the division of labour has increased in our society to a point where each and every individual is doing something quite different from every other individual.
Durkheim Asked: what is the glue that brings people together? It is what he called organic solidarity -- another bit of jargon that I would like to explain very briefly. He believed that what will bring society together is that despite the fact that each and every individual is doing very different things in society, their work is interrelated in such a way that they become interdependent, and that is what bonds people in an advanced industrial society. Maybe it's not advanced, as other societies are not primitive, but it is an industrial society where there is a delineated division of labour, and it is extremely important how we bring people together. So some of the notions of what is needed -- some sort of new class consciousness, and so forth -- have not come to terms with the nature of industrialism in the twentieth century. As a result, what we need to do is focus in on something like what Durkheim called organic solidarity to integrate members of society.
As an aside, it is for this reason that unemployment is a very serious problem. This means that there are people outside the social system, and what is so essential, in my view, is to bring people together in the social system. That's what makes the social system work.
Similarly, as I look at this and at any kind of legislation dealing with labour-management relations, I think it is so important to focus on how people must be integrated -- not polarized and confronting one another, not polarized to the point that they're in a perpetual state of chronic conflict. We in British Columbia do have a stigma attached to us, whether members opposite recognize it or not. They had better recognize it, because we have an impression that we are in a constant state of confrontation and conflict. To begin with, it is unnecessary, and for the purposes of moving on in an advanced industrial and technological age it is extremely important to focus on how people become integrated and work together, rather than being at loggerheads with one another.
Truly, then, what we must do....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: It's interesting that when we get on to matters of philosophy, some government members just cannot respond. They cannot handle some conceptual problems, and underlying that, I find it interesting, when they cannot comprehend conceptually....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Hon. members are aware that there is to be no debate across the floor. I would ask the hon. member to address his comments to the Chair.
A. Warnke: I think that is a very fair warning to all members of this House.
Therefore, instead of identifying problems as they occur and merely reacting to them with this kind of premise of polarization -- and that is something for all members to recognize -- what we must do to avoid conflict, not reinforce it, is move ahead in such a way that we anticipate identifying the problems concerning industrial and personnel relations in an industrial system. I find that some of the premises of the government side are to accept conflict and to reinforce that kind of polarized perspective of society.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: When I am accused, as I was just a moment ago, of being an Alice in Wonderland, I would like to remind the House that we in the opposition have often been accused of being nitpickers and naysayers. All of a sudden, when the opposition wants to assert a positive and constructive view of this planet and this country, guess who are the nitpickers and naysayers? I think that reveals a lot of where the government is coming from on this question.
But to get away from Alice in Wonderland, as some people would put it, let's take a look at some concrete examples. A couple of members have even mentioned the great examples of Germany and Japan, and they are good examples indeed. One critical reason why Germany is doing so well in the industrial and technological business and one reason why Japan is doing especially well in the industrial and technological spheres is that they have recognized that employees who work for major industrial and technological firms have to be integrated into society, the social system and the economy. That is the reason why Germany, and especially Japan, are doing so well. If anyone says -- and I think one member did -- that Japan is a good example of the kind of labour legislation that's being brought forward, they do not understand the Japanese social structure. The Japanese social structure has nothing that resembles the social structure -- and the premises underlying it -- of what we see in British
[ Page 3933 ]
Columbia, Canada and, indeed, North America. And that is the problem. Japanese workers, if you want to use that term -- Japanese industrial employees -- are very well integrated into the social system, much along the lines of what the sociologist Emile Durkheim put forward. If there is a problem with the philosophical conceptualization of what I'm talking about, then I would invite members on the government side to take a good, close look at what is happening in Japan. I think they cannot help but come to the same conclusion as I have posited in the last few minutes.
When we talk about disputes and that sort of thing, it has been said that we have to go back in our history just a few years. I have to comment on the argument put forward that Liberals underneath it all are sort of misguided Labourites. I believe it was the member for North Coast who posed the argument that just a few years ago there was something called Liberal-Labour, or Labour-Liberals. Indeed, the hon. member is right. I have problems with "just a few years ago," because just a few years ago was 1903, when in fact the relationship between Liberal and Labour was terminated. Hon. Speaker, just because some of the 17 of us are seen as new kids on the block, it should not also be seen that we know nothing about history. It doesn't mean that British Columbia Liberals have no memories; sometimes when an old grudge is resurrected, we have long memories.
I would like to point this out for the information of members, since an argument that has been used is that Liberals should automatically support this bill simply because labour representatives have put it forward. Just for the members' benefit, even one of the original supporters of labour in this province, J.H. Hawthornthwaite, came to the conclusion in 1902, when Liberal and Labour were together, that the party should be split. The reason for it -- and this may even get some support on that side of the House -- was that Liberal and Labour parties are distinct. He suggested that they are distinct and separate in every principle and in every method. I think some members would agree with that. Hawthornthwaite pointed out that the Liberal Party did not believe in class legislation. Interestingly enough, that person from the turn of the century had more insight than some of the members now present. Indeed, Hawthornthwaite, by pointing out the divergences and differences between the Liberal and Labour parties, led to the split in the Nanaimo Labour Party. I'm sure the member for Nanaimo is very well acquainted with that.
[10:30]
The president of the Liberal Labour Party at the turn of the century was Dr. McKenzie. He pushed forward a motion, which finally passed, keeping the Liberals from supporting any Labour candidate. That was the split that was encouraged then. So for the record, I thought I'd point at that.
D. Lovick: So much for Liberal-Labour solidarity.
A. Warnke: Indeed the member for Nanaimo quite correctly says: "So much for Liberal-Labour solidarity." I commend the member for that, because I wish he could tell the member for North Coast something about his own party's history. What has maybe dominated as a form of ideology of labour in this province is something called "syndicalism"; only the trade union can represent the workers. We also know that in the ideology of syndicalism the general strike is the ultimate weapon of syndicalists. That's fine, except once you start with those kinds of assumptions, it's no small wonder that we can be plagued by a high frequency rate of strikes and, indeed, violence, because violence is part of that particular philosophy as well. So strikes and violence plague labour relations. I would suggest that while fingers can be pointed to certain employers over the course of this century, it's also quite fair to say that fingers can be pointed in the other direction, to those who in fact advocate some form of syndicalist philosophy.
I'm not the designated speaker but I have much to say; however, we are running out of time, and in accordance with the rules I do want to make some conclusions, some summary remarks.
As I see it, the particular problem we have with this particular legislation is that there are a number of objections being raised. Certainly the inability to have workers make their selections known through a free and secret ballot is one that we have objections to. Indeed a recent article published in the Vancouver Sun suggests that the secret ballot is undemocratic, first of all. I haven't got the time to go into detail, but it was not persuasive, that's for sure. Secondly, I'm really surprised at the premise that a secret ballot is somehow undemocratic. In short, on that particular point I would really plead with all members to reexamine that premise, because not only is it fallacious but in certain situations, aside from labour perhaps, but if it's accepted beyond that, it's actually quite dangerous. It's one that philosophically many members must oppose.
In terms of whom it benefits, I don't think there is any question about that. There seems to be a consensus contrary to what the Minister of Labour was stating. There seems to be a consensus that in fact this particular legislation does benefit one segment of the society not only more than another but perhaps at the expense of another. So that has to be reexamined. I think we also have to recognize that this particular legislation in toto, put together, is designed to increase the membership of organized labour in British Columbia. It's designed to recruit new members from those areas of society where we are non-unionized. I also think that this particular legislation increases the ability to enhance the closed shop, to establish greater power for the closed shop. It increases the ability of government contracts to go almost exclusively to union membership.
I recognize that not everything in government -- I'm sure government members have recognized this too -- can exhaustively be handled by unions or by firms employing unions. A few crumbs will be left over for small contractors at best. But aside from that, government contracts will go almost exclusively to union membership -- maybe I'll use the number 98 percent; I think it would be higher -- and it would mean that government jobs would go almost exclusively to union members. Contracts would go to firms having only union employees. It means that in British Columbia any
[ Page 3934 ]
big construction project or whatever would prohibit everyone except those who are affiliated with a union, and that government and firms must hire from unions and union dispatchers.
By the way, when we talk about union dispatchers -- this is an aside -- it doesn't mean that it always has to be the next person in line. In this context -- everyone has had the experience, I am sure -- dispatchers can wriggle around that. They can hire their own friends, and we know that from personal experience. But I digress.
The key is that an individual in our society can gain employment on any big project like that only through the union shop. I think this is a cause for serious concern. Is this objective? Does this mean that the government party doesn't have an interest?
You bet that the government party has an interest here. We have noted in the last couple of decades and in recent years with the growth of our industrial society and the technological age, that there is clearly a general trend of decline in union membership, which could only adversely affect the New Democratic Party in terms of finances and personnel support.
So it would seem, prima facie, that when we take a look at any kind of legislation that forces and artificially afflicts people to become involved in union membership -- maybe they don't want to, but they're forced to -- we cannot but help draw the conclusion that even the government party benefits significantly from this kind of legislation.
In that context, this is another warning to the government party that the bill can be perceived -- maybe it's real, but at least it is perceived by the public -- as nothing but a payoff to union friends and financial supporters of that party. The NDP, it seems, is quite willing to get political. It may be good for the NDP, but at the same time I have to say shame on that government for introducing such legislation.
N. Lortie: I am pleased to rise and speak in favour of this fair and equitable legislation that will return balance to labour relations in British Columbia.
Much has been said from all sides of the House about this legislation. Much of it has been pure rhetoric, and much of it has been genuine feeling from the heart. I don't plan to go through clause by clause at this point and discuss the whole legislation, but I would like to discuss it from the perspective of management.
Before October 17, when all our lives changed, I was in management in a large corporation. I was a division manager for British Columbia in a worldwide corporation engaged in the manufacture and sales of food product. From that perspective, I would like to address this legislation.
I read the legislation with my manager's hat on. I read it clause by clause, and I find no provisions that I disagree with. I find no provisions that would prevent me as a manager from carrying on my functions and running a profitable business. Some people may say, "Yes, but that's a large corporation," so I want to focus on exactly what kind of corporation I was formerly involved with and how it was run.
Within that corporation were many profit centres. A profit centre in a corporation is like a business within a business. In effect, you are judged on how you perform within that profit centre, and I was very involved with and very focused on the bottom line. The bottom line, as members opposite have pointed out, is something that they think members on this side do not understand. In my former job I took off a profit-and-loss statement every week and had to report to head office on the performance of my group. So I understand the bottom line. And going through this legislation clause by clause, I could see nowhere anything that would prevent me or hinder the bottom line.
The secondary boycott provisions that have given trouble to many people in the House -- and they've spoken very long and eloquently on it -- are not mandatory. It's something that has to be negotiated by management and the workforce. Typically such an agreement confirms that the employees will not handle or use a product from a supplier that is on strike. I think that is something most businesses can and should be able to live with.
Employers will have the right to communicate with their employees about any statement of fact or reasonably held opinion with respect to their business. Nothing in this code deprives a person of their freedom of speech. That has been said over and over again by those across the floor who are criticizing this bill. That's just not true. The code recognized that sound industrial relations depend on good communications between employees and employers. Employers can expect a quick resolution of any unfair labour complaints, and I think that is a plus in this one.
The use of replacement workers section is something that I think is long overdue. The industry that I was involved in has had a few strikes. One that I can remember in a packing company in Alberta was very violent. I have personal knowledge of this, not just because I was in that same industry but because my son worked on the production floor in that company. When this company went on strike -- it's Swift-Gainer's in Alberta -- I think a lot of us will remember them trying to bus replacement workers over the picket line, with violence and injuries but, thank goodness, no death. That kind of confrontational attitude does not serve management. I know from personal experience that those wounds have still not healed in that company. There is still animosity between workers who stayed out on the picket line and those who crossed the picket line and tried to work. That hatred and animosity after three or four years is still there, and that is not a positive thing for any company. If this labour legislation does anything, it contributes to peace and order in our society, and I think that from management side and from the workers' side, that's good. It's good and it's positive.
So I must conclude that the opposition is opposing this labour legislation, this fair and just labour legislation, for the sole purpose of opposing it. It's opposition for the sake of opposition. I believe that if this government had been on the No side in the unity debate, they would have all been on the Yes side. They are on this side; we're on that side. If this government
[ Page 3935 ]
would bring in, say, the Ten Commandments as legislation, they'd stand up one after another opposing it as some conspiracy. I think that opposition for opposition's sake is not a positive thing in this chamber.
[10:45]
This is not a liberal attitude. They call themselves the Liberal Party of British Columbia. And they accused us of having the wrong name. Well, I want to accuse them. They might have to change their name. Liberal is defined in the dictionary as "being inclined towards opinions and policies that favour progress and reform." Well, this is a progressive bill that attempts very clearly to reform the labour code. We have an opposition that should change their name to Conservative, because they have a conservative attitude. They resist change; they resist progress. Instead of criticizing the government and suggesting that our name may not be as close to.... This is a democratic party, and this is a democratic piece of legislation that improves. The Liberal Party across the floor should get together in a caucus and decide what kind of a party they are. If they can support this legislation, and they have a liberal attitude, then I have no qualms with them calling themselves Liberals, but they are not liberal in this House.
Madam Speaker, seeing the time and knowing that we have an agreement that we should honour our veterans in the rotunda in two minutes, I would move that we recess. I would hope that I would be able to come back and finish off this discussion.
The Speaker: The motion before us at this time is that we adjourn the debate until later today.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: As the hon. member has mentioned, and as I mentioned earlier, there will be a Remembrance Day ceremony in the rotunda just outside the chamber. Therefore the House will stand recessed for one-half hour to reconvene at 11:20 a.m.
The House recessed at 10:47 a.m.
The House resumed at 11:27 a.m.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 84
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
N. Lortie: I am very happy to resume debate and give my support for this labour code and the amendments that I believe will improve it.
I must comment on the short adjournment for a beautiful ceremony in the rotunda to honour the people who fought, in two world wars and in the many wars in between, before and after, for the freedom that this Legislature represents and the freedom that we all have in our society. I think it gives us a few moments to ponder. Sometimes we think that this labour bill is so important, that it's life and death, but when we think about the historical perspective, this is really only a small thing, and our differences are very small compared to the sacrifices that were made by all those people fighting for democracy. I was happy -- and I'm sure all members were -- to attend that beautiful ceremony.
In talking from a management perspective, I was telling members that there was very little in this bill that management should be concerned about. With my manager's hat on from my former life as a division manager, I went through the bill, and there was very little that gave me any concern. There is nothing in this bill that would preclude a person from running his business and from making a living, making a dollar, which is the bottom line of any business. There's nothing in this bill that prevents a manager from managing his own business. That was from the perspective of a unionized firm that I managed.
Then I came to think that there is apparently a lot of concern -- and I believe misguided concern -- from a sector represented by some members of this Legislature on the opposition side, the non-unionized sector. Their concern is that this bill would somehow affect their business because of the way it's designed to ease the way for members of their company to collectively decide to join a union.
[11:30]
I would like to point out that having a unionized workforce in any business is not something that's detrimental to the business. It can, and in many cases it does, present a positive way to manage your business. Instead of negotiating on a one-to-one basis with every employee, it gives you a mechanism to negotiate with the body of people who work in your organization. I think that streamlines the process and makes it fairer, because it doesn't pit one person against the other. It sets out negotiated rules that your employees feel are fair to them, and they more readily agree to abide by those rules -- rules of conduct in the workplace and rules on how that work is to be done and who is to do it.
It frees up the management of any firm to get on with the basic business, which is to either buy or sell or perform a service to make money in order to pay all those bills. Your labour force is only one of the costs of doing business. So I think it's positive for non-union firms to consider having their employees represented by a union and to collectively bargain with their employees for the positive good of the business. The unions understand that without a business, there are no jobs.
We're not living in the 1920s, when it was some kind of revolutionary organization. There are responsible people representing their union membership, and it's in the best interests of the union membership to have a viable company to work for. I think most of the union executive and members understand that.
I've heard this term "union bosses" many times from the opposition benches, which really irritates me. Well, I'll tell you that those are union employees you're talking about, and most of them I know are servants to their membership. So instead of saying "big union bosses...." It's a pejorative term, and this doesn't exist today. People who are presidents of unions, union organizers and shop stewards are servants of the
[ Page 3936 ]
membership of the union. I think that it is the responsibility of the membership in a democratic union organization to direct and control their executive, just as it is in any other organization.
Before our short interruption, I talked about the Liberal attitude in this Legislature. I hope that they sit down and think about being supportive of some of the legislation of this government. If they must be an opposition, they don't have to be negative. They are titled the "loyal opposition" in this chamber, and they have a responsibility to be positive to some degree. I would hope that rather than changing their name from Liberal to Conservative, they would change their attitude and live up to their name.
In conclusion, Bill 84 goes a long way to end the Vander Zalm era of confrontation caused by Bill 19 by restoring fairness and balance to the labour climate in British Columbia. For that reason alone we should be able to support it. It provides a modern approach for a successful economy and a mutual respect between employers and employees. It provides an important foundation, along with other joint government, labour and business initiatives, to build the prosperity of British Columbia.
L. Reid: It's my delight this morning to respond to second reading on Bill 84, because there are a number of themes that the official opposition continues to bring forward. The most important theme, I think, is labour peace in this province.
We are looking for balanced legislation, and we truly believe that Bill 84, with amendment, could provide some guidance to future labour negotiations in this province. As it stands today we are not convinced that Bill 84 will meet the needs of future labour peace in this province. It is a significant issue, because British Columbia has certainly not had the greatest track record in terms of labour negotiation and providing fairness and balance to ongoing negotiation.
We're truly committed to some kind of economic development strategy, because we believe that it goes hand in hand with strong labour legislation. We do not believe that Bill 84 promotes strong economic stability. We're not convinced that this is the direction this province wishes to go. We are looking adamantly towards fairness in labour legislation, and we truly hope that discussions going on in this chamber over the next number of weeks will render a document that is fair to both sides and fair to British Columbians.
At the end of the day, labour legislation is about meeting the needs of working people in British Columbia. It should be able to do that without removing potential investment from this province and without contributing to ongoing unrest in the labour movement in this province. It's a definite issue for the Liberal opposition, and it's one that I want to address in tremendous detail this morning, because we believe very strongly that it needs to be addressed.
We believe that despite the wishes of the labour leaders to the contrary, the labour code must be an economic document. I referred to that this morning and I stand behind that. We were dismayed to discover that the reference to strong economic climate was removed from Bill 84. It was not reflected in Bill 84; it's not the driving force behind this piece of labour legislation. That continues to be a huge concern to us.
We truly support the notion that labour must work in concert with some kind of economic strategy. You will know that many members of the official opposition have spoken in this chamber over time about the lack of a strong economic platform from this government. We are not comforted by Bill 84, because we still do not see a strong economic platform. We are not talking about creating jobs under Bill 84. It does not reflect on that. It talks about maintaining the status quo. We had the Premier suggest that it was a balanced document, and that it was somehow modern legislation. Everyone who has picked up Bill 84 knows that that is not true and knows that when you carry some 159 sections forward from the old Labour Code, it is not a modern document.
It is not something that is going to prepare us to head into the next century. Frankly, I am not convinced that it's going to allow us to proceed into the next decade. Often New Democratic members have suggested that somehow it's foolish for the official opposition to request a plan, some kind of building block for the future. We stand behind a long-range plan for this province. We think labour legislation must contribute to some understanding of a plan. We believe that to be very important. We do not see that in today's legislation or in the debate that we have had in this House. Both sides of the House must, at the end of the day, believe that the whole purpose of labour legislation is to create jobs. We're not convinced that that is truly happening.
We need a document that's going to determine and define the relationship between labour and business. We must realize that if international investors search for countries in which to invest, the possibility of labour strife -- or lack thereof -- as well as the costs of labour and productivity are all determining factors in the decision. That's a huge question. We may see Bill 84 proclaimed at some point, but if it has a negative impact on future investment, if it does not allow agencies to attract business and investment, then we will have done nothing in terms of creating a positive work environment or a positive labour climate. That should be our goal.
The official opposition does not believe that Bill 84 realizes that objective in any way. There are strong economic considerations, and that is the platform you will see the official opposition speaking on in response to Bill 84. The folks who are not supporting Bill 84 this time truly believe that that is the basis for any piece of labour legislation. That is the basis on which we must all proceed.
I do not believe that it's important for any of us to pit one side against the other, because at the end of the day we've not resolved anything; we have not contributed any positive vehicle toward solving labour disputes in this province. That's a huge issue for us because, again, we see Bill 84 as dividing people rather than bringing them together. We see a division between labour and management as opposed to working in concert with the objective and the long-range goal at the end of the day being a stable economic climate.
[ Page 3937 ]
There's a new economic environment that we're going to need to face into the next decade and certainly into the next century. Bill 84 does not respond to the information age, it does not respond to technological advancement, and it certainly does not respond to the very necessary research that must happen in this province for us to continue to at least be a major player. We are not on the leading edge in British Columbia in terms of research, in terms of creating technological advances. We've done some fabulous things in this province. We need a piece of legislation that's going to enhance the direction that we have begun to take. I don't believe Bill 84 would advance that direction at all.
I see Bill 84 as continuing to be divisive and continuing to suggest that labour-management issues should continue to take precedence over economic stability. A Liberal opposition stands for balance, stands for fairness, stands for individual rights and opportunities. We do not believe Bill 84 to be democratic in respect of individual rights and freedoms. We do not believe that you can have a document that is fundamentally undemocratic and hold it up as something that's going to change the direction of labour in this province for the better. I see it as the document that's going to continue to entrench a number of very unsatisfactory behaviours that we have seen in this province over time.
Certainly the Minister of Labour sees this legislation as being somehow helpful and productive because it will allow the issue of replacement workers to be dealt with. I can suggest very strongly that the position of this government is to somehow justify individuals taking up baseball bats on picket lines because they do not believe that the necessary and reasonable recourse is to the court system in this province; and by removing the right of individual businesses to have replacement workers, it somehow justifies that kind of behaviour on the picket line. Nothing could be further from the minds of the Liberal opposition. We have expectations for members of society, as citizens, as voters, as residents of this province and of this country. It is not appropriate to suggest that this behaviour is somehow reasonable because of labour unrest. This behaviour is never reasonable. It's that same attitude, that same tolerance for that kind of behaviour, that contributes to violence against women and contributes to other major issues that we as a society have not resolved. You don't change labour practices to avoid violence. You ensure that your justice system does that for you. That is the system we are prepared to stand behind as members of the official opposition.
There are a number of issues I want to touch on today. Certainly the recurring theme through the debate on Bill 84 has been the lack of consultation. I truly believe, as the Women's Equality critic, that this bill did not receive reasonable input from women in this province, and I have touched on this issue before in the House. In terms of small and mid-sized business in this province, it's typically manned, funded and operated by women. To somehow suggest that we are going to make that a more difficult enterprise does not make sense. We have to stand behind consulting more openly with women. We truly believe that they have tremendous impact on the future of this province, and the statistics will show that they are the largest employer in British Columbia. To be clear, it is small and mid-sized businesses that are continuing to employ people at an increasing rate, as opposed to large businesses in this province.
Our point is that this bill does not well serve the interests of small or mid-sized business. I think the long-range goal has to be explored in more detail. If these smaller businesses are shut down as a result of not being able to be competitive in British Columbia, we are simply shifting an outlay of cash to the unemployment line -- and that cannot be a direction that this government wishes to pursue. Yet that is an eventual outcome of not having a strong economic platform in place. That is an issue for us, and it is an issue that brings us back to debate in this House every single day, because for us, anything that happens happens because people are prepared to work together.
[11:45]
It's possible to foster some kind of competitive aspect at the same time as you're having some sense of compromise and conciliation. Compromise is a reasonable dispute resolution mechanism. We need to see some parameters happening in dispute resolution in British Columbia, in the sense that it's more important to bring the parties together with some kind of vehicle in place or some kind of parameter, as opposed to this piece of legislation, which we firmly believe pits one group against another. It's not a decision we're comfortable with; it's not a piece of legislation we're comfortable with. To quote directly from Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code of British Columbia, in its initial stated purpose that I'll take issue with this morning, it says: "To encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees." Somewhere in the beginning section of a labour relations code, it should be mentioned that the purpose of a code is to create a stable economic environment. If we do not have that, I don't think people are going to be working in the province over time, and I don't think that's a condition we wish to be predisposed to.
We have had an ongoing discussion in this House on what we see as a lack of an economic plan in this province, and we're not convinced. The questions I would pose in today's debate are: what is the effect of this legislation on other jurisdictions, and how will it impact on business? We are told that things will be fine and will settle into some kind of routine after the fact. I don't think that's an appropriate response to the fact that this will have a very significant impact on individual livelihoods in the province and on the ability of people to do business in and attract business to British Columbia. We have a significant problem with global investment. We're not attracting it at the same rate that we were a year or two ago. We need to commit to potential investors that we are going to make this a welcoming place to do business in and that we are prepared to offer them something stable. At the end of the day, new business and investment are looking for stability in the labour market and a stable economic environment.
[ Page 3938 ]
We need some sense that this government is truly interested in how British Columbia is going to generate revenue. The discussion that takes up the majority of time in this House is on the deficit. I don't see Bill 84 having a positive impact on reducing the deficit. That question has to be continually raised around this province in different labour group and management discussions by people who are concerned about the future of this province. They must consider the overall economic impact.
On increasing employment opportunities, the question again is: will Bill 84 contribute to that in a positive way or in a negative way? I believe that a sense of business direction from this government has been lacking, and that sentiment has been shared by a number of my colleagues on the official opposition benches. We need some commitment to an economic climate in this province, and we have not seen that reflected in the past year.
My opposition to this bill is not based on an opinion on labour or an opinion on management; it's based on the fact that there's a tremendous lack of vision in Bill 84. There is no long-term plan for where we want to go as contributors to this society. Frankly, for voters and residents, what's missing from this government -- and we have stated that over time -- and particularly from Bill 84 is a vision. Nowhere does it suggest any particular vision for the province of British Columbia. That is an issue for me and for the Liberal opposition, and it must be an issue for British Columbians, because they are now keying in to the fact that they don't know where they're going to be under Bill 84 one year, five years or ten years from now. That's a significant issue for members of the opposition. Frankly, Liberals are planners. We're interested in a dynamic that's going to attract business to this province and that's going to ensure that people have some understanding of where this province wants to go over time. I don't see it reflected here. I have not heard it spoken about or espoused by those in the government benches.
I believe that Bill 84 is an attempt to reduce the outlook in this province by saying that it's all contained in this document. I don't believe that is the case. This document is a very narrow look at where we wish to go in terms of creating a stable economic climate. We want to see a vision. We're hoping this bill can be amended significantly, because it must reflect a vision for an economic climate in this province that welcomes business and investors and that continues to provide British Columbians with some kind of stability for their livelihood. This does not.
This is not a people bill. It does not respond to the individual needs of British Columbians. This is offensive to us as Liberals, who stand for individual rights, opportunities and freedoms. A piece of labour legislation should be so significant in terms of how it meets the needs of individual British Columbians that it should be something they can hold up and be proud of. It does not fall into that ballpark. It's not something that people feel committed about in terms of their ongoing future, the future of their children and grandchildren.
I do not take issue with the fact that new labour legislation should present some enticing and exciting prospects and that it should generate some enthusiasm in British Columbia -- in any province in which new labour legislation is brought forward. We have certainly not seen that in Ontario, and I don't believe we're seeing overwhelming enthusiasm for this document in British Columbia. It is not something that people look upon as being of assistance to their families, their working life or their sense of where they want to go as British Columbians. It's sadly lacking as a result of that. It's flawed because it's not a democratic document, but it's also not a visionary document. That, to me, is the most offensive part of Bill 84. It needs to respond to what people wish for the province over the next number of years. It simply does not do that.
If I might make reference to a number of points that directly impact on women, as covered in Bill 84.... Most small business women are in the retail and service sectors in the province, and undoubtedly these areas would have been crippled by sectoral certification. We can thank the government in this respect, for not granting that concession; but because the legislation allows for secondary boycotts, the government will be able to force unionization through the back door. It's not a visionary document; it's not about bringing people together. Because the legislation allows unions to stipulate that the employer cannot do business with any non-union company, small retailers may be forced to unionize, or they may have nothing to sell.
I'm also deeply concerned that the legislation denies employees the opportunity to vote in a secret ballot on whether they choose to unionize. That is another example of where this piece of legislation is not democratic. It's not solely a women's issue. I think that over time society at large has been able to marginalize women's issues by saying that they impact only on women. This issue is a human rights issue. The ability to exercise a franchise is a human rights issue. It's particularly repugnant to women that they are often the group that is marginalized. But it's interesting for me today, because this Bill 84 should stand for human rights across the board. It should present a balanced view, and I'm not convinced that it does.
The secret ballot is a cherished part of our democratic system. To take it away, to remove any opportunity for employees to vote on an issue that could affect their livelihood is offensive. The secret ballot is on the basis of a healthy collective bargaining relationship. Contrary to the government's argument that it will reduce intimidation, I contend that intimidation and coercion are likely to increase. The secret ballot was introduced in Canada as a means to combat vote-buying, corruption and coercion. It still serves that purpose. People are people, whether they are employers or fellow employees. It's unfortunate, but either could be prone to using unfair or unethical means to promote their views. It is an affront to assume that one group is necessarily more ethical than the other.
We on the opposition benches have a profound concern about this bill's implications for women. I have spoken on two separate occasions on my concerns. Owning and operating a small business is an opportunity that more and more women are taking up. No one has disputed that in any way, shape or form. That is a
[ Page 3939 ]
reality. That is one inroad for women in order to participate in the economic climate of this province. We should encourage this trend, because I believe that our society needs more female role models and must break down the traditional view that women are good workers but bad managers. This bill, by making small business an even riskier enterprise, will do nothing to encourage these changes.
I make that point because my overall point about Bill 84 is that it lacks vision. If we are somehow going to reduce the entrepreneurial flair that women are going to bring to business, we are doing nothing for their vision of where they might like to see their province go over time. That is a significant issue.
Noting the hour, I would adjourn debate until the next sitting of this House.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Blencoe moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada