Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1992

Volume 6, No. 9

[ Page 3941 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

L. Fox: It's my pleasure on behalf of our leader and the member for Peace River South as well as the member for Peace River North to welcome to the House this afternoon a delegation from the Peace River Drought Committee, a delegation that is here in hopes that they can gain the ear of the Premier and respective cabinet ministers to recognize the very serious situation of the agricultural industry in the Peace River. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Ged Dodsworth to the chamber today. Thank you very much for joining us.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have some visitors in the gallery today from Athens, Ohio: Robert Toy, Gerry Elgin and John Withers. I'd ask the House to join with me in welcoming them to B.C.

Introduction of Bills

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair would like to take the opportunity under "Introduction of Bills" to say that in reviewing Hansard, the Chair has noted that hon. members may be straying beyond the provisions of practice recommendation 5, allowing for two-minute statements at the introduction and first reading stage of bills. Hon. members are reminded that these statements should be confined to the purpose of the bill, and not enter into debate. So I would just like to urge hon. members, in preparing their two-minute statements, to review the provisions of practice recommendation 5.

Oral Questions

AIRLINE MERGER EFFECT ON JOBS

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The question of the Canadian Airlines merger and the saving of thousands of British Columbia jobs is now at a critical stage. Given the statements today by federal Transport minister Jean Corbeil, can you tell us please what leadership you are taking on this, what action and pressure you are placing on the federal government to have them honour a commitment that they made to save these jobs?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The leader of the opposition has pointed out that there has been no commitment by the federal government whatsoever to help mitigate the changes that will happen in any event in the airline industry in this country. The ravages of privatization and deregulation are very clearly coming home to roost and are affecting the industry, both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines.

As you heard from the Minister of Finance yesterday, this government is actively involved with two goals in mind: to protect as many jobs as possible in British Columbia and to help the Canadian air industry restructure itself through the difficult economic times that they are facing because of federal policies that have now brought the consequences home to roost here in British Columbia.

G. Wilson: This is clearly not a partisan issue. I wonder if the Premier might tell us, in light of the question that is now before many workers in British Columbia with respect to their jobs because of the federal Transport minister's statement, what specific action is he undertaking to make this province a leader in the protection of jobs in order to protect against the adverse effects that the federal policy is taking? Can you tell us specifically what action this government is taking to assist in the protection of those B.C. jobs?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the federal government has abdicated its responsibility. Our provincial government hasn't. From the beginning we have said that we are prepared to work alongside the employees at Canadian Airlines and the PWA directors and board. To that end we committed $20 million many weeks ago to be part of that effort to restructure Canadian Airlines. We said that when we saw some hard practical questions answered so that more public money is not put forward and is at risk.... That's a very real judgment call. We're not going to jeopardize the hard-earned tax dollars of the people of British Columbia without assurances that the airline is going to be viable, that American Airlines is still at the table, that the Gemini system contract can be resolved, that Canadian Airlines' employees can put their part of the financing together. There are a number of issues that we are looking at with the sort of scrutiny that the people would like to see this government look at them when there are British Columbia tax dollars at risk.

G. Wilson: I'm sure the Premier would agree that the workers who are about to lose their jobs, who work for Canadian in Richmond, Delta and other areas, are also British Columbia taxpayers, and they deserve some assistance from the province of British Columbia. Can the Premier tell us whether or not he has been in contact with his federal counterparts today to see if he can assist in the decision that will be taken at a cabinet meeting later today with respect to this question? Has the Premier even contacted Ottawa today?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, our government has been in touch with not only federal officials but also Canadian Airlines and their employees. We intend to take care of the interests of the people of British Columbia, even though the federal government's policies on privatization and deregulation have led both airlines to be swimming in a sea of red ink and have caused them both to put out incentive fares that have brought them even further into debt. We face a situation whereby we have Air Canada teaming up with United, Canadian Airlines teaming up with American and a possibility down the line that we could have both airlines run from the United States.

[ Page 3942 ]

DOCTORS' DISPUTE

J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday in this House the Minister of Health said she was surprised that the opposition would be questioning her on something to do with the doctors' dispute, because that would inflame the health care issue. Well, the person who is inflaming that issue is NDP MP Ray Skelly. What steps has this minister taken to get him to stop harassing patients on the Sunshine Coast?

[2:15]

Hon. E. Cull: I think it's very important that we maintain a very level debate on this issue, because it is one that is easily inflamed. It's inflamed by many actions that are taking place. I haven't heard anyone over there speak out against some of the inflaming that is happening on the part of a very small number of doctors in the Nanaimo area who have been talking about not taking other patients or referring patients. They are singling out just one part of this. What's very important is that we try to tone down the level on this. What are we doing specifically to deal with this? As I said, we are meeting; we are discussing. I am dealing directly with the president of the B.C. Medical Association on the matter.

J. Tyabji: Again to the Minister of Health, I want to quote from Mr. Ray Skelly, who said: "Only the B.C. doctors have gone crazy. All others are working with their provincial governments" -- to try and save medicare. Will this minister confirm that Mr. Skelly is fronting for a society that has approached her ministry for a $5 million grant plus seed capital to start up new health clinics on the Sunshine Coast?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't have any information about whether a society on the Sunshine Coast has yet put in an application to the ministry. If they have indeed put in or are contemplating putting in an application, they would be one of many communities in this province that are doing the same thing.

JUDGMENT OF MINISTER
OF CONSUMER SERVICES

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier and is yet another example of the poor judgment of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services regarding another case that came before this House. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote: "...with respect to this action against a company that, it would appear on the surface, has engaged in a less than desirable consumer practice in British Columbia." Why is it that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services doesn't even give businesses the benefit of the doubt in this province anymore? He's convicting people in the Legislature. We've had the minister not once, not twice, not three times, but four times exhibit extremely poor judgment. When will the Premier finally take some action and ensure that the minister is doing his job the way he should be doing it and not convicting people in the Legislature before they've had a chance before the courts?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We have all grown a lot wiser about the difficult balance that we have to strike in instances where criminal proceedings and the protection of consumers are involved. We all know the boundaries of those much more clearly. We have to preserve the right of an innocent person to a fair trial, yet at the same time we -- particularly the Minister of Consumer Affairs -- have a responsibility to make sure that consumers are warned. The principle is caveat emptor: let the buyer beware. We have a duty to let people be aware of citizens in British Columbia who are taking advantage of other citizens.

I think the minister would be more than prepared to answer a specific question. We had a general question from the hon. member that's more of a harangue than a question. If he has a specific question, ask it.

LABOUR LAW CHANGES

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Premier said that he won't make backroom deals with B.C. business leaders regarding Bill 84, but the Labour minister blames the same individuals for breaking a backroom deal that he had negotiated with them. In the interest of open government, will the minister agree to table the correspondence that he had with business and labour leaders in the four months prior to the introduction of Bill 84?

Hon. M. Sihota: With respect to the question about tabling the correspondence, there has been a volume of correspondence with business and labour on a lot of issues, and obviously some of it emanates from business and some of it from the ministry. I don't think it would be proper to release any information that business would consider to be confidential or in the development of public policy.

However, in the spirit of openness, given the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the desire of government to be open about the ongoing discussions, I would not be hesitant to consider the possibility of either amplifying on some of the discussions that took place with business and labour or discussing with the parties involved, in order to give the House a better understanding of some of the considerations that went into developing the labour legislation.

L. Hanson: I'd have to interpret that as an absolutely positive maybe. The minister has alleged that he was double-crossed by business leaders who have not honoured their commitment to him about the proposed labour law. Can he confirm that there were two sets of understandings: one with big business representatives and one with small business representatives? Can he tell us whether these understandings were discussed in any correspondence?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the first time around I resisted the opportunity to take advantage of the questions from the member opposite and to remind 

[ Page 3943 ]

members of the House about the sham of a process that took place with respect to Bill 19. I'm not going to resist that opportunity now.

The hon. member himself was double-crossed by the Premier of the day, who interfered in the development of labour legislation....

The Speaker: Order!

L. Hanson: As I offered the other day, I would be most happy to debate the record of Bill 19 in this House....

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, why did the minister secretly release the labour review committee's report to business and labour leaders before it was produced to British Columbians in the Legislature? And who specifically did he share the report with before releasing it to the House?

Hon. M. Sihota: As I've indicated publicly already, the report was released to representatives of the small business community, of the big business community and of labour in the furtherance of discussions that we felt were important in order to arrive at consensual labour legislation. It has been the objective of this government to develop fair and balanced labour legislation. In the furtherance of that goal, we had to consult with the parties -- we did indeed consult with the parties -- and as a consequence thereof, we produced fair and balanced labour legislation.

REDUCTION IN FOREST HARVEST

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Forests, who will be aware that 100 workers at Interfor's Whonnock sawmill have lost their jobs, which brings the total for the industry to about 1,000 so far this year. As a direct result of the cut reductions in the Sunshine Coast timber supply area, the opposition assumes that the minister will have taken these job losses into account. What steps has he taken to assist these displaced workers at Whonnock and other sawmills in the province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would remind the member opposite that it is not the minister who sets the AAC; it is the chief forester who sets it, independent of the ministry. We constantly hear members of the opposition haranguing about what we should do about environmental matters. We are dealing with it seriously. The chief forester looked at it, including the social implications, and made a decision to reduce the cut, which I then authorized. Knowing full well what the consequences would be, we did the right thing.

W. Hurd: The opposition has letters on file from other mills that are facing the same problem. Mill and Timber Products in Surrey is laying off 40 men, and West Coast Plywood, an employee-owned firm, is laying off another 100 men as a direct consequence of job losses and cut reduction in the province. Does this minister or the government care about these union brothers who are losing their jobs almost every day in this province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We care about the workers in a way the members opposite would not even begin to understand. I presume that what the member opposite would propose is that we simply continue the allowable cut record of the previous administration. We will not do that either. We will do the right thing. One thing we will not do is run with the herd.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Before we proceed to other House business, yesterday the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca sought leave under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the need for a firm commitment from the federal and provincial governments of loan guarantees required by Canadian Airlines employees to complete a deal with Canadian Airlines and American Airlines.

In support of his application, the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca tabled: "A Message from the Council of Canadian Airlines Employees." An examination of the Journals of this House reveals many Speakers' opinions which set forth the essential criteria consistently applied to standing order 35 applications. The criteria adopted in this House, as well as in other provincial Legislatures, are taken from the practices at Westminster set forth in May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, pages 368 to 374.

Among the special provisions and restrictions which the Chair must apply are the requirements that the matter be of recent occurrence and that it be raised without delay. Hon. members will be aware that takeover issues related to Canadian Airlines have been ongoing for some weeks. In fact, the question of a government loan guarantee was earlier raised in this House on October 21, 1992, during oral question period.

It may be urged that the material from the Council of Canadian Airlines Employees tabled by the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca ought to convert the matter from its ongoing status to one of recent occurrence. However, as stated in the authority cited: "The fact that new information has been received regarding a matter that has been continuing for some time does not in itself make that matter one of urgency."

The issue raised by the hon. member is manifestly of great importance; nevertheless, for the reasons stated, the matter fails to qualify under standing order 35.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Just before we resume, I would like to give some notice to the House that, by agreement, as I understand it, there are five speakers today. So in all likelihood we will be able to adjourn around 5 o'clock or maybe slightly earlier than that. There will be no sitting on Wednesday, and then we'll come back on Thursday at 2 o'clock and continue sitting on Bill 84.

[ Page 3944 ]

With that, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

L. Reid: I am pleased to continue debate on Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code for the province of British Columbia.

As I stated earlier this morning, I do not believe that Bill 84 is an optimistic piece of legislation. It does not allow people to go forward believing that British Columbia is going to be a good place to do business or, in fact, a good place to work. That is the concern, the recurring theme, that the Liberal opposition is carrying forward into this debate. That is the message that we will be taking to our constituents, and that is the message that we are receiving from our constituents in terms of whether or not this piece of legislation will have a positive impact on the labour climate in British Columbia.

The labour code in British Columbia and the amending process we are now engaged in are about something much more significant than who wins and who loses. We have to ensure that we have something in place that's going to ensure some kind of conciliation across the parameters. That's currently not in place, and that is an issue for the Liberal opposition, because we do not wish to see any sector looking after its own interests exclusively.

We want to talk a little bit this afternoon about small business expansion. The scope of the economy is changing -- no doubt about that. But the size of the enterprise within the economy is changing. Between 1979 and 1989, firms of fewer than five employees accounted for over 175,000 new jobs in British Columbia. Firms which employed between five and 19 individuals provided British Columbians with over 75,000 new jobs, and those with between 20 and 49 workers created approximately 30,000 new jobs. The small business sector -- a point I raised this morning in terms of which business sector is currently generating the most jobs -- is the primary creator of employment within British Columbia.

[2:30]

It is worth noting that it is this sector that is most vulnerable to unionization and its associated costs. Of the 133,000 firms in British Columbia with paid employees, 73 percent employ fewer than five individuals. Firms with between five and 49 employees represent 22 percent of those employing individuals in British Columbia. Smaller firms simply cannot afford the same wage or benefit package and the associated costs. Liberalism stands for choice. We would very much like to see people within this province who have enterprises of that size have some choice as to how they're going to treat their workers, and how they're going to deliver services in British Columbia.

These small firms are typically low-margin, fledgling enterprises that cannot accommodate a major increase in labour costs. Government must understand that these small firms are the backbone of the economy and must be assisted, not compromised, in their quest to remain in business. That is a fundamental issue for the Liberal opposition, because we truly believe that it is small business that must be applauded and assisted in British Columbia, so that we can continue to have some kind of harmonious employment package in place.

The point I raised this morning was that we don't have a strong economic plan in place in this province. There is tremendous uncertainty that leaves a considerable weakness that must be addressed. The place to address labour uncertainty and economic instability is in labour legislation. It's not addressed in this particular document.

The past 12 months in British Columbia have witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of days lost due to labour unrest. There was an increase of 239 percent in the 12 months ending in September, as compared to the previous 12 months. Of those months, 11 have been under a New Democratic government. International investment does not look favourably upon labour unrest when determining in which jurisdiction capital should be placed. It's a huge consideration, because the Liberal opposition stands for believing in small business, believing in enterprise and creating a reasonable economic climate to attract investment into the province.

The process of amending the Industrial Relations Act is about much more than who wins. No one wins -- not management, labour or government -- if the amendments result in a labour environment in which each sector is looking after its own interests exclusively. That is an issue that must be addressed today. That is an issue that would be addressed, I believe, by a modern piece of labour legislation. That issue is not even considered when we look at Bill 84.

When we talk about amending Bill 84, we must question, for example, whether these amendments will improve the quality of life for over 256,000 British Columbians over the age of 15 who have less than a grade 9 education or the 17 percent of the adult population in this province, representing 360,000 individuals, who cannot read, write or use numbers well enough to cope. As legislators, we may hope that these amendments and this debate is what is uppermost in the minds of people in this province.

Again, the point I made this morning was that the individual livelihood of British Columbians and the need to respect individual beliefs, rights and opportunities is not reflected in Bill 84. This is not a visionary document. This will not assist the average British Columbian who is seeking to have some kind of stable livelihood in this province.

Recent polling said that, overall, British Columbians do not share the government's view that the legislation is skewed too much toward the employer's interests, nor do they share the view that altering the Industrial Relations Act is a high priority. Overall, British Columbians want to take some time. They want this amended in a reasonable fashion. If we need to proceed at this time, they wish to see it done in a much more balanced framework. That's not what we have before us today. I think we need to be very cognizant of what average 

[ Page 3945 ]

British Columbians hope to see in new labour legislation.

However much credence you place in polling, hon. Speaker, there are issues out there that this piece of legislation does not address. There are issues that the majority of British Columbians believe to be a priority, which are also not addressed in this document. A survey of over 2,000 members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business shows that the top concerns, in order of importance, are tax burdens, government regulation and red tape, and the shortage of qualified labour. Statistics Canada figures for August indicate that the average duration of unemployment for men and women in British Columbia was 19 weeks. On an individual basis, this represents almost five months of time lost due to unemployment. A high percentage of people looking for permanent employment have lost their full-time jobs. Obviously that issue needs to be addressed, and it's not being adequately addressed in Bill 84.

There are no reasonable dispute resolution mechanisms that will allow us to go forward in a modern, balanced, fair and equitable fashion. We need to achieve a decent labour climate in the province. We need a piece of labour legislation that's going to allow us to do that, because we recognize that both labour and business have a considerable stake in the outcome of any labour market policy or program. Both sides must see this piece of legislation as being mutually beneficial. We do not have that scenario currently in the province of British Columbia.

Rather than feed the interests of labour, management or business, the amendments must deal with the changing workforce, which brings additional considerations to all sectors, such as the rising number of women; dual-earner families; an aging workforce; a growing cultural diversity, with a changing ethnic mix of the population; labour shortages, as skills mismatch; and changing worker values. These factors will have significant implications for the direction of labour relations in this province, and the majority of those factors are not addressed in Bill 84. This is not a forward-looking document. The amendments must match the issues facing the workforce. In 1989, 80 percent of new union members were women. They accounted for roughly 37 percent of the total Canadian membership. Women are looking for optimistic legislation.

A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand and speak to Bill 84. This bill simply does not meet today's needs. In British Columbia we have -- in the lower mainland at least -- a fairly thriving economy. I spoke with a number of business people over the weekend, and they have great concerns if this bill is implemented. As the hon. member for Richmond East mentioned, there is no overall plan of the future for how labour and management can work well together. This bill reinforces the division between labour and management.

Today successful firms need to match labour and management skills, and they need full cooperation. Owners and managers should encourage worker participation in decision-making in order to become or remain competitive. British Columbia firms must change their management philosophy. That's well known. We have to move with the times. But this bill, which tries to legislate that in sections 53 and 54, simply will not make that work. This bill does not encourage owners and managers to build trust with each other and with the workers.

There are differences of interest between workers and union representatives. It's essentially a food-on-the-table issue for the union worker, whereas from the union's point of view it's getting more members. Large unions are losing membership due to technology in the forest industry and other industries. So they're reaching out with their tentacles into the medium and small-sized firms in order to reinforce the number of union memberships. In doing that, they're spreading a great deal of concern, especially in the small firms.

Worker-management cooperation is the only way we're going to get better productivity and iron out problems. There are many small firms for which this bill would simply not work. I'll give you one example: Canadian Tire. I met with the owners of Canadian Tire over the weekend. They've been very innovative there. It's a prospering firm, especially in the lower mainland, with 21 franchises and one warehouse in Burnaby. The workers there are entry-level workers. They're essentially kids out of school, not knowing exactly what they want to do. They're full of energy, and they either want to earn a living to go on to school or they want to take time to think about what they want to do. Canadian Tire has set up a scholarship fund. If an employee works for just over 6,000 hours in a period of a number of years, Canadian Tire will give them a scholarship of $3,000 per year in order that they can take schooling of their own choice, either university or a technical trade. That shows a lot of flexibility.

Those jobs should not be union jobs. You can't imagine somebody being a person at a cash till for 35 years or so; it's just not the kind of thing that anybody wants to do. But they will do it with a lot of energy if they have a goal of going to school or being able to collect some money so that they can go on. Canadian Tire will also allow those workers, if they're at school, to come back at full hourly wages, as if they were full-time employees. I think we need more firms with that kind of innovative practice. Canadian Tire should be applauded for their initiative.

Strong unions tend to thrive on conflict -- at least they did in the old days; a little less so these days -- whereas what we really have to do in the early stages of a problem arising is sit down and talk. But that doesn't get in the papers, and that doesn't build up union memberships.

We already have legislation in this province on fair wages. I mentioned that on an another occasion when talking about this bill. In the city of Vancouver, contracts are not required to be union contracts, but developers and contractors are required to pay fair wages. I think that is the most important aspect of that.

There are many stories that I could go into. Certainly my father-in-law, who used to work in the forest industry, tells me lots of stories about when he was younger and starting out, working at something like 15 c

[ Page 3946 ]

ents an hour. He tells me how they had to strive to keep their family going, how they helped form a union and how that helped make their family's lifestyle better. In those days it was important to have unions for their safety and health and to keep food on the table. Those were important times. That's when unions were formed in this country, and they served a very good purpose.

Today, if unions are to have the membership, they have to be much more imaginative and flexible, and they have to look at innovative programs, so that they don't prohibit organizations from setting up scholarship funds as Canadian Tire has done. I know, for instance, that in municipalities -- I've worked in a number of municipalities -- you'll find that very few hire summer students. That's because of the protectionist attitude of the unions that demand that full wages be paid on a union scale. Municipalities simply don't have the money to do that, unless they're subsidized by the provincial or federal governments. As a consequence, very few students in this province get hired by municipalities, and I think that's a shame. When I was a student, I was hired as a lifeguard by the recreation department in Fredericton, New Brunswick. I was able to get a job. They certainly didn't pay me union wages in those days, but it was an honourable job, and I was able to save money that helped me with my schooling. Municipalities should hire students, and the unions should be more flexible. The city of Vancouver employs some students, but they are only a very small percentage of those students who require work. As I say, they have to be paid union wages. I think fair wages are in order, not necessarily union wages -- if one has to raise a family one requires a full wage to do that.

[2:45]

In the 1990s this government should be creating a climate where worker-management cooperation is encouraged. This is currently a trend taking place in other countries, such as the United States, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Holland and other countries. These countries are discovering that there is a benefit to worker-management cooperation. Why is this government doing the opposite by reinforcing the big unions? We should be following the trend of more cooperation and encouraging management and labour to get on with the trend. This worker-management cooperation cannot be legislated as set out in Bill 84, just as a good marriage can't be legislated. There have to be good feelings, trust and a sharing of goals and benefits. That has been the trend in other countries, and in many firms in North America, including in Canada. That's where we should be putting our emphasis. We shouldn't be going back 20 or 30 years to when my father-in-law, for example, had to help form a union. He's very proud to belong to that union. That union was a necessity in those days. The unions aren't as necessary these days, as far as small and medium-sized businesses go. It's quite legitimate to have unions in a large business. I'm sure that over time, in order to be successful, they will be flexible. We have to go forward.

In the service industry in the United States you are seeing a lot more cooperation between management and workers. For example, the hospital business is letting workers give more suggestions on saving money. Only last week in my riding I talked to a dietitian who is working in a large hospital in Vancouver. She says that she is not asked how to save money; yet she has all kinds of ideas on how to save money and get better use. I would suggest that management, in this particular case, get a little more innovative and go further down the line to ask the people who are actually doing the work or supervising it for those ideas. The most successful small and medium-sized firms use the model of employee-management participation in order to get the best out of their workforce and their own management.

I'll give you another example, which we dealt with to some extent during question period today. Take Canadian Airlines. This is an instance where I wonder why this government is not getting more involved. Does it have something to do with the philosophy of unions? We have pilots, stewardesses, mechanics and others willing to put a portion of their salaries into keeping that airline afloat. When employees are prepared to do that we should be trying to help them as much as possible. They're willing to put their dollars on the line; we should be willing to help them. I can't help but think that maybe that would interfere with the philosophy of unionization and the NDP government if they did that.

The government should ensure that the many jobs in this airline are protected. I believe the last count was some 9,000 jobs. Many of those jobs are in Richmond, Delta and Surrey. Homes are going to be lost in some cases. In fact, coming back from Mackenzie about a month ago I was -- I don't like to use the word "accosted" -- but certainly confronted by an airline stewardess who said that we simply have to do something to help them out. I informed them I was a member of the opposition but would do whatever I could to help them, but they should lobby the government, especially the federal government.

Regarding small firms -- and that's where my experience comes from -- there are 133,000 or so firms in British Columbia and over 70 percent of these firms employ five or fewer employees. These smaller firms cannot afford the wages of large unions. Also, to give a practical example, in the home-building industry it's mostly done by contract and subbing out. You might, for instance, have three employees in a contracting company and maybe two managers, and I can assure you that there are a lot of union-card-carrying members who come and work for non-union firms. In fact, the frame-building industry is all non-union, but whenever there are no jobs in union projects you will find tradespeople coming around, and one doesn't even ask whether they've got a union card or not. For instance, a company may have three non-union employees and a project for which they want to hire three or four people. If they happen to be card-carrying members they're going to be asked from now on whether they are card-carrying members of unions, because all you need is 55 percent with no vote. Suddenly a small contractor could find himself in deep trouble, having a union firm halfway through a project. I think that's a practical example. Maybe it wouldn't take place, but the threat is 

[ Page 3947 ]

there; the concern is there. I think that's the most difficult part of this bill at the present time.

I know it must be very depressing to the Minister of Labour for us to speak that way when he's gone through a public participation process. He thinks he's gone out to the public -- he certainly had a committee of nine and then a committee of three, and we've spoken about that. It must be very frustrating to have us suggest that maybe he hasn't done his public participation adequately. As a planner who's gone out to many public hearings I know how it must feel when you think you've done the public participation. When you've gone out to see everybody, you'll still find that unless that bylaw has adequately gone around the municipality after it's been drawn up, you won't get all the people out. In this particular case it's only after the bill is drawn up that you have to do some more public participation. So this bill really should go out and be adequately scrutinized by labour and management so they can look at it and give further recommendations.

I gave another example the other day: the nursery business. I went back to check that nursery on the weekend -- that's a plant nursery, not a child nursery -- and they were very concerned. Today that business is very competitive. There's a little guy down the street growing plants and shrubs, and he can get them out cheaper than the bigger firms. These people were very concerned about their jobs. I'll tell you that if this company became union, there would be fewer members there, and the management just simply couldn't proceed on an economic basis at this time.

I also want to briefly speak on the fact that big business and small business certainly are not supporting this bill at the present time. Maybe in the first week or so they didn't know that much about it and didn't come out and speak to it. But certainly the letter addressed to the Premier on the third of this month and copied to the Minister of Labour, and sent by the president of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, for one, and also by the vice-president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Business Council of B.C., the Fish Processors' Bargaining Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Retail Merchants' Association and the Vancouver Board of Trade.... All have come out expressing a great deal of concern. This surely is evidence that this bill should go back and be remodelled.

These people thought their concerns were addressed. Certainly the bill did leave out a number of things that I understand were originally in there; the government very wisely took them out. The secondary picketing provision and sectoral certification were taken out. But there are still a number of things that business is concerned about, and one is the anti-replacement provision, where you cannot replace workers who are on strike. In fact, management can't even take people from another operation and bring them in. That could be devastating, especially to small firms that don't have very many people to bring in and don't have many people in any particular operation.

The certification provision that has taken away the vote is the thing that worries me the most. It's fundamental in our society to have a vote on whether you're going to have a union or not, or on whether you're going to have any business. We operate here by votes. In fact, we get elected by votes. I don't understand why this government is so worried about having a vote. If, for instance, it's a matter of time that's of concern, then reduce that time. I've had some businesses say that if it's a concern, they still want to have a vote. They want to have an opportunity to talk to their workers and see what their concern is. If they weren't aware in the first instance, they want to have an opportunity to talk to their employees before they take this step. Maybe it's the right thing, maybe they should become a union, but they want to have an opportunity to talk to them. Maybe it should be reduced to 48 hours, 72 hours or something like that. That would be fair in my particular mind. But at least there would be a vote. I would suggest the government reconsider at least that provision before ramming it through.

As we heard the other day, the Minister of Labour said that he was going to put this bill through with all the provisions, regardless. I think that is a mistake, and I think the minister should be under advisement to reconsider that. Over the next few weeks it's obvious that more businesses will be learning about this bill, and more businesses are expressing their concern. So the longer this goes on, the more concern there's going to be.

We must decline second reading of this bill, so that we can better the rights of employees and management. We're at a time now when, as I mentioned earlier, we should be looking at more contemporary ways of conducting business. This province has a great future, and we all know that. We want to make sure that all British Columbians prosper, that people are paid proper wages and that people can have unions when it's necessary. But let's not forget that the majority of this province was built by small business and by medium-sized business. We are a province of business people. Let's listen to those business people, and let's not ram down their throats legislation that simply will not work.

R. Chisholm: I rise again on Bill 84. I consider this to be a regressive and repressive labour code that will hurt British Columbia's economy, harm business and be disruptive to jobs. The reason is that Bill 84 fails to provide labour and management with an atmosphere vital for cooperation and fairness and the awareness of each other's needs and concerns.

What I will do now is outline the specific areas of this labour code that are faulty so that government members will realize that. I've read Bill 84 and know what I'm talking about. After listening to the rationale of some of the government members, I strongly suggest that they read it too, for it will enlighten them. Only then will they appreciate my concerns. I'm not opposing it for the sake of opposing it. I'm opposing the parts of this labour code that will have detrimental effects on British Columbia. Amend the labour bill. Make it positive for British Columbia, and I'll be the first to support the positive changes.

This legislation has deleted the market economy when interpreting labour legislation, and signals to 

[ Page 3948 ]

investors that the government of British Columbia is willing to let outside influences influence the free, competitive market economy. The large unionized employers gain from secondary picketing restrictions, preventing workers in one sector from picketing in another sector.

[3:00]

It is not just me opposing this bill. As reported in the Vancouver Sun, November 5, 1992, seven of the province's major business groups have decided to denounce Bill 84 as radical and anti-business, and they threaten a policy of non-cooperation unless the government backs off on some of the more controversial provisions. So much for the Premier's much-touted consensus with business.

Like me, these businesses object to three provisions in Bill 84 that would make it easier for unions to gain a foothold in the workplace, to organize boycotts of non-union employers and to put pressure on unionized firms during strikes. These are the clauses that would prevent employers from using replacement workers -- known as scabs -- during strikes. They would deny workers a secret ballot in union certification drives, yet when decertifying the union, they would have a secret ballot. It's an amazing system that we're walking into. And they would permit unions to pursue a ban on their members having to handle non-union goods, which is known as secondary boycotts.

How did this government come up with this faulty Bill 84? Since they obviously won't admit it to the people of British Columbia, let me tell them what I know, which has been reported in our media. Last spring the government persuaded labour and management to participate in a special panel to draft a new labour law. There were three wise men -- so much for gender equality: John Baigent for the unions, Tom Roper for the Business Council and mediator Vince Ready as chair of the panel, whose report formed most of Bill 84. These three did not agree on four key areas of labour law, including secondary boycotts and the use of replacement workers, which Mr. Roper strongly opposed on behalf of the Business Council. The government could have postponed action in these four areas, but instead the government made its own changes on these in Bill 84; and they incorporated them into Bill 84.

In three of the four areas the government made changes to help the unions, and went against the recommendations of the employers. This government thought the employers would not dare oppose Bill 84, when 98 percent of it represented a consensus which the employers' representative helped shape. Admit it, Mr. Premier, your government guessed wrong. When your government started to put its own ideological preferences into the proposed new law, it made a mockery of the whole idea of consensus, and the employers have spoken loud and clear: this bill is flawed.

Some of the areas I'm going to talk about in this bill are areas of education. I have a document sent here from the British Columbia School Trustees' Association on what they have found Bill 84 will do to our educational system at the secondary level and the elementary level. I quote from their document. On replacement workers, 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 advisors, in which the strongest recommendation for replacement worker legislation permitted the employer to use management staff from other places of operation.

"Schools have never attempted to maintain operations in face of a legal full withdrawal of services by teachers. Although teachers might in the past" -- this is 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."

In other words, any employee there can shut down the school. It goes on:

"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."

With this bill they are not entitled.

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

This document goes on to the strike notice of section 60, and I quote again:

"There is no provision in the labour relations code either for requiring additional strike notice -- as is permitted where perishable property is at stake -- or to require a 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."

This really puts the educational system in a bad position. In section 65, common site picketing, it states:

"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 some health employees who work in the school or construction contractors. Some school facilities are jointly owned and operated with municipalities or recreational commissions; these would be especially vulnerable. In these cases the school board may have no choice, 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."

In other words, anybody can shut down the school, even if they're just working on the school grounds. "School boards would not have access to essential services designation in such cases to maintain educational services." If we lose our educational services, we go backward in the economy. If we do not educate our young and do not allow them to qualify and graduate, we are taking a step backward. That is just one area that this bill will affect.

[ Page 3949 ]

Another area it will affect is the agriculture, fisheries and food area, where instant certification for farm workers will have negative effects. With agriculture already falling by 3.9 percent in the past 12 months, what impact will this bill have on employment levels? How will this bill affect agriculture and fish processors? We already have them closing up in this province. Canada Packers and Royal foods are closing up. Increased labour strife will drive trading partners elsewhere if they do not feel that our supply is stable.

In the area of economic development, small business and trade, labour laws leading to increased days lost to strikes will drive trading partners to different jurisdictions -- in other words, out of the province and probably south. Many marginal small businesses will be lost due to unionization, especially in the service sector where the labour force is rising.

Business is being lost to other jurisdictions already, like Whatcom County in Washington, China and Chile. We're losing it to everyone. We're not keeping it because of our own legislation.

As much as the government would like to believe that we have a diversified economy, that is patently untrue. Sectors most vulnerable to labour strife have the highest amount of exports.

A labour bill is an economic bill, which some people don't seem to realize. Labour is another economic input into the production process, so anything in the labour bill is going to affect our economy. Since last October, manufacturing shipments have declined. This bill will only exacerbate this trend.

Investment managers are not recommending investment in this province, but south of the border and the Orient. Machinery, transportation equipment and electrical product exports have declined by 12.8, 10.9 and 7.5 percent respectively in the last 12 months, and this bill will not reverse that trend. As a matter of fact, this bill is going to increase that trend.

We'll go back to education again, but we'll talk about people who supply the educational system, such as suppliers to the school boards. They will feel the pinch as labour costs are passed on to purchasing boards. In all likelihood, these increases will not be covered by the ministry.

We can talk about environment, lands and parks. What costs are we going to see there? More than likely we're going to see the devolution of waste management to local levels, which will add a cost burden to the local governments exacerbated by high labour costs. Everything we want to do is going to go up in price, and I wonder if some of these functions will go by the wayside and disappear due to the financial straits we're going to get ourselves into.

In finance and corporate relations, the Finance minister should start preparing for a reduction in credit rating. This will come. There is no doubt it is going to come. Our economy is going to go into a decline, and our credit rating will go along with it. Continued high deficits, coupled with a poor economic climate, will have a negative impact on British Columbia's credit rating. The potential for industrial relations returning to an adversarial climate will have a devastating effect on the economy of this province, with the explosion of the global marketplace at the present time.

Small business is already going south of the border to Whatcom County and further south. Up to 25 worker shops have left this province for the south. We cannot afford this trend; we must stop it. This legislation is not going to stop it. Foreign nationals and multinationals will be afraid to invest in new manufacturing ventures in British Columbia due to this, especially if the prospect of increased labour strife is high in this province -- which it is.

In the area of government services are increased supplier costs if sectoral bargaining is permitted. I have to wonder whether sectoral bargaining is coming down the line in the next year or the year after. Secondary boycott provisions would make it impossible for government suppliers to be non-union. That's a rather biased statement, unfortunately, and I think it's going to have negative effects on our economy and on the operation of our government.

I'm not the only one saying these things. This is being said by the population of British Columbia, by the media, by their constituencies and by my constituency. It doesn't make any sense for me to stand up here and voice my opinion on what I see in this bill. I think I'll read a few that hurt this government: that is, when constituents and some businesses, union and non-union, write in to tell them what they think. This is one individual, one voter in this province:

"I have worked in the construction industry since I was a teenager, first as an apprentice, then as a journeyman carpenter. Your proposed changes to the labour relations act serve to deprive me of a fundamental right to choose and to vote."

It's amazing, isn't it? We've heard this before.

"I was a member of the carpenters' union in Alberta for ten years. I don't believe that membership in a foreign-controlled trade union is the best thing for me; however, by dispensing with voting for certification in favour of certification by majority carrying union cards, you are not giving me the choice."

This is a union member. I have hundreds of letters like this.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: If the hon. members from across the way would like to read some, I will gladly pass them over. Your minister, hon. members, has thousands.

[3:15]

Here is another letter from another interested party, another voter:

"On September 26, 1992, I received a newsletter from the ICBA headed 'Special Bulletin,' indicating a proposed change that the NDP government of British Columbia is trying to make to our present labour laws. This proposed change would take away the right for an individual to choose to work union or non-union.

"I have worked as an electrician in the province of British Columbia for 32 years and was a member of the IBEW for 15 years. At that time, I had to leave the union sector of work because the union was short of work.

"In the last 17 years I have had my own company and have worked for open-shop contractors. If this legislation is put into place, it will affect some 300,000 

[ Page 3950 ]

jobs in this province, and the province would go broke. The unions are necessary to keep big businesses in line. The workforce in British Columbia is also made up of quite a few smaller businesses, the open-shop sector, which give the unions good competition, which they need.

"If the province of British Columbia wants to be competitive in the world market today, this legislation cannot be put into place."

Another one of your union members, who is very unimpressed with this bill, said:

"I feel that if the worker himself or herself does not have a say in how their job goes, it is not fair. How can one person have the say for everyone else? I feel that going union is the wrong thing to do. I say no to your prospective new ruling."

I hope the hon. members on the government side of the House are listening to some of these people.

Another letter I received, hon. Speaker, is from another union person:

"I would like to voice my opinion concerning the fair wages and 50 percent automatic certification" -- which is really 55 percent. "From what I understand about the fair wages policy and 50 percent automatic certification, the only people it would benefit will be the unions, not the people in the union or the people in the non-union sector. I think it's about time we start being a little more concerned with keeping B.C.'s economy healthy and attractive. I feel that your new policies will drive investors and new business from B.C.

"I feel that your 50 percent and automatic certification is very unfair. I also think that you are taking away my democratic right to vote, whether or not I want to join a union. If I happen to be working for a company that has 50 percent union members in its employ and is a non-union employer, that must mean that there is a real problem with the union sector. I feel that the union sector should look inside its own structure to be more competitive in the job market.

"As far as I'm concerned, your policies are very one-sided and will benefit only a chosen few. At this time I would like to vote no to your new policies.

"Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and allow me to voice my opinion."

I hope the hon. members on the government side were listening to his last statement. Hopefully you will start thinking and allow him to voice his opinion.

Now I'll read a couple from the business side of the world. They are just as upset as the workers. I'm going to quote from this letter too. Like I said, it's more effective than myself standing up here as a Liberal member. But when they start hearing it from the people of British Columbia, maybe they'll start listening. I quote from this letter:

"I am writing this letter to register my displeasure with the new labour code proposed by the current NDP government.

"I understand you wish to eliminate the certification vote in favour of certification based on a majority of employees holding union cards. I have had many conversations with various employees, both those who work for me and those who do not. Believe it or not, there are tradesmen out there in the construction industry who do not wish to belong to a union. When you eliminate the certification vote, you remove a basic democratic right from these men and quash their right to be heard. Many of these men have belonged to unions, had bad experiences and do not believe the union to be acting in their best interests. Yet they could be considered as holding union cards. The union can waive back payment of fees and bring anyone up to date to current membership, and do so without his" -- or her -- "knowledge, whether the man wishes to be in good standing or not. So by certifying the current employer without a vote, the man could be right back to being represented by a group with which he no longer wishes to be associated.

"Another unsavory rumour I have heard is that the NDP proposes unionization of an industry based on whether the majority of the companies are union or not. This is completely undemocratic and again imposes unionization on persons who may not wish it. This sort of high-handed move goes against every principle that I have been raised to follow.

"Secondary boycotts. What an insidious sleeper this one is! This clause gives an unfair advantage to the unionized companies -- which are big businesses -- and will have a devastating effect on small businesses in B.C. Do you know that 90 percent of the jobs in B.C. are non-union? When you put that many companies out of work, you hurt the very people you claim to be trying to protect. In addition, by raising costs due to higher labour costs and ineffectiveness, this hurts the province's ability to compete internationally, especially once NAFTA kicks in.

"I am absolutely appalled that this government could be considering such a backwards move towards the angry and confrontational labour environment of the past. I urge you to be creative. Think. Listen to your conscience and not to the non-Canadian-based building trade unions clamouring for a payback. We currently have a good working climate in the construction industry. Let's keep it that way."

It must be getting to the hon. members, because they are starting to react to some of these things. Maybe if you react just a little bit, hon. members, you'll listen to what the people are telling you. Remember the constitution? You listened there too.

I have another letter that I'll quote from. A couple of them come from McDonald's, believe it or not. I won't go into them all.

An Hon. Member: Ronald?

R. Chisholm: Ronald McDonald, as a matter of fact.

"As a local business person for over 16 years in Chilliwack, I am concerned about recent reports on recommendations which the government is considering. In particular, the suggestion that automatic certification will replace the certification vote is contrary to an open and democratic process."

I couldn't agree more.

"I would raise the following arguments in support of an employee's right to vote by secret ballot on certification.

"l. If certification is truly a matter of employee choice, then every employee must have the opportunity to participate in that choice.

"2. Automatic certification is fundamentally undemocratic. A group of employees who may be perceived as not in favour of certification may never be advised that the process is underway, may never be consulted on the issues and may never have an opportunity to discuss matters with their co-workers.

[ Page 3951 ]

"3. In my business I have a close day-to-day working relationship with my employees. I believe I have the right to fairly represent my decisions to the employees. If I am not able to do so, then there is no guarantee that employees will have complete and accurate information on which to make a decision.

"4. If the objection to a secret ballot is based on concern about employer interference, then the new legislation should contain more clearly defined unfair labour practices and penalties.

"5. I work in the restaurant business with its unique circumstances. If particular industries require special provisions, then they should be specifically covered in a new act. Such provisions should not automatically extend to me and the restaurant industry.

"6. Finally, I believe that a secret ballot would foster positive labour-management relations. When a secret ballot is required, the outcome speaks for itself, the air is cleared, and the result is accepted as legitimate and proper by employers and employees alike.

"I believe that the matters I have raised are of great importance to my business, employees and the community at large. I thank you for your consideration."

I hope, hon. members, you are considering it.

Finally, in the Vancouver Sun on November 5, 1992, the Premier was quoted as saying: "The government is going to proceed with this bill no matter how long the opposition wants to delay getting down to substantive issues. British Columbians don't want delay. They don't want us to sit here and listen to the opposition just opposing for the sake of opposing." I want to stress to the Premier that I am not opposing just for the sake of opposing. This is a bad labour bill. As you have heard me outline, people have written thousands of letters to you and your minister to tell you that. They don't want this regressive and repressive labour code. Therefore, Mr. Premier, don't listen to me or my fellow colleagues in the official opposition; listen to the majority of the people. You will see that the people's message is our message.

Remember the referendum debate held on the constitutional accord in this House a few short weeks ago. My colleagues and I told you what the people wanted; you wouldn't listen. But the people proved you wrong. Once again I say to you, Mr. Premier, that you are wrong. This labour code is flawed, and it will hurt British Columbia businesses. Our people listen to the majority. Fix the labour code now before it's too late. I've given constructive criticism of this code to help you amend it to protect our province.

K. Jones: It's indeed a pleasure to have this opportunity once again to speak to this House on Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, to represent some of the concerns of the people of British Columbia, and in particular the people of my riding, Surrey-Cloverdale, with regard to what's included in this legislation.

As you heard previously, our members here have tried desperately to put forward the need for this to go out to the public. Considering the size of our opposition compared to the government side, we have done a very effective job on that. The public has a right to know the details of this legislation. They need time to consider it and to bring these issues back to the government, and they need a government that's going to be responsive to their concerns. For the people who are representing the government here, remember that your job is not to represent your ideology; it is to represent the people of British Columbia. That's what you should be taking into consideration when you're bringing forward legislation.

[3:30]

This legislation is far-reaching. It has an impact on practically every household in British Columbia. In some cases it will be good; in some cases it will be devastating. It is going to be divisive. In some cases it will be as divisive as the constitutional amendments were. People within families have differing views on what degree of control should be involved in their lives and the degree of control that unions and government should have in their lives. These are fundamental individual concerns and desires for freedom of expression, freedom to practise business, freedom to choose the type of work they wish to do and freedom to choose the type of representation that they want.

We have a series of submissions indicating that a lot of people are not very happy with the restrictions now being placed on their way of life and their freedom to choose whether they should be certified as a bargaining unit. That's a fundamental freedom of choice for the people who are in the workforce. I fully support their choice if they choose to have a union. I think that they would be well served if they had good representation on their behalf. But I also believe that those who choose not to be certified or have a bargaining unit and who choose to deal on their own should have that right. It should be by choice, not by imposition of government, not by imposition of an outside organizing group, union or association. They are outside interests coming forward to expand their scope of control and source of revenue to justify their existence. There are many reasons why these expansions occur, but it intrudes into the basic fundamental decision of whether to be represented by an organizated group or an independent business or employee operating with the freedom to do as you wish in your workplace.

The opportunity for an employer to speak to their workers is just as important as the opportunity for the union organizing people to speak to the workers. They should have equal opportunity to make a presentation, but they shouldn't be able to do it in a coercive or intimidating manner; there should not be anything but a very open basis under which this approach can be made. Once made, the presentation should be strictly controlled within a basis that the presentation can be made, so what happened in the past.... There has been intimidation on both sides. It's not exclusively management or union people who have created that intimidation process. But it's important that people in the workforce are given the ability to hear the various points that are brought forward and then make their decision based on what is best for their family, lifestyle and their relationship with their employer. It should be done through a secret ballot that would be controlled by a government agency to make sure that it is done aboveboard and without any manipulation or question so that everybody feels that it is a satisfactory method 

[ Page 3952 ]

of providing that decision; that it's a true democratic process.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

I'd like to go into another area with regard to special interests. You've seen in the presentation leading up to this bill the establishment of a commission of three people: a commissioner representing major business interests, a commissioner representing a major union and an arbitrator who, as a profession, deals with both these parties. This is what this government says is an open and aboveboard way of getting representative input into the development of new labour legislation.

Well, I disagree. I don't think that this is the best way to get open input, when you've got people from specific interest bodies controlling the basis under which it is being brought forward. They are not representing the wide range of interests that will be affected by this bill. They are representing the very special interests of major industry, the business elite and the labour elite. They don't take into consideration that the majority of our jobs are now no longer in those sectors. The majority of our new jobs are being generated in small business, in medium-sized business, in new innovative fast-track businesses that are recognizing a niche in the marketplace and are going for that. They have to be able to move quickly in order to establish themselves in the marketplace and get the product out there, or else they won't be competitive.

There'll be other people coming into the marketplace as fast as the message gets around that there's an opportunity to do business in that area, and they'll be trying to compete against a whole bunch of people, at which point the profitability of that particular enterprise no longer exists. That's the basis of modern-day business: you have to be adaptive, flexible, look for niche markets; and you have to be able to move with a supportive workforce, a team process where everybody is working to that goal, not on special interests, special connections with other groups or bodies saying: "Well, you know, you're not meeting our rules; therefore we'll hold you up, we'll delay you." You can't move that way. You can't operate that way in business today.

The dinosaurs of our labour-management process in the past are going the way of the dinosaur. They're going to end up in petrified forms in the near future. Maybe that's why we've got several members who used to work in those areas who have found a new life by coming into the political scene so they could have a better lifestyle, or a longer lifestyle, than the dinosaurs still left there. Things are changing. I'm glad to see that some of the members here have seen the light and are changing with it.

I'd like to question whether special meetings between the Minister of Labour and members of our business elite, such as were held yesterday, are the kind of arrangements that we want to have in developing labour legislation and labour legislation changes. While the bill is on the floor of this House, it is rather insulting to the House for the minister to be making special deals and perhaps big modifications to the bill in order to bring people onside who he thought he had onside before and who went offside. He wants to make everything nice and smooth and cosy and warm. Is that the kind of arrangement we should be doing? Or should he be in here making his commitments to this Legislature? If he's prepared to make commitments to special interest groups, why isn't he prepared to make modifications right here on the floor of the Legislature? I think it's insulting to this Legislature that the minister is taking that type of approach and making special deals.

Interjection.

K. Jones: Sure, we're very happy for the working people of British Columbia as long as they get a fair deal from this government; and this government hasn't been giving them a fair deal. They haven't been keeping their promises. They bring forward a bill that is shoved at people at the last minute without notice or an opportunity for it to be taken out into the community and being properly studied. It's kept secret until the very last minute before it's brought forward into this House. This commission made a report on it, and the minister sat on the report for a substantial time prior to bringing in the legislation.

D. Symons: Were they ashamed of it?

K. Jones: Was it because he was ashamed of it, as my colleague said? Or is it because what was in there was exactly what he wanted to bring forward in the legislation? He didn't want any other input. He wanted to take the report of this group of people who had been receiving input from all of his friends, cronies and insiders and put it through in legislation without regard to the results, because it was going to be exactly the same as that legislation.

Is this the kind of democracy that this "New Democratic Party" brings forward? Is this the type of government that the people of British Columbia asked for? The people of British Columbia didn't vote for this government; they voted against the previous government. That's the real fact of life, and this government has not realized that they're not chosen by the people of British Columbia to bring their doctrine and their philosophical bent into all the legislation of this province. They were elected because there was a problem with the previous government, which the people didn't like. They chose the only alternative that was viable to them at that time, and that was to get rid of the Social Credit Party. Well, they almost did it.

Some of those with great wisdom chose a lot more Liberals in this House, and today those Liberals are bringing forward the best input representing the people of British Columbia. It is not the people on the government side who are bringing in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: May I remind the member that we are debating Bill 84.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate your direction and guidance in this regard. We were talking in 

[ Page 3953 ]

principle, and the principle of this bill is very definitely being discussed.

I'd like to address another concern of some of my constituents, and that's in the area of secondary boycotts. They find that this whole concept of secondary boycotts is going to be quite devastating to them. The ability to say that if you aren't unionized you can't supply can be a very devastating aspect of controlling the marketplace. If we think that we, the people of British Columbia, are going to get fair prices when jobs are bid on, when we haven't allowed a free, open market to occur and we've controlled the market by putting on special restrictions requiring that there be certain regulations on how people associate or how they do business -- based on a desire to control the way that people associate within a working group; and even if they choose not to be, they have to be a member of the union certified in that area in order to do business with this company over here -- it doesn't seem right to me.

[3:45]

Hon. Speaker, there's got to be fairness in this, and this bill, in most cases, has many aspects very similar to the previous legislation, the legislation that has given us substantial labour peace over the last six or eight years. We have not had a major labour-management dispute in this province over the last while, and that is under the previous legislation. Perhaps that's because this government made a concerted decision with its allies in the labour movement that they would not create any adversarial situations for fear that it might give the public the perception that this union-NDP coalition might not be what they wanted it to look like, but rather what it actually is: an association of labour and socialists. It's not a nice warm, fuzzy, middle-of-the-road party as it would like the public to believe. It was that agreement to not have confrontation by the labour movement that did a real injustice to the workers of British Columbia. It meant that over the past years their representations were being manipulated from political standpoints rather than from the interests of the workers themselves, just in order to gain power. That's not fairness to me, hon. Speaker; that's not fairness at all.

I'd like to go further into the aspects of the Industrial Relations Council. In that regard, I'm very concerned -- as has been indicated by the minister's own highlights to the bill -- that the authority of the former industrial relations commissioner under the IRC, in order to intervene in situations and disputes, has been transferred to the Minister of Labour for greater accountability. I think that's really opening it up for a lot of problems. It's not accountability that we're concerned about; it's manipulation that we're concerned about. It's the whole aspect of the minister being involved in disputes. It's the one that they criticized the former Premier, Bill Vander Zalm, for doing. It's the type of thing that they practised in the last regime of the NDP, back in '73-74, under the Barrett administration.

It's that practice, where the minister and the government start to get involved in a labour-management relationship, which causes the biggest and the most protracted problems that a whole negotiation process ever experiences. When government stays out of the relationships and negotiations, we find a great deal of speedy decision-making. We find agreeable decisions and satisfactory arbitrations. We have good professional people to assist the sides when they get into difficulties. But when the government gets in there and starts to play games, labour and management sit back and say: "Okay. You guys are going to save us. You guys figure out how you're going to do it."

But really, in the labour-management industrial relations formula that we use in this province, and have used very effectively over many years, the two parties involved in it are the ones that have to get together and make the decision. Anybody coming in from outside usually causes more problems. They almost invariably extend the period of the dispute. Invariably the final result is not satisfactory to either party, and the end result is that the dispute doesn't end at that decision where the situation is supposedly completed or settled, but continues in the workplace ever after.

When the parties are involved, they settle their differences and put them behind them. When there's an outside party involved, neither side is going to be satisfied, and they carry those dissatisfactions on and on. They ultimately have to be decided on. So I would ask the minister to take this part of his authority back for reconsideration and make sure that an independent person is involved. The chair of the Labour Relations Board may be that person, but give them the authority to finalize the situations. Let's not have the minister intervening in disputes.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Members of my constituency are deeply concerned about the fact that there seems to be an imbalance between certification and decertification.

An Hon. Member: Did they write any letters.

K. Jones: Yes, they have. Would you like to hear those too?

Hon. Speaker, they are saying: if it takes 55 percent membership to get certified, why doesn't it take 55 percent membership to say we want decertification?

Interjection.

K. Jones: It's 45 percent, not 55 percent, for decertification. That's correct, the hon. member says. Therefore, if you want to decertify, it should have to be the majority of the people who want to choose to decertify. It seems totally unfair that a minority of the people should choose to be decertified. With regard to the certification, again, we have to....

Interjection.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, we have some members who would like to hear some of the real comments of my constituents. I'd be only too happy to give them a taste of some of the statements made by them. This is from a business in Surrey:

[ Page 3954 ]

"I'm writing this letter to oppose the labour law changes. If I have 55 percent union employees, I will automatically become a union contractor. My employees are happy with my company and in a vote on certification the union would probably lose.

"I know this is free enterprise, and collective bargaining is the proper way to do business. When my employees leave my company and are not members of a union, they are not allowed to work on a union site. Yet my union employees are allowed to work on my non-union sites. I ask: 'Is this fair?' Perhaps I should ask all my card-carrying employees to denounce their unions. Would this be fair to their freedom of speech?

"We employ approximately 80 workers. These laws could break this company. Are you going to be responsible for their families?"

That is something to be considered very seriously. When we talk about legislation, it can be quite theoretical. But when we talk about families and workers' jobs, I think that all of us have to be very serious about that. The people really deserve a better deal.

I would ask the Labour minister and this government to take this bill back to the public and take advantage of this opportunity that we've given them and the people of British Columbia to know more of what this bill is all about. I think we have done a very good job here in the opposition of making sure that the people are aware of the various factors involved in this legislation. I am very proud to be a part of a party represented in this House that has made such a strong effort to represent the needs and the concerns of all the people of British Columbia, not just of a special interest group.

J. Pullinger: I've been listening with great interest to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, who is a strong trade unionist and TWU member, kick apart the best piece of labour legislation this province has seen in nearly two decades. It has been a fascinating exercise.

Last Labour Day one of my colleagues and I sang at a Labour Day picnic in my riding, and one of the songs we sang was "Which Side Are You On?" We sang that because it's very relevant in the trade union movement. Trade unionists figured out more than 100 years ago in this country and in this province that they need to answer that fundamental question: which side are you on? They figured out that you have to answer that question in terms of management and labour and also in terms of politics. I think this debate, more than any other, defines the sides. I would argue that a lot of trade unionists are listening to this debate and asking themselves that question again: which side am I on? They are going to reaffirm which side they are on, because they know that social democrats and the trade union movement have worked together for things like health care, social housing, fair legislation, women's rights, minority rights and most of the progressive social changes that have happened in this country and province.

So I am always amazed when I hear someone who purports to be a good trade unionist kicking apart good legislation like this. I would suggest that my friend across the way needs to look at the inherent contradiction he has in being a member of a right-wing party and a trade union at the same time. He's got a little problem.

Interjection.

J. Pullinger: The member argues that they're a centrist party. Well, perhaps in the sense that they're running right down the centre of the picket fence all the time with a leg on both sides....

[4:00]

Hon. Speaker, we're debating the principle of this bill, and we ought to set a little context for that in this Legislature before I talk about some of the arguments that the opposition members, both Social Credit and Liberal, have made. Let's not forget that the context in which we are having this debate is an era of grossly unfair labour legislation, which is just ending. We've had Bill 19, we've had Bill 82 from the previous government and we've had "sunshine legislation," as it was called, all of which was blatantly biased toward business, all of which was very unfair and most of which -- or good chunks of it, anyway -- was condemned by the International Labour Organization of the United Nations as being unfair and oppressive. That legislation was an embarrassment, quite frankly, to any right-thinking person in this province and this country. That's the context in which we're having this debate. It's worth noting that the special committee of advisers, whose open, fair and democratic process produced 98 percent of this legislation, made it very clear collectively -- business, labour and a negotiator -- that no one would seriously defend Bill 19 as balanced or fair legislation. It was criticized at the time, it has been criticized by the United Nations and it has been criticized by business, by labour and by anybody who understood precisely what that bill did. This has been a very biased and unbalanced labour climate that we've been working under in British Columbia.

Therefore any move toward fairness is obviously a move toward labour, and I think that's a very defensible move. To bring it back to the middle where it's fair and balanced legislation is indeed a move toward labour that's long overdue. This piece of legislation is something that we can all be proud of. It's based on the principles of mutual respect and cooperation. It has a lot of vehicles and mechanisms to expedite and facilitate collective agreements, the negotiating process and to minimize strike time. I think that's something we can and ought to support.

I want to talk a little bit about the process by which this legislation was arrived at. Unlike the previous administration's labour legislation, Bill 19, this one is the direct product of a fair, open and honest consultation process. We had an individual with an understanding of business; we had an individual with an understanding of the trade union movement and labour; and a mediator. Those three individuals travelled this province. Anyone's voice that wanted to be heard was heard. They put together a report and agreed on 98 percent of the recommendations. Hon. Speaker, 98 percent of the changes unanimously agreed to by both sides in the consultation process are reflected in this bill. It seems to me that that is very fair indeed.

I have to confess that I struggled a little bit watching the former Minister of Labour from the former Social Credit administration defending Bill 19 and arguing 

[ Page 3955 ]

that this process has been unfair when it was his government that implemented what was supposed to be a fair process, but at the same time his own Premier and two business lawyers were drafting legislation that hit the floor of this Legislature without any kind of consultation, not even with his own minister. Let's not forget that that process prompted the resignation of the deputy minister of the day, who condemned both the process and that legislation. For members of the Social Credit Party to argue that this process is less than open, fair or consultative is hypocritical in the extreme.

I want to look at some of the arguments. I've listened in the last couple of weeks with great interest to both the Liberal and Social Credit members scream that the sky is falling; that with this piece of legislation capital is going to flee south, all small businesses are going to go bankrupt, the interest rates are going to fall, our credit rating is going to fall apart, and the deficit is going to be increased. According to the pundits across the way, they can't believe the amazing impact this piece of legislation is going to have. The reality is that we're in far more danger of business moving south in this province and this country from the free trade agreement, which all of the people on the opposite benches support, than we are from this legislation or any other. Yes, we have watched businesses go south, but it has had nothing to do with fair and balanced labour legislation.

Crying that the sky is falling or that this is some kind of a devastating emergency when in reality we're swinging the balance back to centre is foolish and perhaps even irresponsible in this time when we have some very serious economic difficulties in this province. From those who claim to be supportive of a stable business climate, the small business sector and a strong economy, those arguments are doing nothing but exacerbate any problems that might be out there.

We're also hearing all sorts of arguments about fairness and democracy. One would think from listening to them that we have the defenders of fairness and democracy on the opposition benches. I said "one would think," but clearly that's not the case. We're hearing all sorts of arguments about individual rights, but let's not forget that this is not a bill about non-organized labour; this is a bill about trade unions, about the collective, about workers' democratic organizations. But individual rights are protected under this legislation, insofar as they are affected. This is a balanced piece of legislation.

Those people who object...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The hon. member for Cowichan-Ladysmith has the floor.

J. Pullinger: ...to participating in or holding membership in a trade union because of religious reasons can withdraw. They do not have to be part of a trade union. They can exercise that individual right according to their own conscience.

Similarly, employers retain the right of free speech that we're hearing a lot of rhetoric about. They retain the right of free speech, but in a fair way. They are no longer allowed to engage openly in unfair labour practices. They're not allowed to intimidate their workers. They're not allowed to engage in those practices that would clearly use the imbalance of power that they have to thwart any attempt by members to organize themselves into a trade union. But that right of free speech is still there. If it's a reasonably held opinion, or if it's fact, there's no problem. Those employers still have the right to communicate with their employees during an organization drive and to give them what is legitimate opinion or obvious fact. So the right of free speech is clearly protected in this piece of legislation -- and in many others, I might add.

A striking employee.... If an individual feels very strongly that they don't want to be part of a strike, they have the individual right to cross the picket line and go back to work if they choose. They can make that decision about their job, and choose whether to withdraw their labour or work during a strike.

I think the main argument we've heard from the opposition benches is that somehow this is an undemocratic piece of legislation because it denies workers the right to vote on certification and denies workers the secret ballot. I have to confess that I struggle a little bit with that because, after all, if a worker sits down and fills out a union organizing card.... If 55 percent of the workers sit down and fill out a card saying that they want to belong to a union, clearly they've exercised their democratic right. They can withdraw that card any time they like. That's private, that's secret. It's as secret a ballot as anything. Let's not forget also that they vote on the first collective agreement. Those rights to vote are still there. They're still intact. They're clearly defended in this legislation.

Interjection.

J. Pullinger: The members opposite are arguing that the union is going to intimidate members into joining a union unless there is a secret ballot. But what they're ignoring -- I don't think they're forgetting it -- is the fact, the reality, that in a labour certification drive under Bill 19, what actually happened was that some unscrupulous employers spent a great deal of time, money and effort to intimidate their workers to ensure that they did not unionize. The complaints about unfair labour practices tripled under Bill 19.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Again I must remind hon. members that all members have an opportunity to participate in the debate, but we cannot have two and three debates going on at one time in the House.

J. Pullinger: The reality is that under Bill 19, it was a very unfair process that tended to handicap workers in their ability to form a union when they wanted a union. Individual rights, as far as they obtain in this piece of legislation, are protected for the employee and for the employer. I must also say that the 

[ Page 3956 ]

rights of the public are well protected under this as well.

It's very clear that the members opposite are forgetting that there is a fundamental imbalance of power between labour and management. Management has the job; the worker needs the job. Particularly in times where there's high unemployment, such as we are experiencing right now, an individual worker has virtually nothing to bargain with. The only bargaining chip a worker has is his or her labour. If they withdraw that, then that obviously produces a problem for the employer, and they have some grounds for negotiations.

Clearly one-on-one doesn't work. It never has. To ignore that imbalance of power working-class history in this province and in this country and is to ignore the reasons that we have trade unions. Trade unions arose because of an exploitation of workers for much of our history. They are defensive mechanisms and reflect the adversarial nature of industry and commerce in this country. The worker has far too much at stake to simply walk away from a job because they don't like it or don't like the way they're being treated.

The section of the new code that really seems to stick in the opposition's craw is the one about replacement workers, or scabs. I find it very interesting to listen to the opposition members -- Liberal or Socred -- argue that the employer has a right to replace those workers when they withdraw their labour. What that does is render absolutely impotent the only weapon that the workers have. If they can't collectively exercise their power by withdrawing their labour, then they have nothing left to bargain with. That whole dynamic is why you see violence when replacement workers come onto a job site during a strike. If the employer is allowed to carry on business as usual, then obviously the strike is going to be protracted and prolonged, and it's the workers who are going to ultimately suffer. That's unfair and undemocratic. This is good legislation, and I'm very pleased that we have decided not to make that allowable, as it was under Bill 19. It's simply not fair.

[4:15]

This whole argument about democracy and individual rights.... I would ask all members opposite where were they during Bill 19? Where have they been with all of these unfair labour practices? Bill 19 trampled on the rights of workers and the democratic process, and it was an embarrassment to us in this province. Where were these great defenders of freedom and democracy during that debate, and where have they been ever since? I would argue that they have been defending the rights of their special interest group, which is the corporations.

We also hear that this is going to be a devastating piece of legislation for small businesses. As one who comes from a family of small business owners, and I've had my own small businesses, I am very aware that this kind of legislation has very little to do with a small business, because almost all of them are not organized. They're not organized for a number of reasons. One is that they tend to be good corporate citizens. They live and work, and their children go to school, in the communities where they carry on their business. They tend to have a different relationship and be a little more cautious about what they do. The dynamics are different. They are also pretty much exempt.... Unless there are some very poor labour practices going on at a small business, the trade unions simply turn their back on the small business. They understand that they have a different bottom line and a different set of circumstances and that they, quite frankly, aren't interested, unless the workers at that small business are requesting help as is sometimes the case -- too often, I'm sorry to stay -- and are asking the union to come in because they are being exploited or abused or treated unfairly. To argue that this is going to do something draconian to small business is simply silly.

I would argue that small business has nothing to fear from this legislation. I would also like to say that the voice of small business has been heard. It was the process that led to this legislation that allowed anybody who chose to make a presentation, either written or verbal, to have the opportunity to do so. These secret backroom deals that we're hearing accusations about from the opposition benches are discussions with small business representatives, discussions with big business representatives and discussions with labour. It was a case of all the parties involved sitting down -- it's no secret -- and trying to work out the very best way to come at this piece of legislation.

I have listened very carefully and with some interest to both the Liberals and the Socreds, who defend the status quo, defend Bill 19, defend unfair labour practices and defend their corporate friends and backers. We know that the Socreds' position is clear. That was made very, very clear during Bill 19 and the rest of the labour legislation that we have seen come to this province through their government. Their arguments against this bill and the process leading to it are, quite frankly, hypocritical.

The Liberals, however, our friends on the opposition benches, said that they would support a good and fair process, that they would support good legislation. In fact, in one of their campaign documents they said that the Liberals would support broad consultation right in the labour code. We did that. We've had broad consultation. The Liberals said that they were committed to free collective bargaining in both the public and private sectors, and yet we find them arguing against the kind of legislation that will back government out of the process, stop interference and allow free collective bargaining in British Columbia.

The Liberals have argued all the right things to try to attract a labour vote, but in the final analysis, what we're finding is the Liberals and Socreds voting together. I would like to remind this Legislature that there's a reason why the Conservatives and the Liberals have been in bed together since 1941 in this province and why they keep coming together under the Social Credit banner. It's because there is fundamentally no difference between them on issues of this nature.

Interjections.

[ Page 3957 ]

The Speaker: Order, please. Again I call the House to order. The Chair cannot hear the debate. Please continue, hon. member.

J. Pullinger: I would like to conclude my comments by saying that I have read this legislation many times. I've read it carefully. I think it's a wonderful piece of legislation. It's certainly one that we're proud of on this side of the House, and one that I look forward to taking to my constituents and to those people to whom I promised that I would be part of a government that would get rid of that very unfair legislation, Bills 19 and 82, and replace it with legislation that was the result of a legitimate process and was truly fair and balanced. That's certainly what we've got in this piece of labour legislation.

I would encourage the members opposite to reread the legislation and reread their campaign promises and then stand up and vote for this good bill.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:21 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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