Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1992

Volume 6, No. 10

[ Page 3959 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Before we begin introductions this afternoon, I want to remind all hon. members of the CPA meeting upon adjournment today. You should find a memo on your desk. I would also urge members to advise my office regarding your attendance.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's my privilege this afternoon to introduce the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark, deputy leader of the opposition Labour Party and the former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. It's always a pleasure to welcome a sister parliamentarian to this House. It occurs to me that she should be sitting down on the floor of this House. Would the House please welcome her and wish her well on her way to a conference in New York.

D. Mitchell: It's good to be back, and let me congratulate the winner of the pool, whoever that is.

I'd like to make a brief introduction. Today with us in the gallery is a very good friend of mine, Shari Graydon, who is the president of a national association, MediaWatch. With her is Norma Graydon, a resident of Victoria. Would the House please welcome them here today.

Hon. G. Clark: I was going to welcome the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi to the House, but I won't do that.

I'd like to welcome to the chamber today the man who has the toughest job in British Columbia: Dave Laundy, vice-president of public affairs for the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Also with the VSE are Colleen Chambers and Nancy Woo. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

E. Barnes: Today in the members' gallery we have some very special visitors from Mexico. I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Ernesto Cadena, secretary of economic development for the state of Sonora, and the members of his delegation. Assisted by Michael J. Beley, president of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, this delegation is here to provide an exchange of information, technology and mutually beneficial working relationships between the mining industries of British Columbia and Sonora. The hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview and I had the pleasure of lunching with the delegation and enjoyed the exchange of ideas. I'm sure that their visit to British Columbia has been most fruitful, and I'd like everyone to join me in making them welcome.

J. Beattie: It's my pleasure to have in the House today two members of my constituency, Peter Simonsen and Cyndie Salting, both from Naramata. I'd like the House to make them welcome here today.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased to welcome a couple of constituents from Golden who are here in the galleries today: Talea Pecora, a friend of many years, and Tammy Stoffel. I'd like the members to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

AIRLINE MERGER EFFECT ON JOBS

G. Wilson: The question to the Minister of Finance is: given that we now have the CAW deciding to join in and help the Canadian Airlines situation, and given that there is some reconsideration taking place in Ottawa, could the Minister of Finance tell us why this government, with 15,000 B.C. jobs on the line, is waiting to be led by the nose by the federal government and why it doesn't show some leadership in the protection and saving of those jobs in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: As always, I think it's clear that we've been working hard on this question for some time. We're prepared to play a role in any attempt to save those jobs. Our principal concern is not whether it's Canadian Airlines or Air Canada, but to protect jobs in British Columbia. I think it's important that British Columbia be part of a constructive solution, and we're working on that. We are in the middle of very delicate negotiations. The federal government is part of that. Our officials have been meeting and met again this morning and will be, I'm sure, discussing it. I'll be discussing this very question with my counterparts in other provinces, hopefully this afternoon. It's a very difficult time. We're working hard. We are hopeful, but there are still lots of hurdles to overcome. The federal government in particular has still refused to provide the assistance required to really save this airline.

G. Wilson: Again to the Minister of Finance. Given that there are somewhere between 15,000 and 16,000 employees at risk here, and given the amount of dollars that this government has said it's prepared to put up in the event that the federal government in fact comes through with its money, can the Minister of Finance tell us: what will be the cost to the B.C. economy if those 15,000 jobs are lost and those people have to go onto the social assistance rolls?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I guess, we don't take a defeatist attitude in this question. We are working extremely hard to protect as many jobs as we can in British Columbia. Obviously we have to be prudent about it. We can't simply throw money at every company that comes in through the door, as the Liberal Party would suggest -- day in and day out in the House, whenever there's a company in trouble. We have to act prudently and carefully. We have to work with other governments and with employees to ensure that there is a viable airline industry in this country -- not just for the next week or the next month, but for the years ahead.

G. Wilson: I think that the people affected -- not only the employees, but many of the people who will be 

[ Page 3960 ]

losing their income through the spinoff impact of this tremendous loss of employment in the province -- were looking for something more than political rhetoric from the Minister of Finance this morning. In the event that the federal government does not come forward with the money, can the minister tell us what contingency plans he has in place to look after B.C. jobs in this industry?

Hon. G. Clark: Let's get this clear for all members of the House. A month or so ago, when this Liberal opposition demanded that we give $50 million to Canadian Airlines and other people, we refused. It's clear that from the time we initially refused assistance till today, the financial situation of that company has deteriorated dramatically. If we had done as the Liberals requested and put $50 million of taxpayers' money at risk at that time, today we'd be back looking for more money from government. We have been proven to be absolutely correct in that analysis. It is imperative that the federal government -- which is responsible through its policy of deregulation, through its failed economic policy -- now take a lead role in saving an airline industry in this country. We're prepared to play our part. We're waiting for the federal government to show its leadership.

DOCTORS' DISPUTE WITH GOVERNMENT

J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Health. In question period the last few days, this minister has refused to interfere with the Monty Python tactics of Ray Skelly in Powell River. Will this minister admit that the reason she won't interfere is that his harassment of B.C. patients ties into her own agenda of changing our health care system through doctor-bashing?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I've tried very patiently over the last number of days to explain to the official opposition that inflaming the situation with the B.C. Medical Association at this point is not helpful. However, I will tell the member that I have a meeting tomorrow morning with Dr. Steve Hardwicke, and I'm sure it will be on the agenda.

[2:15]

J. Tyabji: I'm glad to hear that the minister is finally meeting with the president of the BCMA. It's about time.

Will the minister admit to the House that her friend's propaganda campaign is part of her plan to manipulate the patients of the province into a Brave New World NDP health care system, which includes doctors as government-salaried workers and higher health care premiums?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I don't know where the opposition has been for the last two months. The Ministry of Health and the BCMA have been meeting almost daily, and I've been in almost daily or weekly discussions with the head of the BCMA.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Again, hon. members, the Chair cannot hear the answer to the question.

Hon. E. Cull: I don't think the opposition understands that the concept of community health clinics, with a variety of payment mechanisms for doctors, is well established in this province. Many communities throughout British Columbia are preparing proposals for me right now to put together community health clinics, which may involve salaried positions, capitation, a rostered group practice or a number of other payment mechanisms.

Interjections.

Hon. E. Cull: The laughter on the other side of the House shows that they obviously haven't done their homework, and they don't understand how doctors in the province can be remunerated.

TAXATION AND AIRLINE INDUSTRY

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Finance as well. One of the main reasons that the airline industry is in such trouble in Canada is excessive taxes. This spring the minister raised jet fuel taxes by 66 percent and projected that the tax would raise $16 million in new revenue. Can the minister advise how much of that $16 million will come from Canadian Airlines this year; whether or not, as he considers the plight of this company, he is reconsidering that tax; and whether he would consider withdrawing it?

Hon. G. Clark: When we took office we had to write off $300 million of taxpayers' money in bad loans to business, given out by the administration that you were part of. Talk about shovelling money out the back of a truck, hon. Speaker! Dozens of companies, day in and day out, were given money, money flushed down the toilet by that administration. It's obvious that when it comes to assistance to business, we have to take a businesslike approach and make sure that the taxpayers' money is being protected.

On the question of the jet fuel tax, it's important that we be competitive across the country. We raised the jet fuel tax to exactly the same level of taxation as that socialist province, Alberta.

J. Weisgerber: That prompts so many responses from me that I hardly know where to start. That socialist province is putting up $75 million for Canadian Airlines. Indeed, we now see the write-off that this government manipulated last year to try and boost its deficit being written down as part of a cost-saving measure.

In any event, another tax that's killing not only the airline industry but profitable businesses across this province is the capital tax. Has the minister calculated the effect of the new corporation capital tax on Canadian Airlines? Does he know how much this tax is contributing to the problems of Canadian Airlines?

[ Page 3961 ]

The Speaker: Order, please. Before I recognize the minister, I would remind hon. members that both questions and answers must be precise and without argument or debate.

Hon. G. Clark: It's obviously a ridiculous line of questioning. To say that the problems of Canadian Airlines -- which is losing $700,000 a day and has for some time -- are the responsibility of this administration and the last budget is ludicrous. After the budget British Columbia is the second-lowest tax jurisdiction in Canada. Our taxes are competitive with anywhere else in this country -- after the last budget. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We believe in fair taxation. We have to be competitive across the country, and we are.

KOOTENAY COALMINERS' COMPLAINTS

W. Hurd: A question for the Minister of Labour. He will be aware that the Greenhills Workers' Association is charging that it has been disfranchised; and the Balmer workers claim that their collective agreement is being gutted by the Luscar sale in the Kootenays, in violation of union bylaws. What steps has the minister taken to investigate the complaints of these workers' associations and the unions?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member may not be aware that the whole issue of those mines is currently before the courts -- today, as we speak. Given the fact that those hearings are going on, I do not think it is prudent to address that issue at this point.

W. Hurd: Since the matter is before the courts, we assume the minister would put out a press release anyway.

Perhaps I can shift your attention south to Fording Coal, where there is talk of a collapse affecting 750 workers. Can the minister outline what steps he's taking to alleviate the plight of those workers in Elkford?

Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that this government appointed Mr. Vince Ready to examine that dispute. Mr. Ready has reported on that dispute, and he indicated the difficulties at the bargaining table and the distance between settlement and the current position taken by the company and employees. He has made some recommendations, and the government has acted on them. One of his recommendations was to simply give the dispute a little bit more time. We're prepared to do that.

We've had an additional opportunity subsequent to Mr. Ready's recommendations to meet and discuss the issue further with both union and industry representatives. We placed representatives of our ministry into that community to talk to the parties to see whether the conditions are ready for negotiations to resume. In addition to that, I've had discussions with the mayor and union representatives in the community to ascertain their views. For the time being the ministry is taking the view that this is a collective bargaining dispute where the parties are far apart; and consequently we will stick to the recommendations made by Mr. Ready to date.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the Minister of Labour is aware that the union in Elkford is currently spending $30,000 a week on food hampers to feed miners and their families and $60,000 a week to maintain their insurance. When was the last time this Labour minister actually visited the Kootenays?

Hon. M. Sihota: I was in the Kootenays about two weeks ago.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE WORKERS

G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't know there was any snow on the ski hills in the Kootenays yet.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. In a press release dated November 5 the Finance minister announced a delay in hiring new employees. What came out was a virtual hiring freeze. How does this affect the 700 community health care workers currently being hired by the Ministry of Health?

Hon. E. Cull: Almost all of those positions are now filled.

Ministerial Statement

RESOURCE COMPENSATION
COMMISSION REPORT

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish to advise the House that at the conclusion of this ministerial statement I will be seeking leave to table the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for the Taking of Resource Interests.

I want at this time to thank Dr. Richard Schwindt for his very comprehensive study of the issues surrounding resource compensation. The level of participation in Dr. Schwindt's inquiry demonstrates recognition throughout British Columbia that forest and mining interests should be compensated fairly when their interests are taken for public use. Over the next three months we will consult with the forest and mining industries and other interested parties before introducing legislation in the spring 1993 session of the Legislature. This consultation will ensure that the legislation to be introduced will be fair and equitable. Passage of such legislation will in turn ensure fair compensation decisions. By eliminating through legislation the uncertainty of costly and lengthy legal actions, we will help ensure greater economic stability in our province.

It is important to note that the compensation legislation, when it is introduced, will not include the commission's recommendations relating to the deletion of lands from forest tenures. Those issues will be addressed within the context of broader forest management issues in ongoing discussions with the forest industry. Similarly, the compensation legislation will not deal with the broader mining tenure issues raised in the report; these will be dealt with in the context of more comprehensive mining tenure reforms through discussions with the mining industry.

[ Page 3962 ]

As I said, I think Dr. Schwindt has done an excellent job, and his report will be invaluable as a basis for consultation and the subsequent drafting of legislation. I am confident that our consultations over the next three months will be constructive and productive.

Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to table the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for the Taking of Resource Interests.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for the Taking of Resource Interests.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, the opposition is also pleased to see this report come forward. But we have some concerns about its relationship to a previous bill that's actually still before this House. And the sad fact is that this particular commission has created a great deal of uncertainty in the resource industries in this province and has engendered a great deal of concern in those industries about their future and the rights they have of resource tenure.

When we look at the original terms of reference of the Schwindt commission, we note that public consultation was supposed to have been a hallmark of that commission as well, and we find it rather surprising that this particular consultative model will now be used as a means for further consultation with the industry and with the various industrial users. It's also interesting to note the Peat Marwick Thorne independent financial review, which talked at length about the alienation of resources and how it will affect government costs and revenues. We certainly hope that in the course of this consultation with the resource holders over the next few months, the amount of revenue that will be lost and the amount by which the deficit will be increased will be of paramount importance in these considerations.

J. Weisgerber: We certainly look forward to having an opportunity to examine the report. We welcome the notion that there would be consultation, and we expect and take it to be that it would be a meaningful consultation and that there would be an opportunity for industry to express some of its concerns. It was clear when we were debating second reading of Bill 32 that this government's idea of fair and the industry's idea of fair were worlds apart. There needs to be a process to bring the government and industry into some common frame of mind on this issue.

I would have felt much more convinced about how genuine the government was in this undertaking if the minister had taken this opportunity to withdraw Bill 32, which still sits on the order paper of this House. If there is a genuine intent to consult, and if indeed there is a genuine intent to find a mechanism other than the one that's outlined in Bill 32, it would have been reasonable for the minister, in tabling this report, to have given notice that he was in fact withdrawing Bill 32. Perhaps he'll take the opportunity to do it later this week.

[2:30]

It also seems to me that, because the legislation deals with land claims and the creation of parks for the government, there would have been a great opportunity here to have clarified for third parties the role that they will have in the future expropriation of tenures and resources for the purpose of satisfying those two items.

With that, hon. Speaker, we will be examining in detail the report that's been tabled, and we thank the minister for his courtesy in extending to us a copy of his statement beforehand.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'd like to advise the House that we anticipate voting on second reading some time this evening, so that the number of speakers can be accommodated. I want to advise the House that we intend to do that if it takes half an hour or so past the normal sitting time. With that, I call second reading of Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise, I believe for the third time, to speak to the bill that's before us in second reading stage. We in the Liberal opposition have tried hard with the amendments we have put forward to have this government recognize the need for a broader and wider consultation with respect to the process and to the impact of the legislation, which is likely to affect not only management and organized labour in the province, but quite likely all members of B.C. society one way or another.

In speaking to second reading of Bill 84 and for those who are following my remarks, I'd like to break down my comments into three principal areas. The first is to talk a little about the process of this debate and where we have gone to date with respect to the intention of the Liberal opposition to be constructive in our direction. The second is to talk specifically about some of the philosophical questions. Third, and in the interests of the minister, I want to talk specifically about amendments that I believe could be looked at and reviewed in committee stage. I have a specific direction with respect to those amendments to this bill.

With respect to the extent of the debate to date, it has been interesting to listen to those members opposite who have taken the time to come forward and debate this most important issue, how broad-ranging the debate has been and how members opposite seem to, at least on the surface, have some misunderstanding of the direction that the Liberal Party of British Columbia has taken. I also suspect that it is in their political and partisan interests to make sure that the words we put forward are essentially glossed over -- even twisted, some would argue -- by members of the government to put out a message that might be less than direct.

If one looks at section 2 of Bill 84, it illustrates, more than any other part of this new legislation, the fundamental differences between the philosophical base and direction of the New Democratic Party, which is 

[ Page 3963 ]

obviously the party that is in government in British Columbia, the Social Credit Party, which is the third party in the House, and the Liberal Party. If we look at those philosophical differences, I think that members opposite will understand the position we have taken with respect to this debate.

As a preface to those remarks in terms of the philosophical differences we take with respect to this bill, let me say that we did not support the hoist motion that was put forward by the third party, not because we were not tempted, but because we decided that this bill needed further review. We did not support the hoist motion as a party. For well over six and a half months we pressured this government to release the public report that was done and bring forward the labour bill in a fall session to ensure that the bill was adequately reviewed -- for consultation -- and to make sure that the areas we believed needed amendment could be freely and properly amended. Having talked for six and a half months about the need to get this bill before the people of British Columbia so that the interests of both labour and management could be looked after and reviewed, so that the interests of the individual worker, male and female, could be respected, so that the interests of British Columbians as a whole could be reviewed, it would have been quite hypocritical -- in fact, foolhardy; some might even have said cynical -- for us to have then stood up and voted to have it hoisted from the House so that it could not be debated.

It wasn't because we were going to give this bill a soft ride or not fight it or somehow be lax in our position as opposition with respect to what we wanted to do. It was because we were honouring a commitment that we made to the electorate in the last election to be a responsible and effective opposition that would look after the interests of those who elected us, our constituents -- the people of British Columbia -- and not be driven by the single interest of any one group in the province, whether that single-interest group was organized labour, as it obviously is with the government, or whether it was a large corporate business or any other segment of the Canadian or British Columbia population.

We decided that we needed to move this bill to committee stage to allow us an opportunity to review, through a legislative committee, exactly what it entails with respect to the rights of organized labour, management and individual workers. That is clearly the area that draws the lines of distinction between us and the old-guard philosophy that has been demonstrated by some members of the third party -- not all, but some. It clearly draws a line of distinction between the philosophy of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. We are looking after the interests not only of employees who are represented by a trade union and of management, but of individual workers as well -- those people who are free to choose whether they wish to be in a union or not. And if they are represented by a trade union, we want to make sure that their individual rights as members of that trade union are not eroded in the interests of the collective rights of those who govern them -- the management of the union itself.

That's where we have some very serious difficulties in the first part of this bill. In section 27, "Purposes and objects," of the current Industrial Relations Act, it suggests: "securing and maintaining industrial peace and furthering harmonious relations between employers and employees." Employers and employees are emphasized in all of the key purposes and objects. "Trade union" is usually qualified by "freely chosen representatives of employees" or "employers and bargaining agents." When we look at this, we recognize that it is either qualified by those particular conditions or it is not mentioned at all.

In this government's Bill 84, employees are mentioned only once. It suggests that trade unions are the freely chosen representatives of the employees, and that is where it begins and ends. In the rest of section 2, the code talks only about vague generalities and principles which promote and secure the welfare of the union. The Labour Relations Code should not protect unions; it should protect organized workers: individual labourers, working women and men. This bill, in the language of the bill itself, removes the emphasis on the employee -- the individual woman or man -- and puts in protection for the union itself. Philosophically we have some real concerns about that.

If you look at this, you will see that in section 2(1)(a) it says it's to encourage the practice of collective bargaining. That's really no different than what we see in the current act, and none of us would get too terribly upset about that. Section 2(1)(b) suggests that it should "encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues...." This concept has the force of a straitjacket on the employers in section 53(1) through (5). We have some serious problems, because in 2(1)(b) we are looking at a carte blanche guarantee of a contract re-opener at any capricious fancy or idea of a union. There is nothing there except a huge leap of faith that we are being asked to take that that is not going to occur.

We also recognize that section 2(1)(c), which is "to minimize the effects of labour disputes on persons who are not involved in the dispute," is a commendable thing. All of us would agree. That section is completely abrogated by section 65, picketing; section 66, actions; section 68, replacement workers; and section 69, which is other acts not actionable in this particular act. If we take a look at that, and couple it with the secondary boycott provisions and the common site picketing that is present in this through the elimination of sections 4.1 and 9.1 of the present act, we can see that the section which talks about minimizing the effects of labour disputes on persons who are not involved in the dispute is something that simply cannot be obtained, nor will it be. In fact, this is a recipe for us to have far greater conflict and a far greater impact on the ability of individuals, especially those in medium and small business, to have the security to practise the business.

We clearly understand that there are going to be provisions in place, and there is a need to put them in place, to provide members of trade unions with the right to strike and to bargain freely and collectively. None of us in the Liberal opposition is opposed to that. None of us is opposed to people unionizing if they wish 

[ Page 3964 ]

to do so. But we become very concerned when we see in the bill, in the amendment to the existing act.... Let us be very clear that Bill 19 is not an act that we would support or would encourage retaining in its current state. Certainly those of us in the Liberal opposition would not encourage that Bill 19 be maintained, despite what members opposite may try and charge. They simply have not taken the time to understand the intellectual argument or the fundamental principles upon which we base our comments.

Let us say also that section 2 is designed to eliminate the established practice of the present act, which is "encouraging the voluntary resolution of collective bargaining disputes" -- that's what it says in the current act -- and replace it with compulsory consultation every two months and the use of imposed mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism. That doesn't advance the individual's right to free collective bargaining. That doesn't advance the individual's capacity to be able to direct their union and the way in which their union should be advancing a new and more progressive collective bargaining process that will give them a contract and that will better protect the rights of workers in British Columbia.

This new act insists: "The board shall exercise powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed on it under this code, having regard to the purposes set out in subsection (1). The present act provides that council shall have regard to the following purposes and objects but not as duties conferred or imposed. Hon. Speaker, why are we doing that? What is that going to do for the individual rights of the worker? How does that advance the individual rights? It clearly doesn't. It looks after the interests of the union, of those who are in executive positions and who will be able to advance the desire of the union. But who looks after and protects the right of the individual as a member component of that if the act does not also have the ability to act on behalf of individuals within the collective bargaining unit itself? Clearly we have to have those protections put in place.

[2:45]

The above clearly illustrates the basic differences in the philosophies of the parties debating this and in those of us who have taken a philosophical position and are simply not standing up in our prescribed time -- which I understand members opposite are doing -- in order to push forward a line that really does not have the freedom of thought that I believe all of us need to put into this bill.

The government opposite, because of the philosophical base from which they come -- and I don't hold that as a criticism; I simply put it out as a stated fact -- is obsessed with the collective rights of the union at the expense of the individual rights of an employee, with a determination to fetter the traditional rights of the employer. That's the fundamental basis of this bill. That is exactly why we needed to have a broader consultative process, and that's why you're starting to see business and industry, now that they have had an opportunity to review this bill and their lawyers have read it, understand that not only are the rights of the employer affected, which is something all of us must have concern for, but the right of the employee, both manager and worker, is also negatively impacted by this bill. It is our view that the government would act through a board to ensure the union dominates, during negotiations, the terms of the collective agreement, with reopeners ensuring conflict by banning replacement workers but enforcing secondary boycotts and common site picketing. It's clear to any who have read and understand this bill what that means in terms of a proposition with respect to this bill. Since we have gone through the process of attempting to amend this bill in second reading, we look forward to the individual members of the government standing up and speaking to this bill in their turn. I hope that they will each take, as their own consciences dictate, the interests and rights of the individual worker into account.

How does this differ from some members of the third party? I would argue that members of the third party tend to be locked into the traditional concept of the sanctity of the contract for employment and the collective agreement as its vehicle. Clearly we must move beyond that today. We can no longer have the kind of polarization that that kind of progression has provided. We need a more progressive and better way to resolve our disputes. We believe that there is a proposition for that. If you are locked into the concept of the sanctity of the contract for employment and the collective agreement as its only vehicle, then we have to understand that any proposition for amendment, new technologies or change that is made necessary by a quickly changing economy, market demands and working conditions that affect new business and industry will be extremely difficult to bring about.

Good working conditions are essential if the rewards of a competitive market economy are to be achieved. We all understand that in essence management must set tasks and working conditions. We've heard an awful lot about the history of unionism from the members opposite; some have certainly viewed it from one set of glasses. Traditionally the role of the union was to determine the conditions that would essentially protect the interests of the employee in terms of fair wages and a benefits package.

That was the traditional model, but it's changing worldwide. As we see this change beginning, it's important for us to understand that flexibility in the workplace is necessary. As I go through the second component of my discussion and lead to where we should amend this particular bill, we recognize that we cannot be all things to all people. I know that members opposite have suggested that the Liberals try to be all things to all people. It's an honourable goal; one that you simply can't achieve. It's better to look after the interests of all people as your goal than to state that you are essentially advancing the cause of one select group, which is what the government seems prepared to do.

I recall that the last speaker on Tuesday made a point of saying that he wants to know whose side the Liberal Party is on. The Minister of Labour said that he claimed to be confused, which comes as no surprise to anybody who has been listening to the Minister of Labour, as to whether the Liberals were for or against Bill 84. Let me say to those who raised this issue -- and let us be very clear whose side we're on -- that we're on the side of 

[ Page 3965 ]

the women and men of British Columbia who work, whether they are unionized or non-unionized and whether they are in management or a union-management position. We are on the side of the interests of the people who elected us. We're on the side of the people of this province and not any one component group. I know that this is a very difficult concept for the members opposite, because they have just come from their convention, and every time we saw the Premier, we saw the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour on his right-hand side. When we see those members at their convention and hear the discussions about their "labour arm," we understand that it's the labour arm that has its hand deep into the labour pocket, and that's what takes the money and finances the party opposite. That's why this bill is the way it is.

However, I digress. I must stick to the issue at hand, which is second reading of the bill. Let me say that in telling the people of the province where the Liberal opposition stands, we are also prepared to suggest that there are some issues here that must be resolved if we are to put ourselves in support of this bill. What are they? Let us be clear that our basic philosophy, the fundamental principles upon which the Liberal opposition is based, that which drives us.... Those people opposite who say that they don't have a philosophy remind me of one prominent member opposite, who came forward so forcefully the other day and said: "These are the principles by which I stand. If you don't like these principles, then I've got these sets of principles, and maybe we'll deal with those."

The Liberal Party is founded on a base of fundamental principles, and those are to ensure that all three parties involved in this particular bill -- that is, labour, as an organized collective; management, as an authority that administers; and the employees, as individuals who have rights in the workplace -- must get a fair deal, and the public and those innocent parties who are not involved in the dispute must be protected from all three of these groups. The Liberal Party believes in the sanctity of the basic, fundamental rights of the individual, and those have been removed from this bill.

We can point specifically to where those rights have been taken away. In the first instance is the question of the right to work, whether you are unionized or not. That is a fundamental right. It's interesting that we had the member for Vancouver-Hastings say that this is only a problem for women, because all of the men who want to be in the workforce are in the workforce and are employed. It shows you how out of touch the members opposite are. They don't understand the plight of the unemployed and those who need to be redirected and who need new training. People are being put out of work because of the dramatic reductions in the annual allowable cut, especially in the midcoast area. People there who are involved in the IWA -- a good, strong union -- have members who are being turfed out because this government refuses to phase in the AAC. We recognize that they have a right to work and a right to freely choose if they wish to be in a union or to remain unorganized. That right extends to a supervised secret ballot for certification -- a fundamental right to cast your ballot in private, so that you can choose freely whether or not you wish to be organized. That is a most basic right, and we find that to be unbelievable.

We also believe that there should be a secret ballot with respect to the provision for a strike vote and that the secret ratification of a collective agreement is in equal balance to it. If you have a right to secretly say yes or no on the question of a strike, you should have equally the right to say yes or no to the ratification of your agreement. It is fair; it is balanced.

We believe that the government has no place in the collective bargaining process, that government should allow the parties to freely negotiate their agreements. We have decided that in this bill the government will not only play a role and a part but will do so in a manner that favours the union and not the employer. We understand why this government is trying to do that, because we have witnessed the problems with Bill 19. We witnessed the history of how it came about. We don't need to relive that problem, because we in the Liberal opposition are committed to a reformed labour code that brings about a greater degree of harmony and peace.

We don't believe that the way you do it is to tip the scale the other way. It's as if the government has been saying that for so many years of Social Credit rule the willow stick has been bent this far, and now we're going to bend it equally far back to the rights of the workers so that we can have a balanced situation. That's not how you build a new, progressive labour code in this province.

Let us also say that there are areas in which we believe amendments need to be put forward. One of the areas in which there needs to be a great deal of review, and we offer this as a suggestion to the minister opposite.... As a matter of fact, if the minister was prepared to introduce this as an amendment, we would be prepared to suggest it was his idea. He could take full credit for it. I think it would go well in both employment and union circles.

The language that pertains to the replacement worker restrictions on management is, quite frankly, unacceptable, unworkable and has not been thought through clearly. Let us focus for a moment on the process by which this language worked. The report of advisers that was put forward worked in a manner that provided us a great deal of movement with respect to this. The only place that this fell down was not among the members who were active in the report to government, but when the government interfered and started to put in place its own agenda, its own set of regulations. It didn't advance that proposition; in fact, it confused the situation and now has exacerbated it to the point that it's unlikely you're going to get management, or certainly large industry, to comply.

That report had three choices. The first choice, which essentially was the management position on the committee, was to do nothing at all; the second choice, which was the neutral position on that committee, was to move to some form of compromise; and the labour position on that committee was to introduce, essentially, the Ontario labour bill. This government went to a far more radical position. It went to a position that said extreme measures are going to be put in place that 

[ Page 3966 ]

eliminate the possibility for management to bring in replacement workers. That cannot be accepted.

There needs to be an amendment, and that amendment must say that there will be exemptions to allow management to bring in replacement workers from other operations, especially in the question of the protection of property and property management. It's the kind of provision that exists in Quebec and allows for the protection of property. It's a sensible amendment. What do you do when you can't even get a fire department across the line to put out a fire? That's how ridiculous this proposition becomes unless we have some measure to put those kinds of protectionist measures in place. It seems to me it's one amendment we could deal with right now that would help us move.

[3:00]

The second is the question of secondary boycott provisions. There has to be some provision for the protection of small industry, small business and especially those people in small, single-family retailing propositions that are going to be negatively affected by this bill. We would support an amendment that would look after the secondary boycott provision if it was to remove, in terms of the scale of operation of business, from those people who simply find they are going to be out of work if they cannot keep their businesses going.

Hon. Speaker, I look forward to this bill moving into committee stage, as that is our only choice now, given that our attempt to move this to a more progressive committee stage is something that can't happen. We in the Liberal Party wish these amendments to proceed. We hope the minister will take them in the spirit in which they were offered.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, it's with pleasure that I stand to join the debate on Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code.

It's more than 80 years since the mining families of Cumberland were forced out of their homes onto the banks of the Comox River where they sheltered through the winter in makeshift tents. The company had locked out the workers and brought in scabs from as far away as England to take their jobs. The issue was safety and the right of miners to refuse to work when tests indicated that there was gas in the mines.

The strike started in the mine in Extension but soon spread to Cumberland and Nanaimo, and the toll on the community was severe. The company was fully protected by the laws of the land, while the miners had no way to defend their right to safety, except by withdrawing their labour. All they had to sustain them was their anger, and it finally burst into action after two decades of struggle.

To understand the anger, we must look back. In 1887 at the No. 1 mine under the water in Nanaimo harbour, 148 men died. The following year 77 men died at Wellington. At the Extension mine 16 men died in 1901, and 32 men died in 1909. In the 25 years between the opening of the first mine on Vancouver Island and the strike of 1912, 373 men died. All these deaths were the result of gas explosions that could have been prevented with simple regulations to control open flames and gas concentrations.

Laws to protect workers in British Columbia mines were instituted slowly and subverted quickly. In desperation, the men themselves were paying gas committees to examine the mines and post their findings in conspicuous places. But their patience ran out when a miner who reported gas in the Extension mine was fired and then blacklisted by other companies. They walked out of the mines and were soon followed by workers at other sites. In Ladysmith 1,200 miners joined the union in a single day. So began the series of events that came to be known to workers as the Vancouver Island strike. But the government of the day saw it differently. Their reaction was to call the strike a riot -- the Vancouver Island riot.

In August 1913 the acting Premier Bill Bowser ordered out the militia to put down the foreign agitators who were disrupting the coal companies' production. The Seaforth Highlanders sailed across the strait to do their duty but were unable to disembark at Nanaimo harbour, because the people of the city seemed to think that the only foreign agitators in sight were wearing kilts and carrying guns. The Highlanders retreated to the company wharf at Departure Bay.

The civil disturbance of 1913, where 213 men were arrested, was carried into the courts in 1914. One hundred and sixty-six were tried for their part in the Vancouver Island riots. Of those, 50 were sentenced, but few actually went to jail. It wasn't until 1937 that the companies recognized the justice of the miners' cause and settled the dispute, but by that time the mines were exhausted and most of them were closed by the time of World War II.

In many countries, workers are still unprotected by law, but here in British Columbia we have come a long way since the miners' union was outlawed and "Bowser's Seventy-Twa," to use the folk song's title that describes this incident, invaded the island brandishing kilts and machine guns. But our very progress has wiped away the memory of those who spent the winter of 1912 to 1913 living in tents on the banks of the river.

As we debate this labour relations code, it is important to keep in perspective the relative power of those who own and those who work. To achieve a reasonable balance between the two requires the intervening power of the public as a whole to ensure that relationships between workers and employers are fair and equitable. That has been the objective of this government in the process that was followed and in the resulting legislation. This labour code is fair and equitable. It restores a balance that is necessary for stability in the relationship between employers and those who work for British Columbia companies. Disputes will be minimized under legislation that begins with the principle of fairness, and where disputes cannot be resolved, this legislation provides for a process based on mutual respect and cooperation.

Bill 84 provides new standards of fairness for labour relationships in British Columbia. By prohibiting the use of replacement workers, we have moved toward a level playing field in the bargaining process. It is a simple truth that unless workers have the power to withdraw their labour, they have no resource to balance the financial power of the employer. A fair settlement 

[ Page 3967 ]

can be achieved more quickly and without bitterness when those who sit across from each other at the bargaining table are able to proceed on the basis of what's reasonable rather than who is stronger. By eliminating the possibility that striking workers will be replaced, we protect the integrity of the bargaining process. This is fundamental.

It is these fundamentals that will make the difference as we move more aggressively into the Pacific Rim trading bloc, because our economic strength lies in our ability to provide high standards not only in the workplace but in the everyday life of working people of the province. For example, by protecting free speech for both employers and workers, we ensure the preservation of basic values. By re-establishing traditional Canadian procedures for certification -- I am referring particularly to the demonstration of support for a bargaining unit through signed union membership cards -- by re-establishing these Canadian traditions in labour relations, we also reaffirm our commitment to those historic rights of association that were so hard-won through more than two centuries of political development in Canada.

On a more practical plane, the provisions of this bill will expedite the resolution of disputes. We know that disputes between management and labour are inevitable, but with this new approach to labour relations, I believe that these disputes will be less frequent and more readily resolved. Joint consultation committees will be addressing issues of technological change and work reorganization and productivity, so employers and unions can work together to plan for the changes that happen so quickly in today's workplace.

Disruptions, resistance and dislocation due to such changes can be minimized if we work cooperatively. Bill 84 ensures that this process will be available to any collective bargaining unit requesting it, and advance notice must be given when an employer wants to introduce changes that will affect the working conditions or employment security of a significant number of employees.

Now some of this language gets pretty technical, and whenever I hear myself using a phrase like "significant number of employees," I get worried. I worry because it's easy to forget the very real people, those working people, whose everyday lives are seriously affected by this legislation. I think of my grandmother, who went to work at Children's Hospital during the war. She worked for more than 20 years, until at the age of 64, with less than a year to go before she was eligible for pension -- six months to be precise -- she was fired without cause. There was no union to protect my grandmother's rights. She had no one to appeal to. It wasn't fair, and it didn't matter. The hospital could avoid paying her pension, and they did. As my grandmother said goodbye to her colleagues, there was a solemn understanding among them all that few of them would ever make it to their pension; and for the young woman who had just taken my grandmother's place, it was especially clear that she could not hope for job security so long as workers were absolutely without resources other than their labour.

Some would say that those bad old days are long gone; and for those of us who are lucky enough to be protected by unions or who own their own business, that's true. But there are many workers in British Columbia -- and I'm thinking especially of women like my grandmother -- who are still unprotected, and it gives me hope that this labour relations code will facilitate the certification of bargaining units wherever workers believe they can benefit from organization.

I believe that there is a direct relationship between our standard of living and our standards of fairness in everyday life. In the laws we pass here in the Legislature, we set the standards of fairness in matters of public concern and lay out rules by which we will conduct ourselves here in British Columbia. Our labour relations are one of the most fundamental forms of conduct to come under public law, because the conditions of our work determine so much of the rest of the way we live. So I venture to say that this labour relations code will play a vital role in structuring the future of our province. To appreciate the centrality of the labour code in our everyday lives, we only need remember "Bill Bowser's seventy-twa," riding their horses off the boat and onto the wharf at Departure Bay; and then remember as well another Premier Bill, who sent the notorious Bill 19 charging into our workplace to demonstrate the might of government against the ordinary worker.

In Plato's most famous dialogue, Socrates debated the meaning of justice with Thrasymacus. Thrasymacus said that justice is simply the rule of the stronger. Socrates argued that justice is possible only in a society that is structured so that people can fulfil themselves in the work they do. By replacing Bill 19 with Bill 84, the government of British Columbia has taken sides with Socrates, and I will cast my vote in favour of justice by supporting this bill.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and speak to second reading of Bill 84. We've now been in the Legislature for more than two weeks talking about this legislation and about the various amendments that were put forward. They were good amendments, and it was a useful exercise to put forward those amendments. What was particularly useful about that exercise was that it gave workers, employers and others who were interested in labour legislation an opportunity to examine this legislation and to consider its implications to British Columbia and to British Columbians.

[3:15]

It was interesting to note that after about nine days, a number of organizations, which had initially indicated a rather lukewarm support of the bill, had an opportunity to consider more carefully the ramifications of the legislation and to then come out very strongly against Bill 84. I think their response would be mirrored by many British Columbians who have listened to the debate around Bill 84. As we have an opportunity to consider the impact of this legislation on British Columbia, it is the natural progression of our thoughts to come to the conclusion that Bill 84 goes too far. In fact, it skews the relationship between management and labour too far in support of organized labour.

[ Page 3968 ]

As you think about that, it follows that the impacts on British Columbia will be negative as a result. They will be negative for a number of reasons. The workplace relationship will be affected adversely. The investment climate in British Columbia undoubtedly will be negatively impacted. I don't think many companies will decide to pick up and leave British Columbia solely as a result of this legislation. I won't say that there won't be any, but I don't think many will. Perhaps a combination of the budget last year, this legislation, some other legislation and the budget that we anticipate next spring will cumulatively be enough to cause some people to decide that Washington State, Alberta or some other jurisdiction looks more attractive and will then consider the move. But I think the first people most likely to be affected by this legislation will be those deciding on investment opportunities in British Columbia. Those people, whether they be British Columbians, Canadians from outside British Columbia or people from outside Canada who have looked at British Columbia, particularly over the last five or six years, as a very attractive place to invest, as they consider again the opportunities in British Columbia, they will undoubtedly look at labour and labour issues here, and they will look at Bill 84, and it will be a negative issue in the weighing of the pros and cons of various jurisdictions and various investment decisions. That would seem to be abundantly clear.

So I'm pleased, hon. Speaker, that we've had a couple of weeks to talk about these issues in this Legislature. I'm glad, before we embarked on second reading and move forward to committee stage, that we've had an opportunity to look at this legislation; examine it to decide which parts of it we like, if there are any, which parts we can live with, if there are any, and which parts of it we find unacceptable -- and I can assure you that there are some of those. This is, I believe, the opportunity for us today -- and Monday and Tuesday, however long it takes us to debate second reading on the principle of this legislation -- to bring together the concerns we've heard, and to talk in very general terms about the kinds of changes that should be made to this legislation before we move to considering it at committee.

It seems to me, as I talk to employers and employees, and also to British Columbians who perhaps think of themselves as neither one or the other but simply as involved British Columbians, that there are three areas where this legislation is particularly unacceptable. The first one that is always raised is the issue of the secret ballot on certification; I'll talk a bit more about that in a minute. The second is secondary boycotts and the third is the restriction on replacement workers. Those three areas of this legislation should be changed.

There have been convincing arguments made in this Legislature by the opposition. I've heard nothing from the other side of the House to counteract the arguments raised by the opposition. It seems to me that at the very least those are changes that should be put forward now, or the government should give us an indication that they are preparing amendments to bring forward. We hope that perhaps this weekend will give the government an opportunity to perhaps consult with the affected parties; my goodness, there's nothing wrong with that. I know that the Premier has said he won't cut any backroom deals, because the major employer organizations disagreed with the last backroom deal that he made -- and that seems to me a bit of a contradiction: you didn't live up to the last deal we had, so now we're not going to make any more deals, and we're going to call them backroom deals. There's nothing wrong with this government going back to those organizations -- organized labour, organized employers -- but there's nothing wrong also with this government listening to British Columbians.

We had an example late last month, in a period of about six weeks leading up to the referendum where the government seemed determined to close their ears to the concerns being expressed by average British Columbians. They seemed unwilling to even listen to the arguments being made -- and we know the results of that. We know how roundly British Columbians rejected that deal, and we know of the involvement of the government in it. So we would hope that this time round, as we look at another major issue for British Columbia, that we would consider not only the special interest groups on both sides of the question but the whole range of British Columbians who don't see themselves as being one or the other. It would seem to me that the 75 of us who serve in this Legislature have the responsibility to be the ears and the eyes and the spokespersons for that interest.

Hon. Speaker, you have heard it at least from the opposition. You have heard opposition members telling members of this government the concerns that British Columbians have with this deal. It seems incredible to me that we in the Legislature of British Columbia, in the democracy of Canada, would be standing here arguing and trying to convince the government to maintain a secret ballot on something as fundamental as whether or not a person wishes to join a trade union.

It's incredible that it ever was raised. It's incredible to me that someone has suggested there would be an argument against a secret ballot. It's more incredible that the government would adopt that argument, present it in this Legislature and then have the temerity to stand up and argue in favour of it. It is a sad day in British Columbia when we in this House are debating the appropriateness of a secret ballot.

An. Hon. Member: Any trucks for sale?

J. Weisgerber: The member -- the former union organizer -- asks if I have any trucks for sale. I can only assume that the member finds himself being convinced. I suspect that he feels his conviction slipping and feels himself being moved by those fundamental, basic arguments. So his conviction should be shaken by a questioning of the democratic principle of a secret ballot. Indeed, the arguments, few that we've heard in this House in support, have been that individuals are intimidated and coerced by their employers. Those individuals who may have signed a certification card of their own free will would then somehow be coerced and intimidated into voting secretly, whether or not their agreement to sign a card was fair -- and somehow 

[ Page 3969 ]

whether they are still convinced that they might want to certify and to unionize. These same members ignore the possibility that someone might be coerced and intimidated into signing a certification card.

I suspect that both happen. I suspect that employers try to persuade their employees not to vote in favour of certification, and I suspect that organizers such as the member down the way have from time to time applied a little bit of pressure in convincing someone to sign a certification card. It seems so fundamentally simple that the answer to this is a secret ballot, where you can go, free from intimidation from either peers or employers, to decide and vote with your heart and your head, and indicate by secret ballot whether you want to be certified.

I have not heard in this House yet an argument that would convince me otherwise, and I strongly suspect I never will. It is so basic to what we should all stand for in this House. I would think that at the very least this government should acknowledge the basic unfairness of arguing that we need to have a secret ballot to decertify, that somehow the signing of a card in favour of decertification was not enough, and that the employee then had to have an opportunity to cool off and go into the balloting place free from any intimidation or coercion and decide whether or not they want to vote in favour of decertification. But for some reason that I have been unable to grasp, the same principles don't apply to certification.

It is abundantly clear that this legislation is crafted in such a way as to support certification, encourage organization and tilt the playing field in favour of those who seek to unionize. The government's role, I believe, is to provide a fair and balanced approach. There should be an opportunity for discussion on both sides, and the individuals most affected should then have an opportunity, free from the influence of either side, to cast a ballot indicating their preference. That seems so simple and straightforward that perhaps that's why this government is unable to come to grips with it. Perhaps it's too simple. Perhaps we should have made our arguments more complex, and then perhaps they would have somehow been, if not convinced, at least confused enough to consider the possibility. That issue of secret ballots seems to speak for itself. I find myself reluctant to speak more about it, because it seems, on the surface, so simple and fundamental.

[3:30]

More complex is the question of secondary boycotts. For a number of years there has been a prohibition against workers and their employers signing an agreement that would prevent a business from doing business with or accepting goods or services from a non-union business or workers. It seems wrong to think that we will regress to a situation where two groups in society can decide something that profoundly influences a third group without that third group having any say in the matter. We see that as another of the many sections in this legislation that tend to tilt the balance in favour of those that would see organized labour take a more aggressive role in our society.

I don't think that's the responsibility of this government. Obviously the government is of two minds. When we look at the contributions that are made to the governing party by the B.C. Federation of Labour, we start to understand why this government believes that it has a responsibility to take sides on this issue. We start to understand why this government is not a neutral party but is proactive on one side of the issue. And we take exception to that. We don't think that is right.

The former legislation considered the public interest -- those people who are neither directly on one side or another but who are profoundly affected by labour disputes: strikes, lockouts and the necessity to certify. We're led to believe that we can expect public service unions to press for secondary boycotts in their next round of negotiations. I've raised this question and this suggestion, and I put this theory forward two weeks ago. No one has come forward to say that won't happen. I've not heard John Shields, Ken Georgetti or anyone in the public service unions say: "You're incorrect; we're not going to push for that at our next round of bargaining." So I assume that my theory is correct, and that's what we can expect to see. If we examine the record of this government dealing with the public service unions in the short year it has been in office, we see them come to the table without much backbone or willingness to argue about the demands that are being put forward.

I'm reminded of the comments that were made by the government negotiator following the last round of BCGEU negotiations, after which a reporter asked him: "What kinds of concessions did you get from labour?" He said: "We didn't ask for any, so it's quite normal that we didn't get any." If the government learns nothing in the period of time between that round of negotiations and the next, it would be reasonable to expect that very soon we will start to see public sector agreements that include a secondary boycott clause.

That will mean that British Columbia employers and employees who are now unorganized or non-union, whether the employers or the employees wanted to or not, would have to certify in order to do business with their own government. So to have a chance to access your own tax dollars, you would have to certify. You would be driven by a decision of two other groups of people in which you had no say whatsoever. Surely this government recognizes that it has a responsibility to all British Columbians. They were elected by 40 percent of British Columbians, but surely they don't represent only that 40 percent. Surely they're big enough to understand that they've been given a opportunity to represent all British Columbians. The government is failing in that responsibility in the area of secondary boycotts.

That surely is one of the areas of this legislation in which the government will surely have the good sense to announce before we get into committee stage that it intends to move an amendment, so that when we introduce our amendment, we won't offend them by it. They could conceive of it as their own idea. Without losing face, they could do the responsible and honourable thing and stand down the section of the legislation on secondary boycotts. We know that the Premier, the Minister of Labour, the cabinet and the caucus will come under a fair amount of criticism from the B.C. 

[ Page 3970 ]

Federation of Labour and others. We understand that. We also understand that the convention is past and there is a little time. You may not be under direct pressure, and even though you've enjoyed considerable support from the B.C. Fed and others, you were elected as a government to represent all British Columbians, and in supporting this section, you clearly don't do that.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The third area that I think warrants careful consideration -- and there are more than three, but I want to speak about the three that I find are most emergent and most urgent to deal with -- is the restrictions on replacement workers. I can't see any compelling arguments for this section to go forward at all. There is no history in British Columbia of employers going out during a strike to hire replacement workers or professional strikebreakers. That has simply not been the history of British Columbia. The members across the way, if they haven't already, will soon start heckling: "What about Canada Post?" That's their best argument: Canada Post. And one of their members from the government had the good graces to acknowledge that that was federal legislation, and indeed it is, and it will continue to be, whether this bill passes or not. Whether this bill passes or not, there will still be federal legislation, and Canada Post can continue to hire replacement workers if it so chooses. So that argument doesn't wash.

But where replacement workers and the changes proposed here seriously affect business are, first of all, that they considerably narrow the number of management employees who would be excluded and would continue to qualify for exclusion under the contract. They would reduce the number of replacement workers available to help carry on the business during a strike. That will have a serious effect on the company's ability to survive a strike. We know that a strike is a contest of wills: the employees withhold their labour as a way of pressuring the employer to increase their compensation or improve the working conditions or whatever; while on the other hand, the employer, the company, has the opportunity to try and continue to operate without those workers and to force them to reduce their demands. That's what bargaining is all about.

However, this provision will make the situation such that there will be so few members left in the company who are able to perform work in the company that it would be virtually paralyzed, particularly when you consider that not only would the number of management workers be reduced, but the ability to bring in other management workers from other locations within the company would be prohibited under this legislation. Companies will now -- or after the passage of this legislation, should it happen -- really have a couple of options when struck. They will really be forced to close their doors, and then the decision will be whether they have the financial strength to withstand a strike without any revenues. That is a very serious situation: it very significantly shifts the advantage to one party.

Let's take this a bit further. Let's think about this section and the other ramifications of it, particularly for public service workers in government service. Indeed, there will be fewer exempted people within the government service, fewer people available to provide necessary services, services that British Columbians would expect from their government during a strike. To make it even a bit more difficult, just in case government managers or private sector managers still found some way to keep operating, there is a provision in this legislation that requires the exempt employee to indicate their willingness to do the replacement work. The employer can no longer tell those few management employees that they have to go and do some of these jobs.

We've had strikes in the public service. For example, Riverview Hospital was shut down, and the patients there were given only the most basic services. Exempt personnel in these buildings have been sent by their employer to Riverview Hospital to work in the laundry and do those kinds of jobs that weren't considered essential but that certainly contributed to the basic comfort of the patients in that hospital. Now the employer will be required to say to the minister's ministerial assistant: "Would you like to go out to such and such hospital and work in the laundry?" Hon. Speaker, what do you think the answer will be? It will be: "No, I'd rather stay in the buildings here and work with you, minister." So the patients in those hospitals will be deprived. That's not acceptable.

I received a letter today from a quasi-public company, B.C. Gas. The letter wasn't written to me; it was written to the Minister of Labour. Many of the members of this House were sent copies of it. The headline, if you like, of the letter dated November 6 to the minister is with regard to the restriction on the use of replacement workers. The writer goes on to say that he is a professional with 15 years experience in labour relations, and he asks the government to reconsider the inclusion of section 68 in Bill 84.

[3:45]

I want to read just a couple of paragraphs from this letter, because I believe they describe better and more accurately than I could the impact of the current section as it deals with replacement workers. The writer from B.C. Gas goes on to say:

"For our company, the reason" -- the reason for asking the government to reconsider the section on replacement workers -- "is simple: our obligation is the safe delivery of natural gas to hundreds of thousands of customers, including ordinary residents, hospitals, schools, industries and commercial establishments. In the rare event of a work stoppage, B.C. Gas would transfer management and exempt staff from their normal headquarters to critical operating points throughout the province in order to keep the gas flowing."

Before I go on to the next paragraph, recall, if you would, that this legislation will reduce the number of exempt employees available to do that and will prohibit the transfer of an employee from another location to do the work normally done by a striking worker.

[ Page 3971 ]

This individual goes on to say -- and I'm not sure it's a he; it could be either a he or a she:

"As we read the bill, section 68 would prevent us from doing this and we would be obliged to commence a total shutdown of natural gas service to all our customers shortly following a work stoppage. This would have an immediate and catastrophic impact on the economy of our province, to say nothing of the comfort, health and safety of most of our citizens."

If that letter isn't enough to convince this government to reconsider its stand on replacement workers and at least abandon the section that would narrow the number of exempt employees....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I notice the red light is on, and your normal time has expired. Are you a designated speaker?

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I think that I will take this opportunity to close by encouraging the government to seriously consider the three points that I've raised, at the very least.

V. Anderson: As we continue to look at Bill 84, we have many ways of approaching it to understand its implications. One of the ways I like to approach an activity is to look at the beginning. In this particular case I've turned to the definitions that introduce the nature of the bill and also the purpose of the code. As I do that, I realize that I need to turn back and look at the very name -- Labour Relations Code. In trying to understand what this means, I turn to the definitions of key words within the code. The problem is that the term "labour" does not appear in the definitions, so I had to go outside the code to understand what it was referring to. I turned to a dictionary, and this is the definition of labour: "Physical or mental effort when especially difficult or compulsory. Human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy. The services performed by workers for wages as distinguished from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profits."

Having looked at the definition of "collective agreement" as defined in the code, I find that it is a collective agreement between employers and a trade union. It seems to me then that this is not, as it pretends to be, a labour relations code, but a trade union act. It should clearly be stated as such, because that's what it is: an act dealing with trade unions. That's fine with me. I am in agreement that there needs to be an opportunity for people to organize trade unions. I would encourage to do so those who wish to do so. I have raised this with people who are having problems: why don't they organize and make themselves into a trade union in order to solve the problems they might be having? That's different from discussing the working conditions of people within the province. This is a trade union act, not a workers' or a labour relations act.

Also it seems to me that we need to look at the definitions closely, because they give the underlying sense of what we're talking about. Unless we look at them, we can be easily misled. The collective agreement refers to employers and employers' associations and organizations. Then it refers, on the other hand, to a trade union. It does not take into account that there might be employees' associations, fellowships or organizations apart from trade unions. It implies that if people working in a company are organizing, it's a union and there is no other way, and therefore they are bound by it. That's the way the definitions are put forward. When you look at the definition of "employee," it does not say in that definition that it should be a union member, per se, just as it does not say that an employer must be part of another employer union. So there is a distinction between the definitions and the different interpretations of meanings.

It also goes on to define a person. I didn't bother to look up the definition of person, but it seems to me fairly logical that a person deals with an individual person. But here the definition leads you astray, unless you look at it closely, because a person deals with not only an individual, but it also applies to a group of individuals, to a thing, to an organization. So what definition you might be using depends on which part of the act you're reading, and it could easily be misunderstood.

The trade union, then, talks about being an association of employees. As I look at the definition, I'm not sure how a family business fits into this description. A mother, father, their eight children and perhaps some cousins...

D. Streifel: They're not covered.

V. Anderson: ...and nephews are part of this.

I hear my friend down there on the government side saying: "They're not covered." But this act doesn't say that they aren't covered.

When you come into the next part, it talks about a unit. A unit for organizing purposes is one or more persons. Most people, when they read the labour relations act, are thinking about an organization as a group of people. They haven't stopped to think that this act takes that ordinary understanding and changes it, so suddenly they'll discover that if they have one person working for them -- that person might even be their wife, brother, cousin, son-in-law, or whoever else -- that person is now a unit in organizational terms and is covered by this act. So it opens up all kinds of possibilities that are not, on the surface, readily available to people.

If you look at the purposes of the code, you begin to see even more clearly what the government is trying to put forth in this undertaking. It sounds good when you read it at first: "The following are the purposes of this code: to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions...." It's not to regulate, but to encourage, and there's a completely different motive. It's saying that the proper and only really viable thing for people to do is organize and become part of a trade union. The government will put all of its power, force, strength and wealth into organizing and encouraging people to become part of trade unions.

In this past week I had an opportunity to meet with a multicultural advisory committee. They told me that there is a growing concern in our multicultural society that we are placing a particular cultural mode of 

[ Page 3972 ]

operation on the new people who are living in our midst, and they are not familiar or comfortable with it. They are very uneasy. By government action we are putting a layer on people that is not part of the style of operation or work or cooperation that they are familiar with.

It seems to me that we have two modi operandi here. I've categorized one, in my own shorthand, as a CM operation, and the other one is an MC operation. The CM operation builds on the model of confrontation. You confront your employer or your employee, as the case may be. If you have used up all of your force and power, the government will come to your assistance in that stalemate and force you into mediation -- whether you can solve it that way or not. The mediation is biased, because the only outcome of the mediation is that you must have a collective agreement. There is no other place to go, no other alternative. That's the CM: from confrontation to forced mediation.

MC starts at the other end of the ledger. This says that there is an opportunity for people to come together and understand that they will mediate and cooperate from the very beginning. In a sense, there is an entirely different mood -- not of confrontation but of cooperation. The mediation in which they engage is a voluntary, joint undertaking and is for their benefit.

It's this difference in process that we need to take into account. On the one hand, Bill 84 recognizes the confrontational approach that was in Bill 19. I think we're all agreed that this approach needed to be removed and changed. But in the process of doing this, they have accepted the basic elements and added a mediation process, rather than reversing the process and building it from a mediation background into cooperation. They have not solved the problem. Indeed, in moving to Bill 84, they have made the problem even worse.

[4:00]

As you look at the other purposes in the bill, they give us the general tone. If you look at the purposes, you often see the implementation coming afterward. The purpose of the act is to minimize the effects of labour disputes on persons who are not involved in the dispute. That is a very laudable purpose and one with which we would heartily agree. However, the act does not fulfil that purpose. Let me give an illustration in the area of replacement workers. This will affect, among other things, the area of education. If teachers go on strike -- which they have done, and quite appropriately so -- the principal or the administrator is responsible for the well-being of the children there. If the children happen to cross the picket line to come into the school yard, which they're free to do because it's a school day and no one will stop them, there needs to be somebody there to care for them. The caretakers and the teachers are gone; everybody else is gone except the principal. However, if the principal is sick that day and isn't able to get to school, there is no way you can send in a replacement worker for the principal. So the children are there all by themselves and are unprotected. If something should happen to those children, whose liability is it? We could say that the liability will come to those who are striking. It's not that so much, but: who will care for those children?

Already that effect is being seen in the present code, if a teacher for some reason is called away and asks one of the other teachers to take on their supervision duties while they're away. In a particular school that I'm aware of, there was a slowdown by the teachers. The teacher who might normally have taken on that supervision responsibility said: "No, I'm sorry, my union won't allow me to do that." So the supervision of the children was not there. The children were in school and were being taught, to some extent, by their teachers. But if an emergency arose, there was no one in that building who could care for them. In this particular case there was someone some distance away, but it would have taken them an hour or more to get there. This is the kind of difficulty that this act makes even worse than the present act does. In trying to solve a problem, it has created a problem of even greater consequence.

Another purpose is to promote conditions favourable to the orderly, constructive and expeditious settlement of disputes between employers and trade unions. That is also a laudable goal. But as we've mentioned before, there is the problem when people are caught in a business relationship and something goes wrong. Richard Findlay is one of the people to whom this has happened. This presents an example of the very difficult situation that's being perpetuated here. He came into a disagreement on working relationships with the brewery for which he worked. He then went to his union and came into a disagreement with the union in attempting to solve that dispute. He then came into a disagreement with the Labour Relations Board. So he has been to court, and he has been everywhere. But there's no place for him to go, because the ombudsman -- the part of the act that has been left out and was unproclaimed in the last act -- was not able to give him the support he needed. It has been reported that he has been forced to sell his Surrey home, his furnishings and about $100,000 in stocks to pay for legal fees. A person who had worked for many years, a person who had been a boxing champion in Canada, is at the present time picking mushrooms, without any ability to resolve through all of the channels which should have been there to help him and no place to go for the retribution and the justice that he so rightly deserves. This is the kind of thing that Bill 84 does not rectify, and therefore it needs to be reconsidered.

Hon. Speaker, we need to look at the implications, which are far-reaching. This last week I had an opportunity to do some travelling in British Columbia with the aboriginal commission. As I talked to some of the aboriginal fishermen and as we talked to some of the aboriginal people on the reserve, questions were raised about the implications of the labour bill. They had not thought about the implications for them. They had not thought about the implication that they might not be able to carry on their regular business, because if they were organized as an aboriginal business and were not "unionized," they would not be able to do business with "unionized fish plants, with unionized processors, with the government itself," and they would be frozen out. They had never considered that the labour bill we 

[ Page 3973 ]

were discussing here in this Legislature could have a very devastating effect on their economy and on their livelihoods.

Most of the small business people I talk to, who may be in one-person businesses, along with one or two people they call in periodically to help them, haven't bothered to read the labour code, because they understood that this code dealt with big business, big corporations and big organizations. Their first reaction was: "This doesn't relate to me. Why would I look at it?" But as they look at the implications of the code, they discover it has a great bearing upon them. In fact, it could be the one item above everything else -- the economy and everything else -- that could put them out of business.

Hon. Speaker, this bill needs to be put out so people can have time to look at it. It needs to be amended in a way that does not affect those parts of our economy -- and our businesses and our employees -- impacted by this bill without there being a chance to consider it.

Under "purposes" it says: "The board" -- which shall be set up within this code -- "shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed on it under this code having regard to the purposes" above. But as you go along you discover that the powers of the board -- and actually, its activities within the code -- are not all contained within this act, because there are provisions in the act that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can not only make regulations but really extend and change the powers of the act. There are provisions in this act where the Minister of Labour has unspecified authority and power to give directions and undertake actions which, again, are not specified within the act.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to suggest that there are many people in this province who have no awareness at this moment of the impact that this act will have upon their lives, and I dare to suggest that there are very few acts that this government has passed that will have a greater or more adverse impact on more people within this province than this particular act.

I would encourage the government to do a proper trade relations act and to also bring in a workers' labour act, to separate these two concerns so that people can distinguish between the regular working regulations and labour regulations. Then they have the chance to choose between one and the other.

I would urge that the government take seriously the amendments that will be put before them. Hopefully, they will bring forth their own amendments, having had the opportunity to consider the unthought-of implications that are part of this bill.

B. Copping: A lot has been debated over the last few days, and I would like to comment on a few things I heard from the opposition.

I heard over and over again about the process and the three wise men. I would like to make clear that this process involved far more than the three wise men. Last February our Minister of Labour appointed nine members to a committee of special advisers to advise the government how to build stability and long-term cooperation in this province. He then appointed a subcommittee to develop recommendations to improve the labour legislation. This subcommittee visited 11 communities, heard 203 oral submissions and took 296 written submissions. This was an eight-month process of public hearings. All voices were heard; all points of view were heard. Out of that process came consensus on 98 percent of this bill. Out of over 160 clauses, there were only four that weren't unanimous.

At the same time, I hear members say that they liked Bill 19. Where is the logic? It was a bill done in back rooms with absolutely no consultation at all. It makes no sense. In the nearly 500 submissions on this bill, no one attempted to defend Bill 19 as balanced legislation. Some sections of Bill 19 violated Canada's commitments under the United Nations International Labour Organization conventions dealing with freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. The same members who are opposing this bill favour Bill 19.

I've heard no end of anti-union sentiments. I've heard members say that our government talks too much about the history of labour unrest; or perhaps we're not looking at history enough, because there hasn't been terrible labour unrest in this province. Are we to be selective about history? Yesterday was November 11, and we honoured a very important piece of history. No, we didn't have bombs drop on British Columbia, but I think that was a day that we acknowledge should be recognized. Are we to ignore the confrontation that happened in the textile mills when unions did try to organize years ago? Are we to ignore what is happening today? Eighty union organizers have been murdered in Mexico since 1989.

G. Farrell-Collins: That doesn't happen in B.C.

B. Copping: No, it doesn't happen in B.C. -- and the Holocaust didn't happen in B.C. But I hope that is no argument for saying that we should ignore it, not learn from history, and that we shouldn't put protection in a labour code.

We all hear about the big unions and the big union bosses. Unions are absolutely democratic organizations. The union leaders are elected by their membership, they are accountable to their membership and they stand up for their membership. They vote on their collective agreements.

[4:15]

I've heard no end of talk about individual rights versus collective rights. You tell me where an individual's rights are if they are the working poor making barely enough to feed their families and working in a minimum wage job in terrible or unsafe working conditions. The rights that we all enjoy today, whether we are union or non-union -- occupational health and safety, wages and working conditions -- are due to what the unions have fought for.

I would like to comment on an article in the Sun on Tuesday, November 10, regarding the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who at that time were urging the federal government to ban the use of replacement workers. Bishop Faber MacDonald, chairman of the social affairs commission of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, talks about individual rights. He says:

[ Page 3974 ]

"To put a person in another's job, as one would change a cog in a machine, is to attack the very dignity and mystery of the human person. The right to strike is a basic human right, and to take in police and replacement workers is to fly in the face of that basic human right. The fundamental principle is to work for democracy in forcing both parties to stay at the bargaining table."

That is what this bill excels in.

Then I have heard that this bill is tipped in favour of the unions. I've heard that from people who never argued that Bill 19 was tipped totally in favour of the employer. I have heard people say that this bill is going to create unemployment, create hardship on people, close down businesses and keep out investment. Is this opposition really serious? Do they really believe that is the agenda of the government and unions? This is just totally unacceptable and illogical thinking.

This bill is about a level playing field. It's about restoring fairness and balance, and it will ensure a stable labour relations climate. It will help dispute resolution by providing ways other than strikes, and it will look at enhanced mediation services and expedited arbitration services. It is to be commended on these points.

The hundreds of groups and individuals that worked so hard to build this new labour code are to be thanked and congratulated, as is our Minister of Labour, of whom I'm extremely proud.

I'm going to conclude by saying one thing, to paraphrase a favourite story of mine. When you look at the face of a woman and you see your sister, and when you look at the face of a man and you see your brother, you will understand what unionism is all about.

C. Tanner: I want to speak today on the principle of Bill 84. I'd like to run over what we've covered so far in the two weeks that we've been in this House. There's been an attempt by the third party to have a six-month hoist, which this party objected to for the simple reason that we felt it was time to get to the debate in this House. We felt that there had been eight months of circulation and report, that a number of individuals had had the opportunity to give their opinion and that it was time to have the debate. As a consequence, we didn't support that amendment.

The next step we suggested -- we think it's the most appropriate one and wish that the third party had followed this course of action -- is that it go to committee. All members in this House know that the general format followed is that you have public hearings. You bring it to the House or to the people who are making the decision, and then you have comments again from the public on the suggestions that have been made during those public meetings. It's a logical course of action, and one that we would have expected to have been followed in this case.

In her speech an hour or so ago, the member for Surrey-Green Timbers said that labour relations is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our society. I don't disagree with her at all, but the fact of the matter is that if it is that important, surely the people and the public who had input into the report should have had the right to another comment on the suggestions that were made in the report.

You have heard from this side of the House that we are concerned with a number of specific items. We get to the point now where we're debating the principle of the report, and from here we'll go into committee and discuss the detail. It is my view that this House, the public, employers, unions and, most of all, the public at large would have been better served if we'd gone to a committee and had meetings showing the legislation that was suggested, so that the opinions expressed in this House, whether they be from that side or this side, would not be the only opinions to address, as the member for Surrey-Green Timbers said, this most important piece of legislation in the lives of British Columbians.

Addressing the principle, which will be found on page 9 of the bill, under the purposes of the so-called code.... It's divided into two sections. In the first section there are six subsections, and the expression "employers and trade unions" is used in three sections. I see nothing in the purpose of this code addressing the members of the public. All I see is unions and employers, and that's one of the major criticisms that this side of the House has of that side of the House.

Quite frankly, one of the problems we have is that we know the government side of the House -- the New Democratic Party -- is very strongly supported by unions. We know for a fact that at their recent convention a third of the members were there as union representatives. We have problems with the fact that perhaps in this legislation the motive for this legislation isn't quite as straightforward as it should be and is, in fact, a payoff to those very unions which support that party. That is the reason we have questions.

We also have questions, quite frankly, with the third party. The question we have with the third party's position on this bill is that they are the successors to a government which brought in Bill 19, which, in our view, was equally not impartial. Bill 19 was directly opposed to this piece of legislation: it was far too much in favour of the employer. The Liberal position has always come down in the middle. We are neither opposed to the unions nor to the employing fraternity of this province, but on the other hand we are very concerned with individual rights. We don't see our concerns addressed in this legislation.

I suppose what makes us most nervous is illustrated by the fact that the NDP, the government party, is not prepared to have a secret ballot. It's their contention -- this party which has "democratic" in its name -- that if 55 percent of a group of employees sign cards saying they want to join a union, that is sufficient. We have a great many problems with that. Why 55 percent? Why not 50 plus one? If they're going to be consistent, that's all they need. One assumes that 50 percent plus one is a majority. I think it's 55 because it's just enough to make it look like it's acceptable. I don't think it's sufficient, though. In my view -- and it would be a suggestion from this side of the House -- we should have a secret ballot, but one based on the fact that 50 percent plus one want to join a union. When the secret ballot takes place, everybody in the company can express a serious point 

[ Page 3975 ]

of view. After all, it is our democratic right to elect members that way; it is the public's democratic right to express an opinion that way. What makes an employer-employee relationship any different? Why does the party on that side have difficulties with such basic democracy as a secret ballot? We have difficulty with that. We would like to see that amended.

On the other hand, we would also like to see the right to withdraw from a union be private and a secret ballot too, because if there's going to be a change, then it should be by secret ballot as well. So we are consistent in this; it's the party on that side of the House, the government party, that we find is terribly inconsistent.

The last speaker said that this is a fundamental piece of legislation which we need to run our province, and that the government party would be foolish to bring in anything that was in conflict with the needs and requirements of the public. We don't buy that, hon. Speaker. We think the party opposite has a very definite purpose, and that is to fulfil an obligation to the major unions of this province. They're fulfilling it by bringing in legislation which is equally as biased as Bill 19 was, brought in by the previous government.

I suspect that one of the most unfortunate things that happened to the NDP government in this session was when they finally sat down in their seats on that side of the House, after 21 years of waiting, and saw us on this side of the House. What they saw on this side of the House was a party which is representative of fair play and which looks after the rights of the individual. What they had hoped to see on this side, of course, was a number of past government members, so that no matter what they brought in they could berate them for being instrumental in their having to compensate for the legislation they'd put forward.

While I am addressing the principle of the bill, I would like to illustrate some of my points by addressing that area of government which is my particular concern, and that is tourism. Tourism is made up, in the vast majority, by businesses that are individually owned or by very small companies which, with the best will in the world, try to make a living in a very difficult circumstance, the difficult circumstance being that tourism is suffering these days. It is being damaged by virtually every department of this government. Tourism in British Columbia this year is down by 2 percent, not the least of the reasons for which are the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Labour and the Attorney General ministry, which have all attacked tourism in a number of different ways.

The Ministry of Health has made it more difficult for people in the tourist industry to look after their public health problems, and it has made it more difficult and more expensive to offer services to the public. In days gone past, when you had an inspection from the health inspector, you merely had an inspection and put up with the inconvenience of that sort of thing. Now you are told after the health inspector leaves that it will cost you so much money for the service; that's new. It used to be that when the Ministry of Health came to inspect you, it only inflicted one piece of pain on you. Now it inflicts two. It not only charges you for the inspection, it charges you through the nose for the privilege of being inspected.

At the same time, the Ministry of Tourism has made a decision that it is going to reduce the amount of money it invests in marketing. Consequently the tourist industry has suffered again this year, and it will suffer again in the future.

The Finance ministry has decided in its wisdom that it is going to impose more taxes on small business. The small business taxes it is imposing not only come from the bottom line of a financial statement but also from the fact that all of their assets are now taxable, whether or not they're making a profit.

The Ministry of Environment, in its wisdom, has decided to impose more and greater restrictions on various tourist industries in this province, making it more difficult for those operators in the hinterland of our province to operate. It is imposing different criteria for angling and for recreational areas, and different seasonal protections on various trails and so forth, all of which, while it may be necessary, make it that much more difficult for tourism.

[4:30]

The Ministry of Attorney General, in its wisdom, has decided for some reason that having followed a policy in this province for the last six or seven years of encouraging people to go into business for themselves in the marketing of cold beer and wine.... They have suddenly decided right out of the blue, for no apparent reason, that the government wants to get into the same business. It's going to make it that much more difficult, since most of those wine and beer stores are operated by hotels, for them to show a profit at the end of the day and consequently to pay taxes.

Now we have the Minister of Labour and the ministry bringing in their new labour code. They are changing the rules in midstream. After all the other ministries have attacked the ministry in which I'm interested -- Tourism -- and after all of them have got their piece of the pie, now the Minister of Labour is bringing in a bill which is going to make it more difficult for the tourist industry to operate. It's going to make it more and more difficult for those smaller industries to show a profit and to pay taxes. It's going to make it more difficult for the employees, which this bill is trying to protect, to make a dollar. As a consequence, you're going to see the tourist industry suffer even more.

I've got a couple of letters here from the tourist industry outlining their reservations. This letter is from the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association. The coalition for their position is:

"Bill 84 undermines one of the fundamental pillars of workplace democracy -- the workers' right to a secret ballot vote. A secret ballot vote leaves no doubt about the workers' true wishes and therefore allows the collective bargaining process to get off on the right foot.

"Example. Often during a certification drive, workers will experience pressure from all quarters as they make their decision on whether or not to join a union. The opportunity for a worker to vote, in secret, by ballot, ensures that there are no questions about the employees' wishes."

[ Page 3976 ]

On secondary boycotts the hotel association is saying:

"The new code creates the freedom to negotiate terms to allow secondary boycotts in a collective agreement.

"`Top-down' unionization methods such as secondary boycotts do not recognize the special circumstances of individual companies and do nothing to encourage a healthy labour relations climate. Just because a business is not unionized doesn't mean they're anti-union. Many small and medium-sized companies would be forced to unionize if, for example, the public sector began to negotiate `union-only' clauses into their collective agreements. The coalition believes in the workers' right to choose to join a union -- they do not believe workers should be forced to join unions.

"Example. Once this provision becomes law the following situation could occur: ICBC could negotiate into their collective agreement a `union-only' clause which would stipulate that only unionized companies could supply goods or services to ICBC. For example, a small business with three employees that sells computers to ICBC would be forced to unionize or risk losing the ability to sell its products. The government is telling you that `unless you're unionized we won't do business with you.'"

Nobody can claim that that's democracy in action.

They're also concerned about replacement workers during a strike: "Companies must have the ability to operate during a labour dispute." Particularly in the tourist industry, because the tourist industry is frequently made up of very small companies. "Often small and medium-sized businesses do not have the financial means to cope with a shutdown."

They offer another example:

"You own a small bakery and your eight workers go on strike. In order to keep your customers, and your business, you have to run your shop and your sister and brother-in-law volunteer to help you. If Bill 84 becomes law you won't be allowed to do this even if it means you have to shut your doors for good."

We have a circumstance here in secondary boycotts where we could be losing jobs in this province, because this so-called labour code is trying to protect employees. In actual fact it could be closing down businesses, and we could be losing employees.

The first contract settlements are of particular difficulty to the tourist industry:

"The government must amend section 55 to explicitly state that first contract arbitration must only be used when one of the parties engages in `surface bargaining'. It must not be used as a tool to force a first contract when parties are negotiating in good faith.

"Example. Potentially, first contract arbitration could be forced upon you even if you are negotiating in good faith. An arbitrator could virtually impose a standard `boiler plate' collective agreement on your company, regardless of your firm's financial situation."

For those who don't understand "boiler plate", it is an agreement used throughout an industry that is imposed on a smaller location even when it's coming from a bigger organization.

The tourist industry is also concerned about the right of striking or locked-out employees to picket their own worksites and feels it should be maintained:

"The coalition believes no changes are needed to the existing laws for secondary picketing. The new amendments in Bill 84 are in no way substantial or positive. They only give the Labour Relations Board discretionary powers to allow workers the right to picket their own worksite even though other parties may be affected.

"Example. You do business in building and a company down the hall from you has gone on strike. Their union wants to picket the entrance to your building -- if they do, your business will be hurt as well. You must apply to the Labour Relations Board for relief from the pickets. Under Bill 84 it is up to the board to decide if they want to grant you relief -- it's not automatic."

Mr. Speaker, the tourist industry is concerned that this government is not bringing in a fair act. They're not bringing in a balanced piece of legislation. They're bringing in legislation for a specific purpose, and that purpose appears to be to the benefit of the big unions. For the past year the Minister of Finance has got up time and time again and spoken to this House about trickle-down economics. I guess it's something he picked up in one of his many trips down to New York. But what we've got in this case is trickle-down legislation, trickle-down organization to organize the employees in this province for the benefit of unions -- and large unions at that. That is trickle-down in its true sense of the word.

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific letter from the Restaurant and Food Services Association of British Columbia. This is now another very large area of employers, many of whom are small businesses, many of whom employ six or seven people. Many of those very people they employ -- who you might call "waitresses" and "waiters" but I call "servers" -- by choice prefer to be in business for themselves in that capacity because they don't want to be unionized, for the very simple reason that they are doing very nicely thank you this way. They feel that if they put their best foot forward and work hard and show their best efforts to the people whom they serve, they will be rewarded by the people they are serving. In fact many servers are making a very reasonable living and prefer it that way. It's been the experience of some of these restaurant owners that their turnover of staff is not as high as it is in union establishments, because in a union establishment it takes you a year to get up to full wage. In these establishments you get full wage, if you count tips as wages, as soon as you get competent in the job that you're doing.

The Restaurant and Food Services Association of British Columbia is saying this, and it is addressed to the Minister of Labour:

"We have reviewed the proposed changes to the labour code and are pleased that you encouraged input from business and labour with regard to said changes. However, our association is strongly opposed to the new certification clause.

The certification clause says: "If the board is satisfied that on the date it receives an application for certification not less than 55 percent of the employees of the unit...."

[ Page 3977 ]

And it goes on, it's in the legislation. The comment by the Restaurant and Food Services Association of British Columbia is as follows:

"'We believe all employees must have the democratic right to vote by secret ballot on certification.'

"Most of the employers we represent are small independent businesses employing relatively unskilled, entry-level workers. Our overall experience has shown that intimidation and significant peer pressure is...often the reason the employees sign cards. This is an extremely important decision that affects the employees' long-term relationship with his/her co-workers. Therefore, all employees must be able to express their true wishes by voting in a secret ballot.

"We respectfully recommend the following: (1) leave the old certification clause in the new code, which clearly protects the individual's rights to belong or not belong to a trade union by way of secret ballot; (2) reduce the time between the application for certification and the representation vote; (3) divide the cost of the representation vote equally between the employer and the union."

That doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable request to the Minister of Labour. What he's saying is: why can't we recognize the fact that these employees have the same democratic rights as every member of society does when they vote for us in here or when they vote to join the union?

"To quote from the subcommittee of special advisors' submission: `Labour legislation should provide the mechanism by which employees can obtain union representation without being subjected to unlawful interference.'

"This new proposed change, we believe, opens the door for even more union pressure by taking away the true measure of our employees' wishes -- the secret ballot.

"Our members are currently trying to survive in an incredibly competitive industry made worse by the current recession."

They're being kind. They should say made worse by the current government.

"Bill 84 in the long-term will increase our costs, causing us to increase our prices to our customers. This in turn will affect our ability to remain viable in a highly competitive international market.

"If you have any questions regarding our position, please...contact the undersigned...."

Here we have the hotel and restaurant industries of British Columbia -- two of the most labour-intensive organizations in the province -- both saying: "Go slowly, and think about what you're doing."

It takes me back to where I started. It seems to me that these people are saying: why can't we make comments at a public hearing on the suggestions in this legislation, and why can't we, having had input at the beginning, have input at the end?

This House and that government made a decision not to go to a committee, and it was wrong. This legislation is incorrect for British Columbia at this time. I sincerely hope that those members opposite will see the light and make some amendments to this very detrimental piece of legislation.

D. Symons: I too wish to speak to Bill 84. While we agree with better than 95 percent of this bill, there are some sections of it that give us some concerns. Much of the bill is the same as Bill 19, which the government is saying was a terrible bill. What's interesting is the number of sections that they've kept almost intact in the new bill. There are other sections in Bill 19 that did indeed need changing, because it was, as the previous speaker mentioned, tipped toward favouring management, and this was not fair to labour.

There are some sections in this new bill, Bill 84, that I find somewhat contentious and unfair. Those areas are: the secret ballot for certification, secondary boycotts, replacement workers and the successor rights and obligations. Those are the primary ones that I wish to focus on later on, during my discussion.

[4:45]

As I looked at those four areas that concern me most, I began to wonder if this was, as it's claimed to be, a labour bill. Is the government really interested in the rights of labour and bringing labour peace to this province? That began to weigh upon me, and I tried to look for an answer to that question. What was the intention of the government in bringing in this bill? As I looked about, I kept wondering if there was some other motivation. I found what I think is the answer to that question in Hansard, April 7, 1987, page 479 -- in case you care to check it up. "If you had 95 percent of the people in this province organized, you wouldn't have any poverty, because the wealth would be shared by the mechanism of collective bargaining." The speaker went further, to say: "Trade unionism, in its most fundamental way, is the best element for redistribution of wealth in society." If you were to just change a few words in there -- take out the word "union," put in the word "collective" and maybe throw in a few "dictator of the proletariat" -- you would have Karl Marx in Das Kapital speaking. I wonder if the government was using that as part of the blueprint for its labour bill, because this is not a bill on fair labour legislation.

Interjection.

D. Symons: In the original German. Das ist richtig.

Rather, it's an attempt at a managed economy and a restructuring of society on the socialist model. That's what is intended in this bill. It hasn't worked for the Soviet Union, and it hasn't worked in Romania or in Cuba. They've tried it. We can see that this type of structured, managed economy doesn't work, and it won't work in this province under this bill. A union-managed economy will be no better than a soviet-managed economy, and it won't work in British Columbia.

As I discovered what appears to be the motivation for this bill, I also discovered that the government doesn't really -- I shouldn't say I discovered this; I knew it the day the election took place -- have a mandate for major societal changes. This government got slightly less than 40 percent of the popular vote -- a smaller percentage of the popular vote than they had in the previous election when they were opposition.

In a sense, this government didn't win an election. What happened was that the electorate voted out a tired, discredited government. The Liberals, in effect, 

[ Page 3978 ]

split the free enterprise vote, and in that sense the government walked down the middle.

I can assure this government -- and I'm giving them notice -- that there is now only one free enterprise alternative to the NDP government in this province, and that is the Liberal Party of British Columbia. If this government persists with these contentious restrictions and sections without changes to make a fairer balance in this labour bill, the government is ensuring that the next government of B.C. will be a Liberal government.

What I would like to look at is....

Interjection.

D. Symons: Well, I didn't expect the opposition to applaud that. The truth does hurt.

One of the previous speakers read this part; it seems that we prepared the texts as we found concerns about the bill. Looking at the purpose of the code, section 2(1) says: "The following are the purposes of this code: (a) to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees."

Again, as we look at the title of this bill, it doesn't say union relations code; it says Labour Relations Code. Not everybody in this province is unionized. I go back to the statement I read earlier from Hansard, which was made by the Attorney General, who was at that time the critic for Labour. Those comments, put into context here, show why it says here "the employer and trade unions." To them, the only labour that counts in this province is that which is unionized. This bill, with the sections I have mentioned, will enable them to have top-down unionization in this province in ensure that they hit the goal, as they said in 1987, of 95 percent of the province unionized. That way they will restructure society on their model.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Hear, hear.

I believe that unions should win members through merit, and that people should join unions if they feel that union will give them the rights and the bargaining chips they want with the company. It should not be through legislation and legislated favouritism, and that is what some of the sections in this bill will engender in this province. It is not a fair bill, and that's why I'm up here today speaking against it.

The first item in here that I have concerns with -- I mentioned this earlier in the beginning of my dissertation -- is section 23, the secret ballot. I said before, when I was speaking to one of the amendments to this bill, that I have real concern that this government seems to have some problem with keeping a secret ballot in the bill, and that when they get the 55 percent -- as it currently will read when this bill is passed -- there will automatically be unionization.

The rationale given by the government for the change from having a secret ballot is the fact that possibly employers are using undue influence on their employees once they realize employees are being spoken to in regard to sign-up cards and that there is the possibility they're going to become unionized. There may be some truth to that, and there are laws in the current labour relations act which say that's prohibited. Employers do have the right, however -- or did have the right -- to speak to their employees to explain their viewpoint on what the outcome of unionization might be. But, indeed, if we have this bill pass, where 55 percent sign the certification cards and it's a done deal, it's quite possible that all this could be done behind the employer's back. Therefore employers wouldn't know till after it's a done deal that this was happening, and they would not even have a chance to give their side of the story. It's a part of freedom of speech for the employer that is going to be denied -- or there is the possibility of it being denied -- which is written into this bill.

So we have a government here that talks about freedom of information and is bringing in a bill on freedom of information -- an open government which believes that in the labour negotiations in this province we can do a little bit behind the scenes. That is not my way of having a free, open government or free, open unionization. It is simply unfair to make a one-sided document here.

If this government really believes that "55 percent and it's a done deal" is all right, I have a suggestion. An hon. member of the third party brought forth a private member's bill recently to introduce the subject of recall in this House. If the government believes that 55 percent is a satisfactory figure for unionization, I suggest that it bring in a bill which would automatically allow recall if 55 percent of the electors in a given riding sign for recall. Then that member is automatically out. We don't even have to have a vote to elect them out -- they're out. If the government believes in 55 percent as some hallowed number for democracy to take place without a secret ballot, how about applying it to recall as well?

During the election campaign I philosophically spoke against recall, because I didn't really feel it was in the best interests of the province. But if the government believes in this business of 55 percent, then I would expect them to say it should apply in all cases, not simply when it comes to unionization -- which seems to be what they're up to here.

The second item that I have grave concerns about is that of secondary boycotts. As I mentioned earlier, I have concerns that this bill is skewing labour relations in such a way that we'll have a top down sort of unionization within the province. I think that is the intent and the motivation behind these particular sections in the bill. While it might be fair as a bargaining item between a given business and its given union -- indeed, the employer and the employees could use this particular section as a bargaining unit -- it does, however, have fallout effects upon other businesses. It has been mentioned by other people today and in previous discussions on this bill. The effect on other businesses is of great concern. This could indeed affect businesses where the employees have no desire to become unionized but, because of the effect of a larger company that they are suppliers to, they could be forced into 

[ Page 3979 ]

unionization even against their wishes. It would be the only way to keep their jobs.

As an example -- this is just a mythical company I'm making up for a moment -- I would suggest a mobile-home manufacturing company, which is unionized. For one reason or another during the bargaining process the union brings in the idea that they want to have a secondary boycott clause in their union. To counter that offer, the employer says: "Well, if you bring down your wage demand or your pension demand, we could consider that." In effect, to that company, it's not going to cost them anything, whereas 1 or 2 percent on the payroll could cost them something. What happens then is that the company would give in on the secondary-boycott clause, and it would be written into that.

After it's there the union comes back to the company at some time in the future and says: "We're buying aluminum frames for the windows in these mobile homes that we're building from a non-union shop, and we consider those things `hot.' We do not want you purchasing from them, and we're going to ask you to apply this particular section of our collective agreement with you." You see, hon. Speaker, at the time it had no effect on the company. But now suddenly it's going to have an effect upon the supplier of those window frames. They are caught in the bind that they're going to lose their major customer unless their employees are unionized. Here's the reversal of the thing that you're suggesting often happens: the employer goes to his workers and says: "Please, workers, we must become unionized, because we're out of business if we don't." That to me does not seem fair. It is very unfair, yet it is exactly what could happen if that particular section of this bill stays in it unchanged. That is why the opposition has been up speaking so often and so long, trying to make that point to the government. But I believe they are hard of hearing, so we keep repeating it to them.

M. Farnworth: What?

D. Symons: That just proves my point.

There's a third part. I don't have as much concern about this as the previous two. On the larger scale, I don't think it's as important as far as top-down unionization within the province goes, but there is a third part in the bill that is contentious, and that's replacement workers. Indeed, having in the bill that replacement workers are banned except for management within the particular company that is on strike, and having the ability to say that others are not allowed in there, will certainly strengthen the hand of the union during negotiations. The government has said again that the reason they're bringing this in is that it will stop strife on the picket lines. Well, I think strife on the picket lines is caused by both sides. Again, we have laws in this province that should be enforced and should take care of the people who are causing the violence, rather than change the law simply because it suits the government's purpose.

Another area of concern that I have -- and this one is not top-down unionization in the province as much as maybe investment in the province -- is the section dealing with succession rights. The government is going to stifle investment in this province. What this particular section can do is give a virtual veto over the disposition of assets of a bankrupt company to the union. Indeed, if a company is having financial difficulties and it eventually wants to either wind down its operations or go into bankruptcy, at that point the collective agreement with the union holds onto the company. Anybody wanting to purchase that company also has to purchase the collective agreement. That might be fine to protect the workers, but the catch in this is, of course, that the person who may be interested in buying the company has no intention or wish to carry on that particular agreement. It may even be that the employees no longer want that agreement. They won't necessarily have that choice at this time. Indeed, what could happen is that if the company simply went bankrupt and its assets were sold off, some of the assets could still have the union agreement go along with them.

Again, government members over there will say: "Well, that is fine. It's only fair. It's protecting the rights of the union." But the catch is -- and this is where I refer to investment -- what Canadian bank, investor -- offshore or here -- or otherwise is going to invest in a company where that sort of scene could happen sometime in the future, where their chances of retaining any of their investment could go down the tube because the union agreement hangs onto the company even after it goes out of business and they can't even get hold of the assets to sell them off to get some return on their investment? I think that particular thing could have a devastating effect on the investment climate in this province. It's certainly not a time in this country or in this province when we should be doing anything to discourage investment. I think that particular section of this bill could do exactly that.

[5:00]

I note that the member for Cariboo North was quoted in the Cariboo Observer on November 1 as saying.... I am simply reading the quote from the newspaper. These are not his words precisely, but they got these words from the member, I'm sure: "In fact, Garden believes Bill 84 is the medicine the provincial economy needs to foster investor confidence and long-term labour stability." Well, I would suggest that it is very bitter medicine. I go so far as to suggest that if you take an overdose of medicine, it can kill you, and that's precisely what this section of the bill does. I would suggest that that member is as far removed from the reality of the situation in this province as the government members were on the constitution issue. They were out of touch with reality on the constitution, and they're out of touch with the economic realities of this province today.

Another concern I have -- those were the main four on the bill itself -- is: where are the regulations? Indeed, you may remember, if I can hark back to the constitutional issue, that we had a problem with the constitution: we had the Charlottetown accord without the legal text. What we have here is the provincial equivalent of that. We have Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, without the legal text. We do not have the 

[ Page 3980 ]

regulations that tell us precisely how the sections are going to be implemented. The implementation will show their intention. We deserve to have that before we're asked to vote on this bill. Where are they? We haven't seen them yet.

I would suggest that many unions are sensitive to the long-term interests of their members. But in some cases some of the unions in British Columbia's history and in Canada's history have been out of touch with economic realities. I would just point out two examples of this. One of them involves the railway union. You may remember, hon. Speaker -- I'm old enough to remember -- when trains were powered by steam locomotives. As diesel locomotives came in, there was no longer a need for the person who shovelled coal into the boiler. It was all done by valves, and a single person could do it. But the railway union fought with the railway companies for many years and succeeded in keeping the position of fireman. It was referred to as feather-bedding. They kept the position of fireman on a diesel locomotive for years and years, for no other reason than that they said: "Well, having one more person in the cab would be a safety feature." But there was no functional use, because the fireman's position had gone.

What happened in the meantime was that railroads became uneconomic, and we've found out that the railroad has gone down in carrying capacity and of course the truckers have gone up. So the railroad union, in persisting in keeping positions that were redundant, no longer usable or needed, in effect helped to diminish interest in the railways of this country.

Another more recent and more local one is the longshoremen's union. Fifteen or 20 years ago containerism was a new topic and a new innovation in shipping, and the unions in Vancouver fought hard against container cargos. They did not want container cargos. When they came they insisted that they had the right to unload every container. And they fought very hard to hold back container cargos in British Columbia. What basically happened because of that particular stance the unions took was that container cargos moved south to Seattle and a large shipping business built up in the port of Seattle that didn't exist beforehand. It's only today that we're beginning to win back some of that, because eventually, belatedly, the longshoremen's union realized that they couldn't fight progress.

Indeed, I think that is what is beginning to happen in this bill here as well. This government has not seen that if you're going to give unions the strength that you've got in this bill, we can have unions behaving in such a way....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale rises on a point of order.

K. Jones: I rise on the fact that we don't have a quorum in the House.

Deputy Speaker: The member is correct.

Hon. member, I believe we now have a quorum, and you may continue.

D. Symons: I'm please that the hon. member was concerned that there were not enough people here to hear my wonderful address to this assembly.

Another concern I have is about the process of the introduction of this bill, and the comments of some of the hon. members on the government side of this House. The government held back a special commission report, Recommendations for Labour Law Reform. They held it back until the day on which Bill 84 was introduced. Yet, hon. Speaker, we have recently had an admission from the Minister of Labour that that report was made available to special interest groups and backroom boys -- I beg your pardon, backroom persons, although all of them were male I believe. No gender equality there. Such a commission is paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia, and their report really is the property of this assembly. Common practice and propriety dictates that the report should have been tabled in the House before going elsewhere. That was not done. I believe that all hon. members should feel insulted by the slight that we were given by the Minister of Labour in not following those procedures.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

D. Symons: Some of the members opposite on the government side are agreeing with me, and I'm pleased to see that they realize that's not the way to go about this.

Also, last week the Minister of Labour stated in this House that there would be no change to this bill. In my naive way, I thought that the purpose of this Legislative Assembly was to discuss and debate proposed legislation. I thought, naively I assume, that the government was to listen to the points raised and to consider, in a thoughtful manner, any proposed amendments. I am dismayed to hear that the minister has a closed mind and no interest in listening to reasoned debate. That attitude cheapens the process that we are here today participating in.

Hon. Speaker, very near the introduction of this bill, there was a motion brought forward that the bill, in effect, be hoisted. I believe that members in the third party were somewhat concerned at that time that members in the opposition did not support their motion.

Deputy Speaker: Order! Hon. member, we do not reflect on motions that have been decided upon.

D. Symons: I stand corrected, hon. Speaker.

I would simply say that the concerns of this particular party were that this bill should have gone to a House committee, but the motion didn't pass. The concern was that it would be very difficult for us to support any other route in the beginning, since before the bill was introduced we sought to have it go to a public committee. It didn't do that. We felt that it would be consistent for us to look at that particular method first.

[ Page 3981 ]

As I said earlier, many parts of this bill are good. The old Bill 19 had flaws, and they needed to be addressed. There needed to be labour balance brought to the province. On that I believe we can all agree -- or almost all of us. However, there are some sections of this bill, particularly those that I outlined earlier -- the certification vote, secondary boycotts, replacement workers and succession rights -- that do not contribute to a balanced labour law in this province. They could have harmful effects on the economic climate of the province, and they certainly will not lead to labour peace.

As our hon. Premier travelled about the world telling people that B.C. is a place to invest and that the doors are open for investment, I am quite sure that he didn't mention: "Oh, by the way, when you come to invest in B.C., you're going to face a corporate capital tax. And by the way, Mr. Investor, when we're encouraging you to come to B.C., you're likely to find that your business is going to become unionized, because we've got laws in British Columbia that are going to lead to the unionization of your company." [Applause.]

I would only gather by the support which government members are giving to that statement that they are agreeing that the Premier should not be open and aboveboard with investors when he is speaking to them by telling them what the real situation is in British Columbia: a corporate capital tax and the likelihood of them becoming unionized. Tell them the whole story; don't just point out the nice things about British Columbia. There's much that people should come and invest in British Columbia for, but these are negatives, and you're introducing them.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I must say that I too have had letters from many people expressing concerns. You have heard of other letters; I have different ones. But I don't care to read those into the record. What I do say is that we have hypocrisy on the part of our NDP government. Indeed, the Orders of the Day are printed outside of the Queen's Printer, whose duty it is to print it.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, your time has expired.

D. Symons: I will leave it then, hon. Speaker, with the government being hypocrites.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to speak in second reading debate. I naturally join this debate in strong opposition to the philosophy and principles contained in this bill, because I think the bill is almost devoid of both.

[5:15]

Most of us will remember the first picture we saw of planet Earth taken from outer space. We realized for the first time how small this planet actually was and how fragile its environment was. We saw wisps of clouds and the blueish-green of the oceans. I also realized at that time how fragile the economy of this planet Earth is, and how interdependent we are for the standard of living that we all enjoy today. Going back to that first view from space of the planet Earth, we recognized at that time that we had to control our negative impact on the environment.

An Hon. Member: What does that have to do with this legislation?

C. Serwa: One of the things it has to do with this legislation is simply that we have to recognize that the standard of living we now enjoy in the developed nations, specifically in Canada and British Columbia, is to a great degree at the expense of the environment. When I listen to the hon. members opposite talk about increased wages as the salvation of everything -- if we double the wages, we double the cash flow and revenue to government, and that's the answer to all the problems -- I realize how shortsighted and how sadly lacking in actual experience many of the members opposite are.

It does not, will not and cannot occur. Every time there is an excessive wage demand -- and the unbalanced nature of this legislation will encourage that -- not based on productivity or an inflationary index, but based simply on a wage demand, it's appropriate that the more you can hurt, the more you can demand as a wage.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Clearly this is going to impact the environment very greatly. This government has done many things in their short history of one year -- virtually all of them negative. [Applause.] I would appreciate hearing another round of applause for that, hon. Speaker.

The very first thing they did was to repeal Bill 82. I want to bring that to light in view of the legislation in second reading that we're talking about. Bill 82 imposed a ceiling on public sector wage increases. The ceiling was about 4.5 or 4.6 percent. Nevertheless, the reality that prevailed was simply that public sector wage increases, because of very strong public sector unions, increased dramatically. What did Bill 82 do, and what did the repeal of Bill 82 do? First of all, the increase would have been about 4.6 percent. In this, Bill 82 was directed primarily at teachers, who had just finished a round of settlements -- some as high as 9 percent. But the reality is that there were not only negative effects on the environment, because the cash flow that we enjoy depends on our resources: mining and, to a large degree -- probably 30 to 35 percent -- forest resources. It immediately impacts that and encourages government. Industry is not the culprit; government is the culprit. Government needs the revenues that it derives from these natural resources that fuel the economy. So when we succumbed, with self-righteous feelings, to the repeal of Bill 82, we impacted negatively on our environment, and that's strike one.

Strike two is the repercussion in the public education system. We have more students in the schools, and we have fewer counsellors and teachers. The net result of the high wage settlement.... The 4.5 or the 4.6 percent wasn't unfair. It was quite handsome in view of the inflationary index. The only thing that was unfair about it was that some were caught in it and some were not. That would have been levelled out over a two-year 

[ Page 3982 ]

period. Nevertheless, the point I'm trying to make is that when you unbalance labour legislation to the point where you put all of the opportunities on the basis of the union movement, they have to satisfy their constituency. I applaud the labour unions for taking that mandate and striving to do that to the very best of their ability. I have no fault with that whatsoever. But in this particular case we have shortchanged our students and the treasury. School boards are unable to fund and provide what we believe is a very necessary and important right of the citizens in British Columbia: a good education for our students. I'm trying to expand on the fact that if we're not careful in maintaining that reasoned and rational balance, we tend to go overboard the other way.

A number of the official opposition Liberals have spoken up and said, in one or two sentences, that Bill 19 wasn't good because it was obviously biased in favour of business. A number of government members have spoken in opposition to Bill 19. The reality is that in the tens of thousands of words that have been uttered in this debate on Bill 84, there has not been one criticism of Bill 19 that was specific to Bill 19. Like the previous speaker of the official opposition, the last speaker just said that it was obviously unbalanced in favour of management and business, but there has not been one word of substance uttered in this Legislature which effectively criticized Bill 19.

I spoke in second reading for an hour and a half on amendments and the hoist motion. Every indicator, whether it's investor confidence inside or outside the province, minimal days lost through labour unrest, the wage package and weekly earnings of the working people.... The increase in union members since the bill was introduced is something like 18 or 19 percent, I believe.

There was really nothing wrong with Bill 19. It was doing all that this bill was supposed to do. I think there were a number of statements made, by the Minister of Economic Development and others, that we need the change to encourage investment, stability, confidence and all those wonderful things. That was here. There has not been one single reason presented in this Legislature for the introduction of Bill 84, not one single reason based on rational logic and substance. What we have here is clearly an Orwellian bill, aptly numbered 84, that is built on bias and hidden agendas and is fundamentally a political payoff. That's what we have here.

I spoke earlier about the process of developing this particular bill and the credibility of that process, which is probably a litany of -- not the starry-eyed Minister of Labour -- an almost star-crossed Minister of Labour. If it wasn't so serious, it would really be a comedy of errors. For a bill that was purported to be based on the input of approximately 500 oral and written submissions that were attended to in the report presented the minister -- Recommendations for Labour Law Reform -- nothing appears in the addendum. Normally, in every presentation the government provides to members and the public.... In the addendum there is always a record of presentations: the presenter, whom that presenter represents and the occupation of that particular presenter. All of that is missing from this. There is no list whatsoever.

When we look at fairer balance, it's certainly important to have that integral knowledge contained even in the recommendations. If it was fair and balanced, then why does it reflect back to the Barrett days? Why does it reflect back to that legislation? Why are we going backwards in time? Why does it closely reflect the labour legislation that was based in Ontario? They are very closely parallel.

It's regressive legislation. The words and sentiments, as I noted previously, of the objectives in coming up with this legislation are truly noble. Nobody will argue with those objectives at all. It was desirable that we obtain them, and that's what we should collectively be striving to do. But by regressive legislation that goes back.... We had a speaker on the government side earlier today talking about the nineteenth century, and we're almost in the twenty-first century. This bill is not going to undo wrongs and injustices that occurred in the eighteenth century, nor can it be expected to. This bill clearly has to serve the needs of the future.

The workplace has changed dramatically: the types and levels of employment; the technology; the workers, the hours they keep, their relative freedom -- many work at their home through computer terminals; a number of other things. There is no accommodation in going back historically. There is no point in going back to a confrontational model: the more I hurt, the more I can get. If there's just a half a dozen people, we can close off.... Maybe 20 people can shut off the flow of grain from the three prairie provinces to the ports in British Columbia, in Vancouver and Prince Rupert. So they can command very high wages.

D. Streifel: It's federal legislation.

C. Serwa: It may be federal legislation, hon. member. But the point is that it is still done. It's an absolute injustice to the public right, to the public concern, to our fellow citizens. I think everyone in this Legislature can agree on that. It's not balanced, and it's not fair.

The government of the day had an enormously positive opportunity to develop and come up with twenty-first century legislation. There are real opportunities. Bill 19 did a very good job and is capable of continuing to do a good job. Nevertheless, I admit Bill 19 could be improved. We're in an accelerating rate of change as we move forward. But there have to be better ways of resolving labour disputes than going out on strike, or than the violence, the vandalism and the injustices that occur. There has to be a much better way.

B. Jones: What is it?

C. Serwa: I think that with reason and logic, and by working together, we must be able to come up with a formula that is not confrontational. Organized labour, by accepting its role as a key ingredient in the economic fortunes of a nation, has to accept responsibility.

The public interest is not being well served by this bill whatsoever. It was not taken into consideration, and 

[ Page 3983 ]

the responsibility for all of us.... Because we're all on the same Spaceship Earth. We are all in Canada, and we happen to all be in British Columbia; that's what we're talking about right now. There has to be an awareness and acceptance of that level of responsibility by the BCTF, with their $30 million budget, being able to focus on individual school districts, and getting all sorts of wage settlements in the smaller or weaker school districts or those that happen to be represented by a board very sympathetic to unions and to the New Democrats, are able to get clauses and conditions that then are repetitively enforced through other union negotiations. The net result has been very unpleasant for the professionals in the education system because now many of them are simply holding jobs rather than being professionals as they once were, and more and more are being pulled into that.

An Hon. Member: It's their choice.

C. Serwa: Self-interest? Fine. There's no problem with that, but it has to be governed or controlled. With the strength of the BCTF, individual school boards have virtually no opportunity to bargain effectively.

[5:30]

Small businesses, if this goes through, have even less opportunity. The net result of a small business being unionized.... It's not that they're unfair, and it's not that they have enormous margins of profit. The reality is that the employees can always talk with the employer and they work very closely together. I've been involved in small businesses that have grown fairly large.

I wish that more of the members on the government side had actually been employed in the real world and had that particular experience. They've been employed primarily in a world where they've had a great deal of security. They haven't had to worry about meeting payrolls. They've had very comfortable wages. They've been an elitist group in many cases. That's fine, but I think British Columbians recognize that on the government side of this House are a group of individuals who are not in any way, shape or form representative of the cross-section of the people of British Columbia. The reality, while you may make jokes and laugh and think it's very funny, is that this particular bill has tremendously disastrous implications for British Columbia.

This government is very proud of their economic record of performance in one year. They dismiss the fact that the economy of the province has a tremendous inertia, and what we are still witnessing is that inertia which is still propelling this province forward. It's the faith and confidence of the people in this province. It's the faith and confidence of Canadians in this particular province, and it's certainly the faith and confidence of the Asia-Pacific group and the European export community which are investing in British Columbia. That inertia is going to go, and it's going to cost what is fundamentally important in B.C. to you, hon. Speaker, to every member here and to every citizen in the province: jobs. If we have no jobs in the province, I can assure you that the per-hour wage rate and all of the negotiated package that goes along with it is meaningless, and that's all because of a lack of accepting responsibility.

This particular piece of legislation does not encourage in any way, shape or form the acceptance of responsibility on the part of the labour unions. It was developed from apparently considered input, and about 98 percent of it was agreed to by a group of three individuals: a mediator, a labour lawyer and a labour lawyer who worked for big business. Clearly public interest and small business were not represented in the development of this legislation, and public interest was not even considered. So we have a package that will be devastating, and when I use the word Orwellian, I truly mean Orwellian.

There are a number of examples where this current government, with the best of intentions perhaps, but being naive in many of the areas that it is mandated to be responsible in, has made decisions in the province. The last fiasco, obviously, was the government's position on the Charlottetown accord, where it was evident that it was out of touch with the public in B.C., as well as with seven jurisdictions in Canada. I don't hold it against them, because I respect members on the government side, and I believe, as they have told me, that they took that considered position on their own merits.

I have no difficulty with that and applaud it, because I have the courage of my conviction that we can only have democracy in an arena where individuals think independently -- where they think well and then speak what they think. In this case I accept that, but clearly they were badly out of touch with the public.

The very first move that the Minister of Finance made was the repeal of Bill 82. That wasn't a good thing for British Columbia. I'm using these as good intentions on the part of the government, but a lack of experience and lack of vision of the consequences of those perceived good intentions. A matter was under discussion today, for example, about Canadian Airlines facing fuel taxes. It wasn't a fair remark, as a matter of fact, speaking about Alberta, because the communication compared to our international airport is very small indeed. The effects of that 2 cents per litre on a large aircraft meant a difference of $4,000 or $5,000. I'm just using this to very clearly point out the flaw in the government's thinking. As a matter of fact, I often sit here and reflect that if the government -- all of caucus -- got together, and all the political hacks they've hired from all across Canada got together, and they thought long and hard about any subject, spent hours thinking about it, and came to a conclusion, the only way right on that conclusion would be to turn 180 degrees and go the other way. Then they might be serving the people in British Columbia. But at the present time they're clearly not; they're clearly out of touch with the implications of this legislation.

It's like a one-man band playing, and they're playing to themselves. In my earlier presentations I was clearly saying that there is a great deal of conflict. The New Democratic Party and the union bosses are clearly one and the same; there is no separation in them whatsoever. If anyone in this room or in this province thinks that there is the slightest, most remote chance of fairness and balance, I would like to meet that person, 

[ Page 3984 ]

because there can be no opportunity for fairness and balance.

We did have fairness and balance, and I admit there are areas of Bill 19 that could have been picked up. [Laughter.] Laughter from the ranks. Laughter from the trained seals. Nevertheless....

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows full well that remarks that could be considered derogatory to other members of the House are not parliamentary. I would ask the hon. member to return to discussing second reading of Bill 84.

C. Serwa: Perhaps I should have said "like" rather than saying "they were." I will withdraw "trained seals."

I talked about the philosophy and principles of this bill, and I suppose one of the major elements is the beer-parlour mentality of the beer-parlour certification process. We talk about a process that can use coercion or intimidation in a worker's home or even the beer parlour -- just simply signing a card -- and then deny that individual the democratic right to vote in a secret ballot. What sort of a government do we have that is purported to represent democratic feelings? I can't believe the denial. I read an article in the Vancouver Sun where the author indicated that a secret ballot was undemocratic. I don't know what demented or twisted form of thinking was utilized to determine that, but nevertheless it obviously finds favour with the government side of the House. I have a great deal of difficulty with it.

We talked about some fundamental rights. A previous government speaker spoke of the fundamental human right to strike. It's a fundamental human right? That was a new one to me. I strongly believe in democracy, a concept that originated 2,500 years ago in a small city, Athens, Greece. I believe very strongly in that. It's very wrong to be moving away from that. I find that that is a regressive and appalling reality that faces individuals who may or may not become union members.

I have no difficulty with unions. I don't think that Bill 19 was meant to be interpreted in any other way than to achieve a balance of fairness that worked -- and it did work. By every indicator, Bill 19 worked. The process that we're now debating in the Legislature is not necessary in British Columbia today. The Premier stated on numerous occasions that he would be moving on to the economy. The Premier has not moved on to the economy yet, perhaps due to the realization that the government doesn't know how to handle the economy or how to create an environment that enhances the economy. Bill 84 is not going to enhance the opportunities for British Columbians; it's not going to enhance the opportunities for organized workers in the province either.

Take the case of the wage demands of the IWA, for example. They have been a most responsible union, because at least they are faced with the reality that they are part of the marketplace. It is a competitive marketplace, which the public sector has nicely divorced themselves from. But look at the IWA. Their loss in membership has been dramatic over the last number of years. Why? Because as wage increases go up, the reality is that the companies, in order to maintain competitiveness, have to utilize new technology and larger equipment in order to reduce labour costs. Labour costs are a big portion of the whole thing, so in fact we lose employees. The winners are the union members who stay on the employment rolls of those companies. The losers, their families, the communities and society collectively become heavier losers because of the workers who are displaced. That doesn't smack of being responsible, fair or balanced. But it's a fact of life, and it's not a nice fact.

We need opportunities for employment in the province of British Columbia. We have a large province, and we're gifted enormously with energy, mineral wealth, forests, natural resources and splendid people. All we need is a climate that creates equality of opportunity. That's what we were able to provide. That's why British Columbia is where it is, that's why environmental considerations were a high priority, and that's why we have a favourable environment as well. But if we go on this route with this bill, the net result will be a degradation of the quality of environment in the province. It will have to be, because we will be stripping more and more from our forest resources and our mineral wealth in order to satisfy higher and higher demands that are out of touch with the world marketplace.

It's not going to augur well, if this legislation goes through in this format, for all the communities in the interior of the province. This bill is clearly encouraged by big government, and big government is getting bigger. It's encouraged by big unions and by big corporations. Have no fear, those three groups will be well served by this. The large corporations are already unionized in any event. This is not difficult for them; they're not concerned with the certification process. But I am really concerned with it. In my community, secondary manufacturing is developing at a fairly fast rate. We have a few basic key industries and a number of very small operations that sell widgets, if you wish, to those key industries. With this bill, what will happen is that the large commercial organizations -- let's say they are metal fabricators in the Vancouver area -- will negotiate a contract that is entirely unattainable in my constituency. We will lose jobs and British Columbia will lose jobs.

I see by the light that my time has elapsed.

[5:45]

J. Tyabji: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Tyabji: In the gallery is one of my special advisers, who has travelled here from Kelowna to help me out today: my son, Kasimir Sandana.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to have leave today to be here -- leave, of course, from the campaign of Presi-

[ Page 3985 ]

dent-elect Bill Clinton, who has allowed me to be here today to address Bill 84.

I say that in jest. But going beyond the joke that was made today in some news media about that, perhaps President-elect Bill Clinton's campaign could learn something from the experiences of how a left-leaning government can get into trouble in one year in office, because there is a lesson there. The lesson is found in Bill 84, which we're debating. It shows how a government can get into trouble in just one year in office.

Bill 84 has been debated for a few weeks in the House. Some of the members on the government side -- a few of those who have spoken in this debate, and I wish more of them had -- have suggested that somehow this debate on second reading has been a waste of time. I don't believe that the debate on second reading of Bill 84 has been a waste of time at all. In fact, this debate shows that our legislative system works, because going through the debate on the principles of this very important piece of legislation -- as I've said earlier, perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be introduced by the NDP during their term in office -- shows that this system works.

It would be wrong for this major piece of legislation to go through quickly, because the people of British Columbia need to understand it. This debate in the House is allowing that information to get out to the people. It's allowing time for reaction from small business, large business, trade unions and other groups that want to know what Bill 84 says. This debate in second reading stage has been very useful.

Before we get to the committee stage, it's important for the bill to have the light of day, for it to breathe a little bit and for people to take a look at what changes might be required when we get to the committee stage. One can only hope that when we get to committee stage, this government will be sensible and pragmatic enough to consider some substantial amendments which are going to be required before this bill is going to be a fair and balanced piece of legislation. Our legislative system works. The second reading debate has been an instructive one. As I said earlier, I only wish that more members on the government side had participated in the debate, because it is such an important piece of legislation.

We need to be taking a step forward in British Columbia today to meet the challenges of the future, such as the competitiveness which is going to be required for British Columbia to be economically successful. Bill 84 unfortunately doesn't take us a step forward; it's a step backwards in time. It takes us back a generation to a labour code that may or may not have worked successfully then, but it certainly doesn't apply to the economic conditions in British Columbia today.

The economy of British Columbia today can be divided, if one wants to categorize it, into two sectors: the unionized and the non-union. If we take a look at what is happening in the economy of British Columbia today, the public sector is largely unionized, but in the private sector unions have been in decline for some time. One can only look at this bill and think that it might be a union bail-out law. Is Bill 84 really an attempt to prop up a movement that has been largely unsuccessful, except in the public sector, in recent years? Is that what the intention is here, to prop up a trade union movement, which has been unsuccessful in the private sector in recent years, by forcing top-down unionization in the private sector? That would certainly be one conclusion. That concern has been raised by many people in the community over the last few weeks as this bill has been debated. Certainly the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale will appreciate that fact.

We needed some time for reaction, and that's why the second reading debate has been important, because now we're getting reaction. Reaction has been coming in. We've had a lot of letters, and I know all members of the Legislature have had letters and calls from constituents about this. I've certainly had my fair share. I'm not going to take valuable time as this debate perhaps comes to a close to read letters into the record. I do want to note that, for instance, the Squamish Chamber of Commerce, in my constituency, has written a letter to the Premier and they copied this to me. This was just this week, so it's taken some time for the reaction to come in. This was just on November 10, two days ago. What they said to the Premier about Bill 84 was that small and medium-sized business is the driving force of the B.C. economy. If the government of British Columbia brings in this unfair and unbalanced labour legislation, it will hurt new job creation within the province. Now more than ever B.C. needs investment and new secure jobs. That's what the Squamish Chamber of Commerce in my constituency says, and I think that's the message that we're hearing and that the government hopefully is hearing, if they're listening, from small and medium-sized businesses throughout the province.

The previous member who was speaking, the member for Okanagan West, referred to the fact that the large corporate community, the unionized sector, the resource industries who are already unionized, are perhaps not as affected by this bill. That may be true, but they're concerned as well. Because even though they're already unionized and perhaps not as affected, any labour legislation that is more restrictive makes us less competitive. Certainly this legislation can be interpreted as being more restrictive, especially in terms of workplace practices and the flexibility that employers may need to be competitive in the future. Industry can certainly not afford to be less competitive at this time. I think that even the large unionized sector in British Columbia is concerned and has raised a number of serious concerns.

Small businesses in the service economy are the ones most potentially affected by this. A number of them are concerned because, while some capital says that they don't like this bill and therefore they're going to leave the province, most small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia can't just get up and leave the province. Most businesses in the service sector can't just get up and leave British Columbia and certainly would not want to. I have a number of service industries in my constituency, and I'll just mention that the concerns raised with me about Bill 84 from them primarily are in two areas.

The first one is the removal of the right to hire replacement workers during a strike. That's a serious 

[ Page 3986 ]

concern, because a small business that's affected by a strike can possibly not survive a strike if they can't hire replacement workers. So that's a specific concern that's been raised. The second one deals with sections 53 and 54 of the bill, which deal with joint consultation and adjustment plans. The comment that I had from one of my constituents is: "Having to spend so much time in joint consultation with the union takes valuable time that should be spent managing the business. In a company our size this could be a significant intrusion on the manager's time." That comes from a company....

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: Members on the government side may not understand this issue because this relates to someone who is running a business with 25 employees, meeting a payroll on a monthly basis.

If there was any appreciation among those who drafted this bill as to what is actually involved in running a business, then one would know that you don't have the time or the managerial horsepower, so to speak, to consult and spend 60 days discussing every potential change in policy, practice or procedure about an operation of your business. It's simply not practical. It takes away management rights, the rights of an owner to manage his or her business. That's the problem, and that's why sections 53 and 54 need a second look as they apply to small businesses. Perhaps in the large corporate community where there are industrial relations and human resources departments that can deal with these activities, it might work. I don't know. But one thing for certain, in small and medium-sized businesses those kinds of consultation programs won't be effective. They need to be more flexible; there has to be some tolerance and understanding for how a small business functions. It's simply not there. Those are the kinds of concerns that have been brought to my attention.

The bill does a number of other things. I want to comment very briefly on what some government members said about Bill 19, which is portrayed as an odious piece of legislation and one of the most terrible things that has ever been perpetrated on working men and women in our province. I wonder if that's true. I don't know for sure. I only take a look at what happened in British Columbia under Bill 19. We didn't necessarily have labour chaos. We had relative labour peace. In terms of person days lost due to labour disputes and by any kind of measurement, British Columbia didn't suffer all that badly. Bill 19 was not given a chance. This government is asking us to give Bill 84 a chance. Labour didn't give the previous administration a fair chance with Bill 19, but now this government is asking the business community to let Bill 84 have a chance. I wonder what's happening here. Maybe we're going back and forth on the pendulum of B.C. politics. Bill 19 wasn't given a chance, but Bill 84 should be given a chance. Is there fairness there?

There's one other aspect of this bill that has caused some concern to me: the definition of essential services, which is narrowed considerably in this bill and, in particular, the fact that education is no longer considered an essential service under this bill. That's relevant, because right now in British Columbia we have a dispute at one of our colleges. At Vancouver Community College at Langara campus we're having a dispute, and the instructors have taken a strike vote. While the provision of educational services has not been overly disrupted yet at that campus, what would happen if it were? What would happen if classes were cancelled and the school year was threatened for a number of students at Vancouver Community College, Langara campus? What would happen, I would have to ask hon. members, if that kind of dispute spread to other colleges in our advanced education system? What would happen if a whole school year was threatened in our college system?

Should education be considered an essential service? Should a government have the power to invoke essential services in the area of education if the provision of educational services and training for our children and young people is threatened?

Some members on the government side will have pointed out that the essential-service designation for education has never been used in the past, and that's true. Thank goodness it hasn't been used. But should it not be there as a deterrent or for the possible use by the government of today or of the future? Should education be threatened? Is the government trying to say that we don't need that designation in the act? Has it been removed in Bill 84 because industrial relations should always take precedence over education? Is that the case? If that's the case, then that's clearly an area that we're going to have to amend. When we get into committee stage, we're going to have to take a close look at the essential-service designation.

As this debate comes to a close -- I think we are approaching a close in second reading debate on Bill 84 -- it is important to reflect on the fact that the debate has been useful and constructive. Unfortunately not all members of the House have participated in the debate. It would have been nice to have heard from more of the government members. Some points of concern have been put on record, and they are going to be addressed in much more detail -- excruciating detail -- as we get into committee stage on this bill. Those points include certification.

It may be painful for the Minister of Labour, who unfortunately refuses to show his face in this House as we have second reading debate on this bill.

The Speaker: Order! I have reminded hon. members several times that it is not the practice of this House to comment on the presence or absence of other members. Please continue, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: Thank you. While not referring to the presence or absence of any individual, I have always believed that it is customary for a minister who is sponsoring legislation to participate in and be in the House during debate on that bill. That was my only comment.

Hon. Speaker, as we move close to the conclusion of the debate, there have been some specific concerns put 

[ Page 3987 ]

on record, which we are going to be going into in much more detail in committee stage. They include certification changes. Certification is made much easier, while decertification is almost eliminated from the realm of possibility with this legislation. First collective agreements can be imposed much more easily with this legislation. The prohibition on replacement workers moves the balance in favour of trade unions in a very decisive manner during collective bargaining and strikes. Secondary boycotts will permit unions to exert pressure on non-union firms to unionize. There's no question about that. Lastly and most significantly, in my view, management's traditional rights to unilaterally make changes to their businesses during the currency of any collective agreement are significantly diluted by the requirement to negotiate changes in ways that we don't understand today how they're going to work. There has got to be a concern here about traditional management rights being eroded, perhaps even redefined, to the point where it's questionable how many management rights even exist under this legislation.

Those are the concerns that have been expressed. Bill 84 is certainly far from perfect. It's a keystone of the legislative program of this new NDP administration. It's going to require a lot of changes. But we know that in our democratic system a government that has a majority in parliament ultimately has the right to get its way. A government that has a majority can get its way, but not before the minority is heard and not before the public has had a chance to comment as well. The government will ultimately have its way. It has a strong majority in this House. Its legislation will be passed. It has already indicated that it's determined to pass this legislation. But our hope is that during the committee stage serious consideration will be given to specific and substantial amendments on many aspects of this bill, in order to make it more acceptable, or acceptable in some form, to the people of British Columbia.

[6:00]

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and say a few words on second reading of Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code of British Columbia. It has been a fascinating two weeks listening to members on all sides of the House give their views on labour relations and this particular bill. It has made for some really interesting debate.

My own views on labour relations are that we need to look at different jurisdictions, and at the way the world is evolving not only in our own province and our own country but in other jurisdictions, in order to see which way the economy is going, which way labour relations are going and which way the labour-management equation is evolving.

As we look at what's happening with international economies south of the border, in Europe and in Japan, we see that two very disparate models are evolving. One is south of the border, where labour is viewed as the enemy to be treated as.... I don't want to say the master-serf relationship, but certainly their rights are to be curtailed. They're not to be trusted. Ideas don't flow from labour, and cooperation is not encouraged. In the United States there is still the attitude that no union is a good union. That is why in areas of the States that are unionized, you see the flight to those states that don't believe in the rights of workers and don't value the contribution that labour makes to their economy. After all, workers and labour are half of the equation in the creation of wealth.

The other model around the world is a much more cooperative approach, which we see in many European countries -- perhaps best epitomized by Germany. We see it in Asia -- best epitomized by Japan. Labour and business work together in a cooperative approach by bringing skills that each side has to resolve problems by reaching consensus on areas of conflict.

In our own country we see a wide diversity of approaches to labour from Quebec, where they've had anti-scab legislation for 14 years, to jurisdictions such as Nova Scotia or Alberta, where they have brought in legislation that specifically states that a particular company cannot be unionized. In British Columbia we've suffered under Bill 19 for the last few years, and this legislation is intended to replace Bill 19. I said that what we needed and the approach to labour-management relations that I support is a consultative, consensus-building approach, and that has been done in this bill.

Many speakers on the government side have spoken about the consultative approach that has taken place, and the fact that there have been some 500 submissions since February. The committee representing labour, business and a mutually-agreed-upon third party has travelled around the province and has spoken to people. It has come up with a consensus report that, by and large, has support for over 98 percent of its recommendations. The government, in that spirit of cooperation and consensus-building, put those recommendations before this House in the form of Bill 84. There were some issues that were outstanding, and we've heard debate on those. But I found it really interesting that some of the areas that the opposition seems to have problems with are ones that achieved consensus.

Most of the areas have been covered, and I don't want to rehash much of what's been spoken about. But I would like to examine in some detail the process of certification, because the Liberal opposition, in particular, has focused a good deal of their energy on that -- once they decided where they wanted to focus their energy, of course. Unlike the third party, which from the moment this bill was placed before the House focused from their particular philosophical point of view on what they thought were the areas of the bill they needed to criticize, the Liberal opposition couldn't quite make up their mind, because they hadn't quite received direction on which way they should go. They were once again testing the wind, so it took them some time. And then once they started criticizing, they weren't getting excuses about areas of the bill they didn't like. So I'd like to explore that for a few minutes, hon. Speaker.

We've heard today that the certification process is an erosion of fundamental democratic rights. The Leader of the Opposition says that this is possibly the most heinous, objectionable facet of this bill, because it is 

[ Page 3988 ]

going to seriously damage labour relations in this province, and that it is a dramatic setback that is extreme and radical. You listen to the Leader of the Opposition and you get one opinion in one place, another opinion in another place and another opinion in this place. You don't know where they're coming from. At least, with the third party, you understand where they're coming from. It's very much the U.S. corporate model of labour relations.

J. Tyabji: Our arguments are beyond you.

M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, I hear the member for Okanagan East piping up that the arguments advanced by our caucus, as they relate to certification in particular, aren't valid. She supports the view of her leader that somehow this is a radical step, a step outside the mainstream, a step that is going to set back Canadian labour relations and provincial labour relations. Well, when we look at the certification process, it's says that 55 percent of a bargaining unit with union cards will result in automatic certification. I think it's worthwhile examining that. I think it's worthwhile looking at how extreme that is, because that's all the Liberal opposition has done: it has said that this is some fundamental erosion of rights that somehow is going to turn back the clock in this province and drive business away. They have provided a doomsday scenario of problems that are going to occur in this province. Well, let's just examine what they're saying. Let's just examine their rhetoric. Let's just examine their arguments, because they have no substance, no basis in fact.

Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario all provide for certification the way that this province is proposing. Just in case they think I'm referring to the labour code that's been introduced by the NDP in Ontario, I'm referring to the Ontario labour code introduced by a Liberal government. We'll go further to the west: Manitoba and Saskatchewan have the same provisions for certification that we have in this bill. That's eight other provinces in this country. Do you know what? These provinces, many of them with Liberal governments, have this practice of certification. In Manitoba, for example: 55 percent union cards -- automatic certification; vote -- between 45 and 55. It's the same as in British Columbia. Quebec: 50 percent union cards -- automatic certification; vote starts at 35 percent. A province with a Liberal government, and they have a threshold 10 percent lower than ours.

How on earth does the argument of the Liberal opposition hold up? Clearly the certification clause of this bill is very much in the mainstream of Canadian labour legislation. The arguments that are being advanced that this is wrong, radical, dangerous and somehow out of the ordinary are clearly not the case. Yet not one member of that opposition has ever mentioned the fact that eight other provinces have not experienced the problems that they say they will.

You know, you have to ask: what is it that they want to accomplish? Are they doing this just for opportunism? Is it testing the wind, trying to court different segments of British Columbia public opinion? I think what we have to do is look at the record, and the record in other jurisdictions says clearly that this is the way to go, this is what other jurisdictions in Canada are doing.

There is not the flight of capital, there is not the massive sky-falling-in that the Liberal opposition seems to want. They don't want to look at the broad picture. They just want to look at here; they want to look in their own opportunistic way at which way the wind blows. My hon. colleague from Skeena the other day referred to them as a windsock opposition, and they're very much a windsock opposition.

This is a bill that was designed and brought about in consultation with business and labour. It was designed to put British Columbia on a course for the future. It has done that. I think that one of the things the opposition doesn't like is the contrast between this bill and the previous bill, Bill 19. When you think back, that was a scary time in British Columbia. It must have been a very scary sight in the back room of the Premier's offices: the Premier of the province working under cover of secrecy, trying to consummate a labour deal that was viewed by business and labour in this province and across the country as something that would not work.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The opposition says: "But it worked." No, it didn't work. It didn't work, because business and labour circumvented those aspects of the bill they didn't like. When you're building a foundation, you have to build it on firm and solid ground, not on shifting sands that can collapse when one side decides not to cooperate with the other. Bill 84 places this province on firm footing. One of the problems with Bill 19 -- and one of the reasons the opposition is so adamant on certification, which is one of the few areas they try to find fault in -- is that the pendulum shifted to the far right. No matter what happens when we try to shift it back, the government is always going to be accused of having gone too far.

[6:15]

When you look at what this government did in terms of consultation, you see that by and large the response to this bill from anyone other than this opposition has been to critique some areas in a responsible manner. Positive suggestions have been made, and most of them have focused on the areas that were not agreed upon in the initial round of consultation. But the funny thing is that the opposition has focused their secondary arguments on those areas.

Their primary argument has been focused on certification, because they felt that was an opportunity to make some sort of emotional hay with people, and that this government was taking away the rights of workers and was doing something extreme. But the fact of the matter is -- and it's worth repeating for their benefit, so they will understand -- that eight other provinces in the country have certification processes identical to those of this province. Most of them have labour relations records that are much better than ours. The other provinces that don't have this -- Alberta and Nova Scotia, as I've pointed out -- have never been beacons of labour-management relations. Nova Scotia 

[ Page 3989 ]

probably has the worst record in the country, followed closely by Alberta. But that seems to be the model that the Liberal opposition would prescribe for this province.

This labour bill is going to restore stability to this province. This government has said that it is willing and will continue to cooperate with business and with labour to further improve labour relations in this province. We are committed to doing that in a process of dialogue.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca is obviously somewhat disturbed by my comments. His party having been part of the process of Bill 19, I guess I can understand that when you bring along something substantially better, he would have problems with it.

They talked some time ago about three wise men. They've mentioned it a number of times in their speeches. They said there were three wise men involved in their process. They say the three wise men brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. This bill will bring enough gold and prosperity to this province. There will be years of labour peace and a foundation that the rest of the country will look to. Not just the certification process, but other areas of the bill achieved by consensus, will be a model not just for Canada but for south of the border, where we're starting to see that a greater emphasis is going to be placed on the rights of working people.

Our party rejects the confrontational model that exists south of the border, that sees states with no minimum wage and right-to-work states which believe that if you undercut everybody else you're somehow going to create wealth. We believe in a model that looks to cooperation between business and labour, and that is why I have no trouble supporting this bill.

F. Gingell: We all seem to start our speeches on Bill 84 with the words: "It's a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill." I must admit that I don't feel a great deal of pleasure in rising to speak to this bill, because I think that this particular government at this particular time is the example of a little wise saying that my father had. I don't think he authored it, but it is: "There is none so deaf as those that won't listen." One has the feeling in dealing with Bill 84, with the kind of responses that have come forward from the business community and from non-unionized workers, that this government is indeed deaf to their pleas and requests for the opportunity to have further input into this bill.

I surely hope that we aren't just wasting our time by speaking about this very important issue. It is critically important, and I have taken the opportunity when speaking to the various amendments in the past week to try to get to the House some sense of the importance of this legislation to all British Columbians, whether they be members of unions, whether they be part of management, whether they be unorganized workers, or whether they are retired people or young people who have not yet joined the workforce.

The economy of this province is in slow gear. It has almost stopped. We need to have the right environment here that will encourage investment, research and the important things that will create good economic growth, with good jobs, not jobs in the minimum wage area. It is important that we spend time thinking about this bill and looking for some solutions.

It is really disturbing to everybody, I think, when the need to recognize the economic marketplace is taken out of the bill's purposes, taken out of the way in which the bill is to be read and the way in which it is to be interpreted.

[J. MacPhail in the chair.]

It also surprises me when I look through the list of government members and recognize and understand that 19 of 51 members of this party have a real relationship with education: school trustees, college board governors and teachers. Nineteen out of 51, and they take education out of the act. It is no longer an essential service, as it has been under predecessor acts. I just find it hard to believe that this government, which speaks so much to education and to the importance of the educational system in British Columbia in building good economic growth and creating the climate where economic growth can take place, has taken education out of the essential services section. It makes you wonder if their interest is in the good of the B.C. Teachers' Federation rather than in education.

Clearly we in this province have to accept that education is important to us. We cannot destroy children's lives by allowing strikes at inconvenient times. I find that teachers in the K-12 area never seem to strike in the months of July and August. They always seem to strike at times when children's education is going to be interrupted and interfered with. So surely thoughtful second consideration should include a provision to put education back into essential services.

Listening to many of the speeches made by government members in the last few days, I noticed that 21 or 22 government members haven't spoken, which surprises me, because this is such an important item. That happens to include no less than 12 cabinet ministers. You would think that they would want to stand up and speak to this particular issue. There seems to be an attitude that Bill 19 pushed the pendulum all the way over here, and now it's important for us to push the pendulum all the way back.

We heard what happened in the coalmines of British Columbia in 1912. We were told of the circumstances that existed during the Industrial Revolution of nineteenth century Britain. We all recognize that those conditions were conditions that none of us in this House would support. But this isn't 1912, and it isn't 1812; although we are having our own Battle of Trafalgar, somewhat.

This is 1992, and we need labour legislation that will take us into the twenty-first century. Everybody keeps looking backward. In the discussion that came from the member for Port Coquitlam, immediately preceding me, he listed eight provinces that have a procedure for certification that is similar to that proposed in Bill 84. 

[ Page 3990 ]

That doesn't make it right. That's looking backwards. Why don't we start looking forward?

Surely the process could ensure that both labour and management will accept the result. Because it has been finalized by a secret ballot that puts the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the certification process, that allows everybody to know that nobody has cheated; that there hasn't been any pressure from union organizers or employers who don't want to be unionized. All that has been brushed out of the way. You have your secret ballot; it gives it the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, and you can start off with proper labour relations and the labour climate we need in this province to create good economic growth. If the employer doesn't believe that the process has been fair, we will have problems with people not bargaining in good faith; we will come into circumstances that will now take place under Bill 84 and have first-contract arbitration. That just makes matters a lot worse.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

On Tuesday we had the opportunity to listen to the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who started off with this same problem of looking backwards. More than 100 years ago in this country and in this province trade unionists figured out that they needed to answer that fundamental question: what side are you on? It seems to me that this debate has almost come down to the question of what side you are on. Are you on the side of management, against the unions, or are you on the side of organized labour? Surely the members of this House are on the side of all British Columbians, whether they be unionized or not. If they want to unionize and vote for it through a secret ballot process, this side of the House has consistently supported their right to do so. What we do not support is a set of rules and procedures that create an environment that nobody believes to be fair and true.

[6:30]

We continually hear government members talk about grossly unfair labour legislation. I have never worked in the trade union movement and I'm certainly not a labour lawyer, so I really don't know whether Bill 19 was grossly unfair. I know that it was stated to be so by the ILO, but I'm not sure that convinces me that it is true. I was able to go through the annual report of the IRC for the last couple of years. In that report, I was able to look at the number of certification applications. If the bill was so grossly unfair, I would presume that all certification applications would have failed. That's what everybody seems to be saying. But they didn't fail, hon. Speaker. Two out of every three certification applications over the last three years passed; one in three didn't. Doesn't that tell us that the secret ballot is surely the way that finally does determine whether or not the employees in a potential bargaining unit really want to be certified?

I heard of the example of Northwood Pulp, where all of the workers in the plant were unionized but the 16 office workers weren't. That they were a threat in this circumstance is absolutely meaningless. No one can pick up a pulp mill and move it from British Columbia to Alberta. No one is going to close the pulp mill down when all the pulp mill workers are unionized and the 16 office workers are not. Evidently, nine of the 16 had signed union cards. When the vote was held, 12 of them voted against certification and four of them voted in favour. There's only one conclusion you can draw from that, and that is that something was wrong, and without going into what may have been wrong or what may not have been wrong, the secret ballot clearly was the solution. It changed what would have been an unfair set of circumstances, where three-quarters of the employees did not want to be unionized and would have been forced to had the secret ballot not been in place.

As well as the secret ballot issue, another critically important issue to the opposition is the question of secondary boycotts. We, who all support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country and believe that the rights of the individual are paramount, find it really difficult to understand that anybody would believe that a secondary boycott arrangement is fair. We're not talking about the question of whether unionized workers should be required to handle goods considered to be hot that have come from a plant or a business in the midst of a labour dispute. We're talking about everyday business, the right of a business to purchase goods where they find they can make the best economic arrangement.

You could take this question of secondary boycotts to its logical conclusion and deal with a set of circumstances, if one could envisage it, where the BCGEU were to have a secondary boycott arrangement clause in their collective agreement with the province. The Minister of Finance has said that he will table the latest BCGEU agreement in this House, but he has failed to do so and failed to do so for some three weeks. But if there were to be a secondary boycott arrangement sitting there dormant in the BCGEU contract between them and the provincial government, just think of the consequences of that. Are we going to accept the set of circumstances where 70 percent of the workers, 70 percent of the taxpayers of this province, if that happens to be the portion that is not unionized, cannot do business with the largest single buyer of goods and services in this province? The province taxes everybody. They tax you whether you're union, non-union, retired, management or whatever, and those taxes are the financial resource that buys all of the goods and services that this province provides for its citizens. I know that the suggestion that some clause in an agreement with a union that has an agreement with the government would forbid the majority of workers and people in this province to supply those services.... I believe and understand and would like to confirm that in fact there is that kind of clause sitting dormant in the BCGEU contract. The Minister of Labour should, at the very least, clearly state during the course of this debate that under no circumstances will they enter into such an agreement with the unions the province negotiates with. If it is there at the moment and has sat dormant for some years, he should give this House and the people of this province a very clear commitment that it will be taken out of the contract at the first opportunity. 

[ Page 3991 ]

It is simply a situation that nobody, whatever their political philosophy may be, could believe to be true.

I would like to deal with just one more issue, and that is the process by which Bill 84 came forward. I was surprised today, during the speech before me by the member for Port Coquitlam, to be told that the chairman of the subcommittee on labour law reform had been chosen by the other two commissioners. The impression the member left was that it was Messrs. Roper and Baigent who had chosen the chairman, Mr. Vince Ready. I was under the impression that the chairman had been appointed by the minister. I believe that to be the case, so I think....

Hon. M. Sihota: Wrong.

F. Gingell: Oh, wrong. He was chosen by the other two individuals. Well then, it really did come down to what we suspected all along: a labour lawyer who represents unions, a lawyer who represents unions and an experienced arbitrator whose only experience is in labour negotiation issues -- that's where his whole background came from -- went through a negotiating process to come up with a report that they can all accept except for four quite major items, and they moved forward with that. It is critically important that the non-unionized part of the British Columbia workforce be heard from. It's 70 percent of all of the workers, or somewhere thereabouts. We have finished up with a proposed labour code that has only focused on the question of the relationship between unions and management and that has allowed a process for certification, decertification and successor rights to move in there, which the representatives that were there from organized labour and organized business really don't care about. They don't care about certification processes. They're already certified. They don't care about successor rights, because if you're into the business of bankruptcy the company isn't there anyway. But we, as British Columbians looking at the greater good and at what is good for all British Columbians, surely are concerned with these issues.

[6:45]

Successor rights are going to play an important role in future economic growth. It is not only going to be a major factor taken into account by anybody coming in to take over a failing business -- someone coming in with capital or new technology or whatever -- it is also going to affect the attitudes of capital lenders. If you are a bank, and you are going to put a mortgage on a coalmine, you not only now have to look at the resource and the equipment that you are mortgaging, you're going to have to understand very clearly that if the business goes through a corporate reorganization because of its financial difficulties or goes through a bankruptcy.... Yes, all of the legal liabilities and all of the contractual arrangements can be extinguished; you can take back the property that you were given as security to sell, with all contracts extinguished except one: the labour contract -- that carries on forever.

I think we all accept that where there has been poor management and maybe an aggressive labour union response to poor management, it's often the labour relations issue that is the major problem. That was clearly the issue in the Elk Valley coalmines. We're creating a set of circumstances in which it's going to be very difficult afterwards to negotiate a sensible, thoughtful arrangement if those successor rights always exist.

It comes down all the way through business. If I build a restaurant on a property in Victoria and lease it to a restaurateur -- because I'm not a very good cook, and I wouldn't want to risk my own skills -- and that restaurateur leases my property, without my having any actions or any agreement or concurrence, and enters into an agreement with a union, my piece of property is forever painted with a great big sign. That never goes away as long as that facility is used as a restaurant. If a restaurant is what you build, a restaurant is what you've got. So it's going to have all kinds of ramifications that I don't think have been clearly thought through.

I really do hope, hon. Speaker, that when we get to committee stage and the clause-by-clause debate of this bill, the government proves that it does in fact want to listen and that it will recognize that good legislation comes about by thoughtful consideration of the issues and from having an open mind that allows adjustments and changes to be made to this bill, so that it can indeed be what we in this House all want it to be: a good, strong, large foundation stone for economic growth and labour peace in this province.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker on second reading, I want to advise hon. members that due to the lateness of the sitting, the meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has been rescheduled for Monday evening upon adjournment.

H. De Jong: This is undoubtedly the last chance we have, particularly as members of the opposition, to speak on the principle of Bill 84. Bill 84 is considered by the Premier to be the first step in working towards strengthening the economy of British Columbia. The question is: will Bill 84 do this? Will it indeed bring better relations between employer and employee? I have my doubts, and so do many others. I just want to quote a paragraph of a letter from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, which was sent to the Premier on November 3. It goes like this:

"We want you to be aware that concern with Bill 84 as introduced is widespread in the employer community. Contrary to the opinion of your government that this legislation is balanced and fair, we believe that the balance has been tipped dramatically in favour of organized labour. This legislation could well lead to the destabilization of British Columbia's labour environment. It is clear that proceeding with this legislation as drafted will not contribute to your stated objective of improving the investment climate in British Columbia through increased cooperation between labour and business."

Cooperation between management and labour, labour and business, in my opinion, can only be reached through consensus-building, something that I believe is essential for productivity in the workplace. Productivity is essential for competitiveness. Quite the contrary, 

[ Page 3992 ]

the central issue we're dealing with in Bill 84 is not consensus-building; it is a matter of power in the workplace. Power, whether it's on one side of the issue or the other, does not work towards cooperation. It can only be replaced by cooperation and consensus if labour relations are going to improve.

The interests of employers and employees in British Columbia are, as we note from the responses, unalterably opposed to each other. The B.C. Federation of Labour's ad campaign appears to be opposed to Bill 84 because they simply did not get everything they asked for. Bill 84, the big-union bill, provides little room for small unions -- not very much, just a little. The same applies to small business: just a little room left, not very much. The familiar phrase of this government has been: "Higher wages and jobs for everyone." The same phrase was used by President-elect Clinton -- exactly the same slogan. Premier Rae of Ontario said the same thing. He said it would improve the standard of living for working people and improve the business climate in Ontario. Did it really? A number of business organizations predicted that if the government went ahead with that particular bill, billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs would leave the province. Well, we all know what has taken place in Ontario and is still taking place. I'm sure the government members prefer that I do not touch on the specifics. Well, I don't have to; the media keeps us very well informed of what's happening out there. What's happening is not good for business, and it is equally bad for labour and for the individual working person whose bread and butter is at stake.

Let's do some comparison between Bill 84 and the bill that was before the people of Ontario. The employers' right to communicate with their employees is further curtailed during a strike or an organizational campaign. Prior approval by the Labour Relations Board is required before an employer can discipline or lay off employees during an organizing campaign. Petitions against the union's application for certification were abolished. The restrictions on secondary boycotts and picketing would be eased. Employing replacement workers during a strike was banned. Even the Toronto Star, which in many cases has been very supportive of NDP actions, described the changes to the labour law as a surefire way of killing jobs. That's a pretty strong statement for any newspaper editorial.

I hear the Premier and some of his colleagues making statements about welcoming foreign investment to British Columbia, because we are so well located on the Pacific Rim. Our location may be perfect and the natural beauty of British Columbia may be attractive and even enticing, which may be of some help. However, the ultimate decision by foreign investment will not be made on the above, but on the financial viability of the province and the condition of the business climate and labour prospects in British Columbia. Why should foreign investment be so eager to come to British Columbia, when the Business Council of B.C. has withdrawn its supportive role of advice to the government if it proceeds with Bill 84 in its present form?

British Columbians have known for some time that the Premier of this province has sat on the fence on many occasions. This was proven throughout his years in public office. Now, however, we find him on both sides of the issue and on both sides of the fence. The Premier and his cabinet colleagues are claiming that Bill 84 will help to build cooperation and partnership between labour and management. The business community is saying exactly the opposite; it's nothing more than a payoff to big labour organizations and big unions. The Premier and his colleagues are saying that this bill will bring about labour peace and prosperity to all. The business community is saying that it will discourage foreign investment and that business investment will go elsewhere. What does the worker who is caught in the middle of the crossfire say? I will get back to this in a little while.

Bill 19 may not have been perfect from the point of view of either management or labour, and I've heard situations on both sides of the issue. Even with the most equitable labour law, we will continue to hear concerns on both sides. However, we must acknowledge that during the last ten years we have seen union and non-union workers working side by side on the same project in British Columbia. It's something we had not seen for years. A welcome situation for both union and non-union, it provided for equal opportunity. That's the way it should be. It provides for equal opportunity and competition, not just on the dollars-and-cents side but also in skills and ability to perform.

[7:00]

This Bill 84 does nothing more than drive back in between labour and management, between the parties, the wedges that existed between labour and management during the seventies, to the detriment of the overall economy of British Columbia. That's what Bill 84 will do. It will not only affect the worker and the stock markets, but have serious consequences for the delivery of services that the people of British Columbia are entitled to.

What will this bill do to benefit the worker, recognizing that workers and management are equally dependent on good relations and cooperation? The workers of today fully realize what it means to have a paycheque to cover the needs of the family. Work is often seen and expressed as something a person has to do in order to survive. I am sure that all members of this House know the story that's been told so often about the foreign visitor coming to a city where a new cathedral was under construction. You all know, I'm sure, about the three workers' response to what they were doing and their reaction to the work. So I'm not going to repeat the story.

Having come to know many workers in the course of my life, on the farm as well as during public life, I see that most workers represent the response of the third person those visitors met. Most workers enjoy their work, because through a cooperative approach by both sides they feel they are an integral part of the company they are working for. Workers being an integral part of a cooperative approach are workers with a purpose.

At the same time, they are the type of workers that do not want to be put into a position of having to forgo the privilege of a secret vote, because that's part of cooperative consensus in the workplace, so that that 

[ Page 3993 ]

consensus and cooperation can be sustained and enhanced. Consensus and partnership in the workplace cannot be legislated by a partisan government. This bill does not allow for consensus-building. Consensus and partnership can only be achieved voluntarily between management and labour, with government acting as the facilitator. The process that has taken place up to this point has not recognized the importance of democracy, and of consensus and cooperation between labour and industry.

However, I realize that the government has failed to respond to the three motions all requesting a delay and a proper process to be followed before finalizing this bill. Surely this government is not that anxious to proceed with a piece of legislation that will cause the wedge between labour and business to go in deeper, which in fact had been disappearing during the past ten years -- and now this wedge is driven back in with Bill 84.

In conclusion, I trust that the Minister of Labour is prepared -- and I'm glad he's in the House at this point -- to bring in an amendment so that in fact the wedge will not be driven as deep as it was back in the seventies. The workers of British Columbia cannot afford it, but neither can the British Columbia economy stand such a setback in labour relations -- a setback that industry cannot afford, but most of all, and most seriously, the workers cannot afford. Let's build towards consensus in the workplace instead of power.

L. Hanson: For the benefit of the Speaker, I will be the designated speaker. So as I go over the half-hour and approach the two hours, you can let me know.

This bill entitled Bill 84, which I have said many times should be entitled Bill Pre-'84, has a number of predominant themes that run through the whole of the bill. The denial of the public interest in collective bargaining is obvious when you read this bill. Any notion of individual rights in the collective bargaining system is totally missing. The less than subtle shift away from collective bargaining to a system of government-guaranteed rights for unions -- rights not earned at the bargaining table, by the way, as in a true collective bargaining system -- is obvious.

To refer to the process that we went through as "consultation" is.... It certainly wasn't consultation in any acceptable form. To have representatives from specific interest groups consult with their constituents and then produce a report which the government turns into law without any meaningful opportunity for the public to scrutinize or comment, or even for the elected representatives to review it and offer comment.... Certainly a lot of words spring to mind, but "consultation" is not one of them.

Further, we understand that as recently as the Friday before the bill was introduced, representatives of the Ministry of Labour were meeting with the spokesperson for various employers and union groups to attempt to negotiate -- behind closed doors, I might add -- a package which would not be harshly criticized. I ask you again: is this part of fair, open government?

Just to speak about that for a second or two, when the Premier and the Minister of Labour commented on the rebuttal of that agreement by the Business Council of B.C. and other coalitions, it was pretty obvious that a deal had been struck and that the Minister of Labour and the Premier were upset that that agreement, reached behind closed doors, had not been adhered to. Then we hear the Premier say that there are no backroom deals: "We will not renegotiate the labour code." But he's very upset because a deal that was negotiated behind those closed doors didn't come through. I don't think there's any question that this bill is one of the biggest political payoffs to organized labour as a result of their assistance in the last election.

If you add up the impact of the changes to this bill, it is a huge change to the labour relations atmosphere we have in British Columbia. I've heard a lot of comments about Bill 19 from the members of the government side, and I've heard a lot of comments that Bill 19 was negotiated in some way. But we're not here debating Bill 19. If this House would like to remove Bill 84 from the agenda and then have an emergency debate on the performance of Bill 19, that would certainly have the support of our party and, I would think, of the official opposition.

We in British Columbia are enjoying one of the most beneficial economic times that we have enjoyed in the last few years. We hear the Minister of Finance suggesting that there is going to be a huge budget deficit this year. We also hear that the economy is having difficulties. I think that's a fair assessment, because the economy is probably having difficulties around the world. But when you look at the reasons for the deficit we see coming in British Columbia, when you look at the causes, the causes are related to this government's attitude about the public interest in its legislation. The reason we don't see investment coming to British Columbia, the reason we see jobs being threatened, is that people are concerned about this government and its attitude towards the business community.

We have created more jobs in British Columbia in the last six years than any other province in Canada, and the days lost have never been less than during the period when Bill 19 was in -- except since this government was elected. Why has that disruption been caused now, I ask you? Why have the ten to 12 months of this government's reign been marred by labour unrest, by more days lost than there had been over the previous four years? Because there was an IOU signed during the election, and that IOU raised the expectations of organized labour. They said: "Now we have our allies in power. We expect the payoff."

Hon. Speaker, 90 percent of the jobs that have been created over the last four or five years have been created by what we would very correctly describe as small businesses, and that is the group that is most negatively affected by this legislation.

I was on a television program the other night with a member from government and a gentleman from the University of British Columbia. He made the statement that in his opinion the importance of labour legislation to the economy of British Columbia has been overstated. Well, hon. Speaker, I suggest to you that that assessment by the professor was incorrect. When industry capital is looking for a place to invest and 

[ Page 3994 ]

return dividends, it looks at a number of things, but very important and high on that list of priorities are labour legislation and labour relations in a province. They sit back and look at Bill 84, and they see that it has major impacts on individual rights, the public and small business. What is their conclusion going to be? That the labour relations climate in British Columbia is going to deteriorate seriously as a result of this bill.

[7:15]

I've said it before, and I will say it again, because it's worth repeating. The minister quite rightly gave credit to the committee members he appointed to draft the new labour legislation. I'm not sure of the members, but there were ten or 12 people on it. I don't want British Columbia or this Legislature to misunderstand: this report is the product of the three wise men who went around the province.

Look at the association of those three gentlemen. They have integrity, and they have expertise in their areas of endeavour. But it's a narrow field. One lawyer obviously has represented -- and quite well -- the interests of organized labour. He was the lawyer of record with the B.C. Federation of Labour. The second lawyer's clientele were the large unionized companies that had difficulties with the Labour Relations Board or that had some case to plead. And the other gentleman was a mediator, an arbitrator, of good reputation and well renowned, and he was used extensively by both labour and management. What do these three gentlemen have in common? They all depend on unions and management for their livelihoods. The interests of the public and of small business and even of the individual worker were not recognized or represented.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

To make this situation more ludicrous, the report along with the bill, which is substantially the bill before us, was given to that labour and mangement group to study even before it was presented to the Legislature. That sounds to me like the government's opinion of this House is much less than it should be. As I understand the process of government, the people elected to represent the people of British Columbia are the most important people in debating the merits of the legislation. What a farce, hon. Speaker, to present that to those two interest groups without presenting it to the public or to the Legislature.

I quote the minister quite often, and I will do more of that later. The minister said that this legislation is important to support our ability to survive in a global economy. A lot of people disagree with that observation or opinion. I quote the Board of Trade: "Anything short of something that is neutral to facilitate economic growth is a step backward." This legislation isn't neutral. I quote from the Times-Colonist: "This legislation turns back the clock to the labour code brought in during the Dave Barrett administration." That's why the title should not be Bill 84; it should be Bill pre-84.

I quote from the Vancouver Sun: "Legislation of this nature definitely causes business to stop and reflect and to think again before carrying on." That is not necessarily a reference to people interested in coming to our province. A very important part of the growth of jobs in this provuince and the health of our businesses comes from the reinvestment of profits by the businesses that are already here. The attitude that that quotation conveys is that there is a reluctance on the part of business to continue to expand, if they are profitable. This government's taxation policy has probably looked after the profitable side of it. But if they are profitable, this bill will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

We've talked a lot about jobs in British Columbia and about the people who will suffer as a result of this bill. But do you know who the big losers are? The big losers are our young people who will go out into the world in the future to try and find a job. They will find it increasingly difficult to find employment as a result of this legislation. Employers will be forced by this legislation to take their only escape route: they will either not start up in the first place, not invest in expansion or they'll never come to this province in the first place. If you look at the bill, they have even deleted any reference to a competitive market economy from the purposes section.

The philosophic thrust of this bill can easily be seen when you compare the purposes of the old code with the new code. The old code starts off by saying: "...improving the practice and procedure of collective bargaining." The new code says: "...to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining." To a practitioner of labour relations and those people who are professionally involved in this field, it is obvious that that subtle changing in wording will change the direction of the decisions that will come from the Industrial Relations Council, in the old case, and the Labour Relations Board in the new case. It'll change the whole thrust and attitude of their decisions.

It's certainly interesting that we're talking about encouraging cooperative participation while we are giving the weapons of war to one side and taking them away from the other. To illustrate that, we've now seen in this legislation that it is the intention to ban the employer's ability to even threaten the use of replacement workers in the instance of a strike. If we talk about fairness, we note that strikers can find other employment. I hear the members of government suggesting that that's not really a fact because they can't find other employment anyway, and there may be some justification to that. But they do have the ability to find other employment. The employer doesn't have any weapon in his arsenal to find replacement workers. It's not balanced or fair.

I've forgotten which member of government mentioned earlier that there had been the use of replacement workers in some strikes in British Columbia. I researched that, and I couldn't find the instances, but there may be the odd one. But I submit that other than those entities under the jurisdiction of the federal labour legislation, very seldom and in very odd instances have replacement workers ever been used in British Columbia. The threat of it has simply been used as a levelling of the playing field, if you will.

Add to that the fact that the employer can't even order a person who is part of the exempt management side of the bargaining unit to do striking workers' jobs 

[ Page 3995 ]

without permission, without their agreement. They've taken away and narrowed the definition of those people the Labour Relations Board will be able to consider for exemption because of management responsibilities in the bargaining unit. They've narrowed that. Fewer people will be considered part of the exempt qualification.

On top of that they've said that the employer cannot transfer exempt personnel from other locations. All of the above have been done in the guise and justification to prevent violence. I'd like to have a list of the cases under provincial jurisdiction where violence has occurred because of replacement workers. I suggest that they are few and far between. As a matter of fact, most of the violence on the picket line comes as a result of people who contracted with the employer for services prior to the labour disruption and trying to continue with the delivery of that service or goods during a strike.

I know that the leader of the third party mentioned earlier today some of the effects, but let's suggest that there is a strike of the provincial government, and that the BCGEU could not -- which is a remote possibility -- reach an agreement with this government for their contract. If that odd circumstance should happen, it would close down British Columbia. There is no way the government could provide even a skeletal service to British Columbia if that were the case. There would not be any cheques for our social services people, and all the things that we accept as part of our normal everyday life would discontinue, because government would not be able to operate in the case of a strike.

What is the result to businesses who try to provide some income, who try to maintain a little bit of economic pressure that is created by a labour strike? We see the employees being able to withdraw their services; that's clearly put in the bill. We don't see the employer having any rights or abilities to obtain a partial income, therefore providing a level playing field. I suggest that the result will be bankruptcy, voluntary closure, or maybe they'll move to some jurisdiction that has reasonable and fair labour legislation.

[7:30]

There are a number of other things I would like to mention, but I only have two hours, so I'd better move on. The question that I ask this House and all people in British Columbia is: what employers' organization or individual asked the committee to discontinue the democratic vote? I'm not a betting man, but I would bet that no one asked in all of the submissions that were made. Then the question comes up: where would it come from? I don't think I need to tell you, but I will. It obviously came from unions and organized labour. I can't believe any individual would say: "Please, committee, take away my right to vote on whether I want to be a union member." There are other interesting things: why did organized labour want that? They were losing 25 percent of the certification votes they were bringing forward to the Industrial Relations Council. I guess 25 percent was too high a percentage; they don't want to lose 25 percent.

That's another interesting thing that makes you stop and think for a moment about this government's understanding of the word fairness. They suggest that if 55 percent of the people will sign membership cards, there's no need for a vote. The reason they want to get rid of the vote -- the justification -- is that employers have not been acting as responsibly as they should be, and therefore the vote gives them the opportunity to apply undue pressure and influence the vote. I know I've mentioned this before, but those same employers all of a sudden become very moralistic and upstanding and do not break the law if only 45 percent of the members signed up on the union card. Then we have to have a vote. To make the situation even more ludicrous, when you come to decertification, it's not good enough to sign a pledge that I want to decertify the union. You have to have a secret ballot.

If someone could explain those seemingly opposite viewpoints, depending on the circumstance, I might be able to support this legislation. But there is no question that there is a double standard. I illustrate with an article that came from British Columbia Report in August this year. It's talking about rock bottom in the coalfields. A union member -- I won't mention his name -- an electrician who has worked at the Balmer mine for 18 years, criticized union officials for not holding a secret ballot on the company's offer. The union hall was packed and no private booths were provided to cast ballots, so anyone could look over co-workers' shoulders as they voted. That is one small illustration of how important it is for people to have the right to express their opinion on major things affecting their life and their livelihood in a secret ballot, democratic vote.

Even though this legislation does say the democratic or secret ballot is required under certain circumstances, it has taken away the reference to supervised secret ballots. I recognize that if a secret ballot was not held, and that if a ballot in those circumstances was, in fact, held in a manner that wasn't secret, there would be an ability to question the process and maybe even the outcome. But if that's the case, why doesn't the same principle apply to those employers who cause this terrible persuasion by speaking against unionization, possibly. That therefore makes it not necessary to have a vote under those circumstances.

I've studied this bill, and I just cannot find answers to those questions. I would like this government to tell me of one parent and one student who asked that education be removed from essential services. I'd almost bet that in presentations made from management and the public at large, it was never asked that education be removed from essential services. But I'd sure bet that if it was asked for at all, it came from organized labour.

Who asked the committee to ban replacement workers? Who asked the committee to narrow the definition of exempt people in the bargaining unit? Who asked the committee to ban the transfer of exempt people from other locations? I don't think it was management, even though I am critical of the representation on that committee -- of three having a narrow interest. Hon. Speaker, I think the answer is obvious: again, it was unions and organized labour; workers represented by 

[ Page 3996 ]

union leaders, not workers as individuals. Who asked for secondary boycotts? Again, I don't think it was the employers or the public. I'd almost bet again that it came from organized labour.

The proposal introduces an industrial apartheid policy, which permits monopolistic practices, leads to top-down organizing and undermines an employee's right to freely associate with the union of his or her choice. We anticipate that some unions in both public and private sectors will successfully seek broad language in collective agreements, whereby they would be permitted to refuse to handle products from employers they deem unfair or because that employer's workforce might be represented by an independent union.

I've heard the Minister of Labour suggest that the intention of this clause is not top-down organization. But what are we to expect? Let's look at the record of this government. The BCGEU said: "We need 6 percent. Sign here." Hon. Speaker, guess what the next request is going to be. It's going to be to ban anyone who has any product or service provided to government but isn't covered by a collective agreement. I suspect that all the thousands of little suppliers of services and merchandise to government -- be it forks for B.C. Ferries or pencils -- are not only going to have to be covered by a collective agreement but may even have to be covered by a collective agreement with a certain union.

Hon. Speaker, the small businesses of this province should look at this clause, and they should look at it with great fear. They have a very real cause for fear, because their ability to deal and merchandise their goods and their services will be severely curtailed by this legislation. Who asked the committee to remove the two-year no employees decertification clause? I'll bet it wasn't management or the public. Who asked the committee to change the successorship clause? If it was management or the public at large I would be awfully surprised.

There hasn't been a lot of thought or concern raised as a result of the removal of the requirement to provide a fee during the signing of a union membership card. I'd almost bet that the public or management didn't ask the committee to put that in place. But even that guru of labour, who was at one time the head of the Labour Relations Board and has written several articles, Paul Weiler, referred to it as being necessary for the commitment of the person signing the card to recognize that there was a commitment there. Yet we very casually toss it aside and say, "Well, it's only a dollar." I guess in today's vernacular it might be a loonie.

But, hon. Speaker, the assessment of the impact of removing that was done by someone who doesn't understand what that commitment means. Why do you think that when we have a contract in British Columbia it's necessary for some exchange, no matter how small it may be, to show that there has been a contract created? Now we remove that. We say it's no longer important. We don't need that. I suggest that should be re-thought.

We continue to suggest -- at least the government members continue to suggest -- that this is balanced legislation. Well, the major changes in this legislation have not come from a balanced part of our community. The changes have come from a very narrow interest group requiring them, and this government has agreed to those requirements not because they think that this is going to increase British Columbia's competitive position or even that it will remain neutral. They've brought in this legislation because they promised they would. In the legislation it refers to the definition of an ally. If that definition were applied to this situation, we wouldn't have this legislation before us. But it's brought before us because this government feels that it owes it to organized labour. I know that this government, in the short time it has been in place, has been tagged with the title "the government of broken promises." Well, they kept one promise, and that was to their allies during the election.

[7:45]

Going back to the membership card, it was mentioned that if before a certification is applied for, if the person who has signed the membership card wants to withdraw that membership card, they have the right to withdraw up until the time that certification was applied for. That's totally a farce, too. I ask you: how many individuals are going to come forward? Not very many, because if that membership was obtained by coercion or undue pressure, for that same reason they're not going to come forward and withdraw that membership card. The minister was suggesting that that was their balancing effect on the removal of the secret ballot for the certification vote.

I think it was the member for Delta South who mentioned a circumstance earlier where there were some 15 or 20 people in a bargaining unit and two-thirds of them had signed membership cards. As a result of the vote, three-quarters voted against it. I researched that particular one, and I was going to use it in my speech, but someone beat me to the punch. I also researched that there were no charges of unfair labour practices. There were no charges that the employer had done something to unduly influence the members when they voted. If there is one situation where the employees have the right to show in secret how they truly feel about it, it's wrong to take it away.

During a certification drive there is no question that there are all sorts of forces on the individual, and there is no question that sometimes those forces are unfair. But they're unfair from both sides. Do you know something else, hon. Speaker, that hasn't even been mentioned here? Quite often the influence on the employee to vote yes or no in a certification drive is mostly affected by their spouse, be it their wife or their husband. That has not been talked about. All we have talked about is the fact that the employer -- that big, bad employer -- is going to influence the people to not vote in favour of unionization. If a husband or a wife feels strongly about it, should they not have a right to influence that person, and should the person not have a right to express in a secret manner how he or she feels, without fear of recrimination from either the union or the employer? We've taken that away from them.

I note something else. It's not a major issue, I suppose, but certainly an issue of concern to British Columbians, and I think an issue of freedom and democracy that we talk so much about. There have been some exemptions from the requirement to belong to a 

[ Page 3997 ]

union on religious grounds, and those exemptions were allowed if individuals could clearly prove to the Industrial Relations Council -- or the Labour Relations Board, as it will be now -- that they were opposed to some particular clause or policy of the union that in fact was contrary to their religious beliefs. I can use the pro-choice/pro-life issue as an example. This legislation has changed that. It says that the only justification for exemption from the requirement to belong to a union will be if an individual can prove that the religion they support and believe in is opposed to the principle of unionization, to the principle of collective bargaining -- not to a policy. Well, if you look at the record and see how many exemptions were obtained as a result of that clause in Bill 19, you could probably count them on both hands. Why would we want to change the ability of that small segment of society who truly feels that they are offended by some policy of the union? The only possible thing I can think of is that it is a matter of principle with organized labour that no one should have the opportunity of exempting the necessity to belong to a bargaining unit, even though their religion is opposed to it.

I heard one news commentator suggest when the bill was first introduced that it has more hidden alligators than a Louisiana swamp. I think there is some justification for that statement.

A study was done in Ontario in February of this year. That study suggests that 295,000 jobs and $8.8 billion in investment will be lost in the province. I'd like to point out that that report was not refuted by the government. I ask another question: what will be the impact of Bill 84 on British Columbia? Does anybody in government know what the impact will be? Does anybody in government care what the impact will be?

I quote from the Journal of Commerce: "Small Business at Gunpoint." It says:

"Either the minister has not realized what he's done or he's quite willing to destroy the small business sector of this province in an ideological drive to make B.C. 100 percent union.

"Either the NDP has not thought this one through very clearly or we're seeing the most cynical political sleight-of-hand ever pulled off in this province."

Our Premier assured the province when he was still Leader of the Opposition that if elected he would not restrict his government's dealings only to unionized companies. Well, he kept that promise. Instead he has handed his backroom buddies in the labour movement the weapons they need to do it for him. This major new labour legislation was not needed now, as investment, wages, employment and union membership have all increased, and days lost to industrial disputes have dramatically decreased since 1987.

The purposes section of this bill was altered to make the encouragement of unionization the prime purpose of B.C. labour law. It has completely ignored the public interest and the wishes of the employee. Consideration of the public interest has been subordinated to encourage collective bargaining and now can only be considered by the Labour Relations Board during a labour dispute and not before one occurs.

Employees have been denied conscientious exemption from union membership when their religious beliefs strongly conflict with a union policy unrelated to workplace issues. Workers are no longer protected from union discipline on grounds that are not fair or reasonable, even if this could cost them their jobs. Unions are no longer required to answer complaints by members if the Labour Relations Board hasn't decided if the complaint raises a prima facie case. I would interpret this to mean that they will now need lawyers to complain.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

L. Hanson: Is that a lawyer I hear saying: "Hear, hear"?

Isn't that a serious and unreasonable financial barrier? Isn't this discrimination against those with limited literacy or a lack of fluency in English? If this provision is reasonable, why doesn't it also apply to complaints against employers?

It is no longer even necessary to pay $1 to buy a union card. How serious is the commitment?

Small union firms can now be forced to unionize regardless of the wishes of their employees. If their major customers sign a secondary boycott agreement, they will not have that customer, or they will be forced to unionize. Once a company is unionized, anyone who buys the assets of a company -- whether it be bankrupt or is simply holding a disposal sale -- will automatically become certified.

I submit again that this major new legislation was not needed now. Investment, wages and union membership have all increased. Why are we bringing it forward? I think I've mentioned this several times: it's because of an IOU that was generated during the last election.

Something that hasn't been discussed very much in the legislation is the adjustment plan provision. This requires the employer to give 60-days' notice to a union before it" "introduces or intends to introduce a measure, policy, practice or change that affects the terms, conditions or security of employment of a significant number of employees."

It's difficult to predict what will be covered by "measure, policy or practice," but I don't think there's any question that the previous legislation, which referred to technological change, has been severely broadened and that the employer now faces a significant intrusion into management rights.

As I mentioned earlier, the legislation eliminates the supervision aspect of strike votes. There will still be secret ballot votes required by the legislation, but there will no longer be any supervision to ensure that the circumstances are fair and proper. This will be left to the returning officer who supervises the vote.

I'm sure this debate, which we will continue as we get to clause-by-clause debate, will bring cries from the government side that we are preaching doom and gloom. I suspect that there may be some circumstances where that will happen. I won't go into quoting the debate during the last change to the labour legislation because you might just rule me out of order. But if there was ever the forecast of doom and gloom, I suggest that 

[ Page 3998 ]

members of government should read some of the remarks that they made during the 1987 debate.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: Well, I may not be ruled out of order, but I suspect the Speaker is just waiting for me, so I'm going to pass on that.

This legislation is obviously a power grab by organized labour. They don't want to face the real competition of organizing. They don't want to face the real competition of having a right for the employee to secretly express whether they really want to belong to a union or a specific union.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: I hear the member for Nanaimo. I have a number of quotes from him during the debate on the last legislation. It may not be quite appropriate today.

[8:00]

I Ask You: how many employers understand that the adjustment plan I mentioned earlier allows the union to challenge virtually any change they make to their business if it isn't covered in their collective agreement? How many businesses understand that if they buy any part of a unionized business, they are now unionized, whether their employees like it or not? How many employers understand that now they cannot even purchase a bankrupt company without being bound by the same collective agreement, which may have contributed to the bankruptcy in the first place? Or how many employers understand that if they initially hire only one employee, that employee can, by simply signing a free union card, effectively unionize their business on the spot and all other people who follow? How many understand that exempt employees are severely limited, so that their ability to take a strike vote is greatly reduced, and at the same time they are refused the right to hire replacement workers even on a temporary basis?

How many workers understand that there is no duty for a union to disclose any of its policies or track record during an organizing drive, and that the employer has no right to even suggest relevant questions they might wish to ask? How many workers know that if they discover that a union policy violates their religious beliefs, they can no longer get conscientious-objector status unless their beliefs preclude them from joining any union at all? How many realize that they may be forced to join a union to keep their job if their employer does business with a unionized firm that agrees to deal only with unionized suppliers? How many workers know that unions no longer need fair and reasonable grounds for expelling them, as long as they get due process and are not singled out individually? How many of our younger workers understand that they may lose their right to merit promotion if the union opts for seniority, as often is the case? And what does that do to the ability of the employer to compete?

As I said earlier, this bill has more alligators than a Louisiana swamp. I know the government has the majority, but if we progress with this bill without any changes, those alligators will be snapping at British Columbia's economy pretty seriously. I urge the government, if not to withdraw this bill, to consider very serious amendments before they pass the legislation, because the effect on British Columbia will be drastic. I hope that everyone in this House is concerned about British Columbia.

G. Janssen: We have listened in this House to the debate on Bill 84 for some two weeks. It is remarkable that the opposition can rise once each on the main motion and once each on the three amendments and say exactly the same thing virtually day after day. They make no reference, particularly the members from the Social Credit Party and the former Socred Labour minister, to the debate that took place on Bill 19.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

An Hon. Member: The minister's here.

G. Janssen: I see the hon. minister has returned to the premises, and I will forgo....

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I have reminded members before that it's not the practice of the House to comment on the presence or absence of members in the House.

I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan East.

J. Tyabji: I rise for my final opportunity to speak to Bill 84, as one of the last speakers for the Liberal caucus.

We in the Liberal caucus find it extremely disappointing that we did not get more participation from the government benches in this debate, particularly from the cabinet. We have many cabinet ministers whose portfolios will be directly and severely impacted by this bill and they have chosen not to participate in the debate. That's extremely unfortunate, because if the government members believe -- as some of them claim they do -- that this bill is very good for the economy and very good for the people of the province, then why haven't we heard that from the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Municipal Affairs? Where were the representations from cabinet on behalf of the people who will be affected in these portfolios with regard to this bill?

Hon. Speaker, it just didn't happen. We waited, hoping that we would hear some representation from the government benches in support of this bill, and it didn't come. Perhaps it didn't come because many of the provisions of this bill are indefensible from the perspective of these portfolios. We didn't hear from the Minister of Tourism, for example. We didn't hear how she could interpret the impact of this bill. There are so many things that I've mentioned in previous submissions on this bill that will be impacting the people of the province. And one message that really has not been....

M. Farnworth: Point of order. We're debating the principle of the bill in second reading. We're not debating whether members have chosen to speak or 

[ Page 3999 ]

impugning their motives, hon. Speaker, which is what's going on here.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure the hon. member is at the very threshold of relating her comments directly to second reading.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, you're a mind reader, because I was just about to address the fact that we have heard some members of the back bench talk about specifics of the implications of this bill, some of those being that we will see unionization of real estate companies, insurance companies, etc. In fact, it was the member for Parksville-Qualicum, and I could read his comments from Hansard with regard to how women, who are overrepresented in areas like banks, real estate companies, insurance companies, restaurants and bars, are now going to be taken care of through the process of certification, through Bill 84, and become unionized. I wonder if all the workers in real estate companies, insurance companies, banks, restaurants and bars are aware that this government feels that it is now championing their rights by not only giving them the ability but encouraging them to certify, encouraging them to unionize.

In section 2....

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I hear a lot of heckling from the back bench there about, "Oh dear, now we have women who are going to be certified," and there's a lot of facetiousness. My point is that the women who work in these jobs in many cases.... I've worked in many of these jobs, and I've never been a member of a union. I have worked in many jobs in which this government is said to be championing the rights of the people in these jobs because now they can unionize. Hon. Speaker, I would not have wished to be a member of a union when I was working in these industries, and I wouldn't have wanted this government to come to my aid. I have many friends who work in real estate companies and banks, and I don't think they need the help of this government through unionization. I think they're happy to have those jobs.

D. Lovick: When you mature, you'll be great.

J. Tyabji: I'll choose not to dignify that with a response.

Hon. Speaker, the thing that upsets me with so much of this process is the implication that it is somehow a step forward for the economy to have all these havens of free enterprise become unionized. In actual fact we will find -- as will anyone who has run a business before, as I have -- that the profit margin is obviously going to change as the demands for wages increase. And as the profit margin changes, either the owner accepts a smaller profit margin or there will be fewer jobs. I have a hard time understanding how this government thinks that providing fewer jobs for people who are working in real estate companies, insurance companies and banks is doing them a favour.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I hear the comment from the back bench that if we paid $1 an hour, we could have full employment. That might be the NDP's black-and-white understanding of the economy, but I understand that we have other ways of approaching things. Most of the people working in real estate companies are hardly making minimum wage; many of them are making a good living.

I'd like to talk very briefly about some of the specifics of the implications of this bill and about where the opposition has a lot of difficulty. One of the things that we have a lot of difficulty with -- I wish we had more representation from the government benches on these things -- is the fact that there are no draft regulations accompanying this bill, and much of the working of this bill is dependent on those draft regulations. We haven't even seen them yet. Not only have we not seen them, but here we are at the end of second reading and we have no idea what those draft regulations will be. So the debate is wrapping up, and the draft regulations aren't here.

Some of the specifics of the bill that are causing us a lot of problems, as we mentioned before, are: the process of certification; the provision for no replacement workers; the imposition of a first collective agreement; sections 53 and 54, which we are calling the co-management provisions; the allowance for secondary boycotts, which we think is going to grind small and medium-sized businesses to a halt; and the successor rights. Those are the key components of this bill that are causing us the most grief. To me it defies explanation, after the Liberal opposition has spent so much time in this House putting questions to the government on these specific issues, why we have yet to hear any of them stand up and defend these specific provisions in the bill. Where's the champion of the co-management provision? Who has stood up to answer the questions that I asked specifically on the provision for a measure, policy practice or change in the adjustment plan and a 60-day notice to the committee? Nobody has championed that in this House. No one has yet to stand up and justify why that technology provision in the previous act had to be changed. Now if somebody wants to change a wine label, they have to give 60 days' notice to their union, call a committee meeting and have an adjustment plan.

[8:15]

How is it that at the end of this debate, 12 members of cabinet have not spoken to the specifics of these provisions and we're wrapping it up? We've done our best to ask these members how it is that they took away the secret ballot. How is it so, when we have stacks of letters -- which I have committed to and plan to table? How is that we have asked them? Who asked them to take away that secret ballot? Who stood in the cabinet and said: "Take away the secret ballot, because that's the democratic thing to do"? It wasn't anywhere. We cannot see it in the recommendations from the public. The public does not want that secret ballot taken away. In fact, they are extremely upset that their democratic rights are being eroded.

[ Page 4000 ]

No ability for replacement workers. Where are the government members who are standing up and saying: here are all the examples in British Columbia of strikes where, for whatever reason, we should no longer have replacement workers? I listened to all the representations from the government side of the House. I read over many of them in Hansard, and I didn't hear anybody stand up and say: "In British Columbia here is the strike that under Bill 19 we could not have abided, and here's a specific reason we had to go beyond the Criminal Code and bring in a provision for no replacement workers."

As the bill reads right now, it doesn't even allow for replacement workers through management, which in effect shuts the company down. Who has stood up here and said we must impose a collective agreement, such as we see in section 53? I can't understand how we have a government saying it wants to promote the organization of labour and free collective bargaining, yet in section 53 there is a provision that if the collective agreement does not contain the provisions as this bill, in its paternalistic way, describes....

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: Well, here we go. Here is the provision that must be adopted by every single collective agreement.

D. Lovick: Judi, Judi, Judi.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo knows full well that the use of members' names is not permitted in the chamber.

J. Tyabji: As I was saying, I'm extremely upset that this government feels it has to interfere in the collective agreement process by writing part of it and putting it in section 53. To me, that goes completely against the grain of saying that we want to allow freedom in collective bargaining.

But it is consistent with the rest of the bill, which takes away the freedom for a secret ballot and the freedom for the employer to bring in replacement workers during a strike or to even have that as a bargaining chip. So section 53, with the provision for a collective agreement which will be imposed, is consistent with the rest of the bill. No one on the government side has stood up to defend sections 53 and 54, and I find them to be totally unworkable.

We have not heard from the government side about secondary boycotts. We have not heard why this government feels it must drive the unions into every single aspect of small, medium-sized and big business in the province.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I hear the cry of "anti-union." Do you know what we are? We are pro-choice. We Liberals have to stand up in this House and say we are pro-choice. If a retail company wants to carry some kind of product that is from a non-union company, it should have the choice. We have heard nobody on that side stand up and defend secondary boycotts that will allow a union to go in and say you can no longer carry that product because of the secondary boycott provision.

We've heard many of the Liberal opposition stand up and say that as far as the successor rights provision goes.... We have current specific examples of how the successor rights provision will undermine the ability of new companies to come in and pick up the assets of an old company and therefore save jobs. That successor rights provision becomes a liability for any company that has gone bankrupt.

One thing that I have spoken of in the past is the fact that we are now going to have discrimination against someone who is a card-carrying member of a union, who has the misfortune to lose a job -- perhaps in a resource industry in a small town -- and ends up moving somewhere else and working for a non-union company, or would like to have a job with a non-union company. I have not heard anyone on that side dispute the fact that that person will now be automatically carrying a liability by having a union card, because a non-union company will not want to end up with 55 or even 45 percent of its employees belonging to a union, because overnight they might become unionized. No one on that side has stood up to talk about that. Nobody has taken objection to that, so I can just assume that they cannot defend that provision in the bill. I can only assume that they cannot speak for individual rights, that they actually like that provision in the bill and that they don't mind unionized members being discriminated against when they seek employment elsewhere, because nobody has addressed those points.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to wrap up by saying that it is extremely unfortunate that the primary contribution from these government benches has been the heckling that we've heard from the back bench, which is as productive as the input we've had from the majority of members who have chosen not to speak to the second reading of this bill. I find that extremely unfortunate. I find it unfortunate that we've had a number of cabinet ministers opt out of answering these specific points we've made. I stand here disappointed that at each point when the opposition has said, "Let's carry this forward to a select standing committee; let's talk about it; let's talk about reasonable amendments; let's talk about some of the substance of the bill and how the substance is taking us in a different direction," we've heard nothing in rebuttal from the government side.

Although we've taken our commitment late into the night, and we've spent a lot of time....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the House come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I repeat, will the House come to order, please.

[ Page 4001 ]

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, my final words are that I want to point out that the Liberal opposition cares so much about the provisions of this bill that we have spent more time trying to talk to the government and trying to provoke some kind of debate on this, which unfortunately has not happened. Perhaps there just isn't any response to the things that we've brought forward. We've heard a few things from one or two members. We had the member for North Coast and the Minister of Labour basically carrying the debate for the government benches. But here at the end of this, we've spent more time on this than this government did when they were in opposition to Bill 19. We've gone through it very thoroughly, and we've tried very hard to convince the government that this is the wrong way to go.

Hon. Speaker, I look forward to the committee stage where we can go through and take the general concepts that we've brought up in second reading. We can go through it very thoroughly in the committee stage. And I hope that this Minister of Labour will take these recommendations to heart, that he will make at least the five or six amendments that we have recommended in a conceptual manner in second reading, and that we can at least make Bill 84 a viable act for the province.

W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure to rise in the chamber to debate a bill that is as all-encompassing and as potentially destructive as Bill 84 is to the provincial economy.

Hon. Speaker, I think the questions that are being raised in this province about this bill really relate to the process that went into developing it. When we look at the labour review panel and the three so-called wise men, we find that the kind of deliberations that went into the bill, the kind of consultation that went on, is strangely reminiscent of the so-called consultation that went on with the constitution debate in this province, the kind of well-orchestrated consultation that leads the government to the conclusion that it was hoping to reach from the very beginning. It's rather interesting that when the labour review panel was touring this province and soliciting so-called independent positions and opinions on labour legislation, they came up with a report which the government couldn't release for five or six months. The reason was that there was a minority position in the report that the government wasn't comfortable with. So not unlike the Charlottetown accord, behind closed doors went the deal-makers, the government and the Minister of Labour to hammer out some sort of arrangement which they could sell to the business community in this province.

What leads me to believe that people were dealt out of this process is a letter that the opposition received from the B.C. School Trustees' Association, representing every school board in the province, stating some major concerns about this bill, particularly the provision on replacement workers. The B.C. School Trustees' Association, the school boards of this province -- some of which members opposite may have served on -- are saying that as a result of this bill, they cannot guarantee the safety of schoolchildren. One must assume they had the opportunity to point that out during this so-called sham of a consultation process that went on this spring. Maybe they did point it out, but they're writing letters to point it out again.

These are the kinds of things that lead us to really question the process that unfolded. I think it was the hon. member for Okanagan West who pointed out the comparisons between the constitutional debacle in this country and what we're seeing with this labour bill. We had this sort of illusion of consultation, leading up to the kinds of backroom deals that dealt people out of the process one after another. People in organizations like the B.C. School Trustees' Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business feel that there's nothing in this particular bill that would convince them that their interests have been taken into consideration.

The fundamental misconception that this government makes about this particular bill is that it assumes that medium-sized and small business in this province are clones of big business, that they are merely big businesses that are smaller. That flies in the face of reality in this province. The fact of the matter is that medium-sized and small businesses, which are creating 90 percent of the employment in this province, have a totally different set of needs than big industry and big business.

This particular labour review panel certainly took care of the interests of big unions and big business, as we've mentioned in this chamber before. But a lot of forgotten parties are coming out of the woodwork, and that's the reason why the Liberal opposition will continue to debate this bill in second reading and why the committee stage will be long and arduous. I guarantee the members opposite this: it will go on a lot longer than Bill 19.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! I again urge hon. members to use restraint and to extend courtesy to the hon. member who now has the floor.

W. Hurd: I refer specifically to the secondary boycott provisions in this bill and the kinds of conversations that the Liberal opposition has had with small and medium-sized business, who are very concerned about this provision. They're not concerned about their companies being unionized; they're concerned about the fact that they may end up having to unionize to deal with a large unionized supplier. That may be what they will have to do. This isn't a union-management issue; it's a competition issue. If you're a large employer in this province and you're concerned about the competition of a small or medium-sized business, what better way than to encourage that company, through your own union, to unionize?

[8:30]

They are concerned about their competition, not about unions. Any government that understood the dynamics of the competitive market system would realize that. They would realize the potentially damaging consequences of the secondary boycott provisions. They would realize, for example, that according to the comments of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, they 

[ Page 4002 ]

will not be able to go out and hire supervisory people from other schools and bring them in to protect schoolchildren if they're in school. If a picket line suddenly appears around a school, they cannot bring in other supervisory people to protect schoolchildren. With huge holes like that in this bill, how can the government stand and defend it?

I note with interest that this particular letter was written by the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, Mr. Jack Finnbogason, who is a pillar of the New Democratic Party establishment in my riding of Surrey. It's rather interesting that even thoughtful New Democrats are jumping ship on this bill in record numbers, because they know only too well what it means. That's something the government doesn't appear to have taken into consideration.

We're getting letters from many businesses in this province who are giving us one simple message: this bill contains, as the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon stated, more alligators than an Everglades swamp. Their lawyers are telling them exactly what this bill will mean for their business.

There's no question that this bill is a bad piece of legislation for the economy at the present time. It was Mr. Ken Georgetti, who earlier this year was looking at the resource sector in this province, who said that you'd have to be out of your mind to invest in a resource-based industry in this province at the present time. There's a labour leader who understands only too well the kind of economic difficulties that exist out there; yet we have the spectacle of the Premier of this province telling this assembly that the key to enhancing our competitive position in this province is to reform or change the labour laws.

The medium-sized and small businesses aren't saying that. They're saying: "Give us an industrial strategy. Give us some long and far-reaching tax relief, some understanding of the problems we face." But it's absolute rubbish to suggest that a labour bill will somehow increase or improve the competitive position of small and medium-sized business in this province -- absolutely ridiculous. This particular process that has unfolded before us in the House today is typical of the kind of approach the government is taking to reform labour legislation. We even have a rumour coming out of the NDP convention that there might be some more deals in the works. There might be a few more under-the-table amendments with large unionized employers in this province: "Hey, we're open to cut a deal."

Where was this kind of deal-making during the labour review panel process this spring? Where was the willingness to compromise then? Why won't this government take the bill on the road and let everybody cut a deal? Why won't they take this bill so Mr. Jack Finnbogason, a good New Democrat, can come forward to a hearing and present his concerns about what this bill will mean for the B.C. School Trustees' Association? Why is a good New Democrat writing letters to the opposition? He's representing every school board in this province, and I assume that some consultation has gone on before they sent a letter on this bill, which raises serious concerns about their ability to protect the safety of students given the common site picketing and strike notice provisions of this bill.

The thing that really concerns small business as well is the provision for arbitrated first contracts. As I said in this chamber during the last debate, if you look at the history of arbitrated, forced first contracts, rarely is a second contract ever signed. The history of arbitrated, forced first contracts is exceedingly poor. This government has brought forth a provision in this bill that has been demonstrated not to have worked in the past. It's one thing to claim that you're changing laws for the better, but when you bring forth a provision that hasn't worked in the past, you've got to wonder who the government was listening to. They weren't listening to the B.C. School Trustees' Association. They weren't listening to the Federation of Independent Business. They were listening to large unionized employers in this province, who have absolutely no trouble with this bill. The government should pause to reflect on where the opposition to this bill is coming from. It's coming from small and medium-sized firms that have a different agenda, a different set of needs, and that represent the future of this province.

This bill is a major step backward. The process that went into its formation is no less flawed than the process that went into creating Bill 19. The government fails to realize that, but it's essentially the same process in reverse: backroom deals; let's make a deal. What faith can the people of the province have when we have the spectacle of a government that hasn't even considered the safety of schoolchildren in coming up with labour review changes? It's beyond belief that a government would not even consider those types of ramifications and would not even solicit that type of input when the labour review panel was touring the province.

You know, there has never yet been a logical explanation offered as to why the labour review panel report was released after four or five months, when it should have been out there for consultation and for public input. There's been no logical reason offered by this minister as to why that important document on which the labour legislation was based was released on the same day the bill was tabled in the House, other than that it was a labour review panel report with a minority opinion the government wasn't comfortable with on many of the provisions we now find in the bill.

Who knows what kind of amendments the government will bring forward when we get into committee stage, and who knows where they will have come from? Perhaps they will have come from some of the big unionized employers in this province who feel they have a pipeline to the government. Who knows? Perhaps they might even come from the B.C. School Trustees' Association and their good NDP stalwart president, who will advise the government that at the very least it should recognize that education is an essential service and that it should therefore be exempt from the provisions of this bill.

This is the kind of backroom dealing, under the sham of consultation, that's been going on with this bill from the very beginning. The people of the province have no less faith in the process this government has put in place than the unionized workforce had with the 

[ Page 4003 ]

last process that went into the creation of Bill 19. It's "back to the future"; it's just a reversal of the previous process.

As we get into committee stage, we'll be moving a number of amendments that will safeguard our schoolchildren, that will address the concerns of small and medium-sized businesses in this province and that will focus on some of the aspects of this bill that will undoubtedly create serious impacts on investment in this province. Look down the list of things that have been changed: anti-strike replacement workers, which has never been a problem in this province over the past four years. We've had members of the opposition stand up and talk at length about the postal strike and how they were dragged kicking and screaming by postal trucks driven by 19-year-old replacement workers, and the post office won't even be affected by this bill. That is the contribution to the debate made by members opposite, talking about "strikes I have known and loved." None of that would even be relevant to this bill.

The idea that the Labour minister will now assume the powers of the industrial relations commissioner to settle disputes and that the Labour minister's arbitration panel will be used to arbitrate first contracts.... The Labour minister is reinserting himself into the process. What union in its right mind is going to accept a neutral arbitrator when the Labour minister has a right to appoint his own arbitrators, who could well be friendly to the big-union movement in this province?

The same lack of confidence is going to exist in this process that existed in the last one, which is why more thought should have been given to this bill. That's the reason they should have taken the provisions of this bill on the road. They should have listened to the people who are sending letters to the opposition today, letters that spell out major concerns with this bill. Those people don't want to write letters; they want access to their government before this bill becomes law. They want to be able to register their concerns that, for whatever reason, were not registered with the labour review panel, and they're being denied that opportunity. And I can tell you this: there is an opposition in this province which during the committee stage of this bill will give those stakeholders the opportunity to do just that: to propose amendments and to have this government stand up and explain why those constructive amendments are not going to be supported by this House.

I stand firmly opposed to this bill. The timing is disastrous. The government should take this bill on the road before it inflicts any further damage on the economy. I certainly welcome the opportunity to talk about offensive items like the elimination of the secret ballot and the provisions for secondary boycotts, which will destabilize the small and medium-sized business sector in this province -- provisions which are ripe for change. We can only hope that some of the deal-makers out there who have approached the Minister of Labour for further concessions will have better success than some of the small and medium-sized firms or the luckless B.C. School Trustees' Association, which has had their very real concerns rudely rejected by members of the government who, I assume, haven't taken time to even contact this particular association to address their concerns.

With that, hon. Speaker, I look forward to committee debate on this bill. We'll be proposing a number of amendments that we feel are absolutely vital to the provincial economy at this time. We only hope that letters like those from the B.C. School Trustees' Association and other small firms continue to come into the opposition benches, because I can tell you that, based on what I've seen so far, they're wasting their time dealing with the government.

The Speaker: The Minister of Labour closes debate.

Hon. M. Sihota: During the last presentation from the Liberal member opposite and the one previous to that, I was reflecting on the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in the last election campaign, in which he promised a constructive and positive opposition. What we're seeing here today in the House is an opposition that is opposing just for the sake of opposing, an opposition that's ill-informed with regard to labour relations matters, an opposition that is naive, an opposition that, quite frankly, is misguided. Rather than criticizing this legislation, the opposition should be congratulating the government for producing labour legislation that has consensus between labour and management, where labour and management agree on 98 percent of the provisions found in this legislation.

You know, they just can't admit to themselves that this government did well in the introduction of fair and balanced labour legislation. They can't bring themselves to acknowledge and congratulate the government for this fine piece of legislation that is now before this House in second reading debate. They can't admit that this government went through an unprecedented level of consultation with British Columbians. They can't acknowledge that 296 British Columbians made verbal submissions to the panel that we set up, that 206 other individuals made written submissions to this panel, that this panel went through the labour relations community and consulted with them, free of interference from this government -- differing from the sham of process that occurred with respect to Bill 19 -- and that it met with the parties and arrived at consensus legislation.

G. Wilson: And then you guys wrote the bill.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says: "Then you wrote the bill." Well, let me tell you the truth about what transpired there. It was the three-member panel that sat down and drafted the legislation based on the consultation that had been developed to date.

Let me deal with a couple of other issues. I listened with interest to the comments made by the member from the Okanagan about women, the retail sector and real estate. She left people in this chamber with the impression that somehow this legislation will impose unionization on women who work in the retail and real estate sectors. That is simply not true. This legislation 

[ Page 4004 ]

says that those women ought to be free to decide among themselves whether or not they wish to deal with their employers individually or through the collective bargaining system. What is wrong with giving working women the opportunity to make that decision? What's wrong with giving working women the opportunity, through the collective bargaining process, to deal with the wage disparity that exists in this province, where for every dollar a man earns, a women earns 60 cents? Be it pay equity or other initiatives, those issues can be resolved at the negotiating table through the collective bargaining process. What's wrong with giving working women in this province the opportunity to collectively change the working conditions that they work under, whether it be in a bank, a hospital, a real estate office or anywhere else? There is absolutely nothing with that. They should have the power to change their working conditions. They should have the power to make representations with respect to wage gaps, day care and any other issue that they think is important in their working lives.

[8:45]

The hon. member from the Okanagan would suggest that there's something wrong. She says: "They may be dipping into the profit margins of the company." The member for Nanaimo made a good point: that's the kind of thinking that gets people to buy into the argument that if you take everybody's wage to a dollar an hour, you will increase levels of employment. That simply is not true. The member for Nanaimo was correct to say that that's not the kind of race to the bottom in terms of working conditions that we would like to see in this province of ours.

I sat here for the last two weeks and listened to the arguments made repeatedly by the opposition.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Somehow the members of the Liberal Party take umbrage with the fact that I've actually listened to the points they've made during the debate.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: My colleagues tell me I'm a patient man for doing that, hon. Speaker.

I've listened with care to the comments that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and the other key spokespeople from that party. They have failed, during the course of their arguments, to congratulate the government for many of the achievements in this legislation. Not one of them has taken the time to congratulate the government on the initiatives with respect to unfair labour practices and expedited arbitration. They have said little about the provisions in the legislation before the House with respect to employer free speech. They have said very little, if anything, about proper-cause protection during the process of certification.

Hon. Speaker, they talk about individual rights versus collective rights, but they ignore the fact that that very provision protects the individual rights of a worker not to be fired or terminated without cause. Right now there are provisions in there that allow people to do that simply because a worker decides to proceed with a certification drive.

While I'm dealing with the issue of certification, let me deal with the issue of the 55 percent, which seemed to come up frequently in the comments that hon. members opposite made.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Six times in every speech, says my colleague from Cowichan-Ladysmith.

Reading Paul Weiler again, who I think is one of the most distinguished academics in the area of labour relations in this country and certainly in this province.... If my memory serves me correctly, he teaches at Harvard in the area of labour relations. Let me read this for the opposition, simply because I think they lack a firm understanding of what is at issue with regard to representational votes. He says:

"I have always found it incongruous that the employer should be given a central role in the representation play, even if its campaign is perfectly legal, without a whisper of economic coercion of the employees. Suppose the employer simply mounts a sophisticated Madison Avenue kind of electioneering, complete with highly paid lawyers, consultants, psychological survey teams, perhaps even films. Is that consistent with what collective bargaining is all about? In making up their minds about union representation, the employees are really choosing how they will deal with their employer, how they will participate in settling and improving the terms of employment. The employer and employees have an inherent conflict of interest in that topic. Clearly the employer is affected by the employees' judgment about whether they will be represented by a trade union. Yet surely that collective employee choice should be as off-limits to the employer as the employer's choice of a vice-president of industrial relations is off-limits to the employees."

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says that's way too deep for them. Maybe it's not way too deep for them.

This legislative change has the unanimous consent of business and labour.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I call the House to order. Please proceed, hon. minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: You know, all this does is simply reflect on the experience that we've had in this province. Since 1984 we have seen a 100 percent increase in the number of unfair labour practices that have occurred and been reported to the Labour Relations Board since the current provision with respect to secret votes was introduced. Prior to that, for 40 years we had a provision which allowed certification on the basis of signed cards. For much of that time the provision really was 50 percent plus one.

[ Page 4005 ]

Recognizing what has happened from 1984 on, and recognizing that for 40 years in this province we had a different regime, we asked business and labour to go into the corner and to try to reflect on those two experiences and give us their best advice as to how we should deal with the certification issue. And they did.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Only the Liberals opposite would think that somehow they are in a superior position -- Father knows best -- that they know better than all of the....

F. Gingell: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, the member for Port Coquitlam is entering into the debate and not sitting in his proper seat. I think that he needs to sit in his proper seat.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member were less concerned about where people are sitting and more concerned about the statements being made in this House, he might actually learn something.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. All members are aware that we cannot have three and four debates going on in this House at one time. At this point, the Minister of Labour has the floor. Please proceed, hon. Minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: I trust the member has now settled down.

So the panel unanimously recommended that where 45 to 55 percent of the employees sign a membership card, there will be a vote, and indeed we respected that representation unanimously put to us by business and labour. We respected it and proceeded with it. That's why this legislation reflects it.

They also indicated...

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. members opposite better settle down. They can't ask us to engage in a process of consultation and then ignore the results of that consultation when they unanimously found. In the case of 55 percent and up, they recommended that there not be a vote. They recommended that we go back to a system that worked reasonably well for 40 years in this province of ours -- started, interestingly enough, by a coalition Liberal government in British Columbia; a provision which is now found....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I will just give them a moment to settle down.

D. Lovick: Those were the days when Liberals were really liberals.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right: those were clearly the days when Liberals were truly liberals. Now we see one of the most right-wing parties in this House announcing some of the most right-wing rhetoric. They're trying to out-Socred the Socreds, the Liberal Party over there.

There was good reason. I was reviewing some of the cases with regard to unfair labour practices....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. members want it shared; I'll be happy to share it with them. I wasn't planning on it. The kinds of employer threats and intimidations which occur during a collective bargaining drive: I think one of the more celebrated cases was the E.J. Jackson Cabaret case, involving CAIMAW, where the employer threatened and intimidated workers during a certification drive, led them into a room and started firing gunshots at the workers to try to persuade them not to proceed with certification. That case happened in 1986.

Sandbar Construction was a case in 1989 where employees were terminated during a carpenters' certification drive.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Because employees were terminated. An employer thought that by simply terminating the employees, the employer would be able to frustrate a certification drive -- and indeed it did. The IRC of the day had to reinstate the workers and further recommend that that was an unfair labour practice, and automatic certification was proceeded with.

In another case, United Used Auto and Truck, an employer terminated 118 people during a union organization drive. Those are the kinds of intimidation we have seen in this province in the last while. As a consequence, the panel -- not the government but the panel -- thought it was time to put an end to that kind of behaviour and make changes with respect to certification.

The opposition has indicated on several occasions that they will be proposing amendments. I want to make it abundantly clear to the opposition -- and I want them to hear this clearly -- that this government will not proceed with any amendments where there has been unanimity, and this provision is one where there's unanimity. The 55 percent provision will stand.

[ Page 4006 ]

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, that cockiness from the Leader of the Opposition is to be expected, I guess. "We'll do it three years from now," he says, presupposing that somehow he has some ordained right to be Premier of this province. We'll see what the voters and the taxpayers of British Columbia say come the next election, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: And what they'll know is that the Leader of the Opposition and his Liberal Party didn't take the time during the course of this debate to congratulate this government on the remarkable achievements of this legislation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. And I would encourage the minister to address the Chair and to address second reading of Bill 84.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are remarkable benefits that will accrue to working people once this House passes Bill 84, which I'm confident that it will.

[9:00]

I know, for example, that the Leader of the Opposition has criticized those provisions which required joint consultative committees to be established in every collective bargaining agreement, requiring employers and employees to sit together and work out their differences. Hon. Speaker, we see nothing wrong in introducing legislation that encourages labour and management to sit down on a consultative basis and work out their differences. One of the things that this legislation recognizes is that employers and employees must pull together, must work together, to be able to compete in this increasingly competitive environment of ours. We've said that as an instrument of public policy reflected in the legislation before this House, we are going to encourage those parties through mandated provisions...

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Mandated provisions, if you don't like hearing it. ...which require that those provisions find themselves in a collective agreement. Business agrees, both small and big. Labour agrees with that provision. It is a unanimous finding. But the Leader of the Opposition sees no virtue in having a provision in this legislation which encourages labour and management to cooperate and work together. He may not see that virtue, but we on this side of this House do, and we will encourage that kind of cooperation.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The Leader of the Oppoisition talks about free collective bargaining and the parties being free to negotiate whatever they want in a contract. Where's freedom of contract? That's why we have proceeded in this legislation to eliminate the prohibitions with respect to secondary boycotts. We've paid homage to that principle. We've said that that prohibition shouldn't be there, that parties ought to be free to decide among themselves, across from one another at the collective bargaining table, whether or not they want those kinds of provisions included in their....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Again I ask members to use restraint and show courtesy to the hon. member who has the floor at this time.

Hon. M. Sihota: Quite frankly, I think there has been a tremendous amount of fearmongering on the part of both parties on the opposition side with respect to those secondary boycott provisions, indicating that it brings about trickle-down -- as they called it -- or top-down organizing. That's simply not true, and I think it demonstrates the depth to which the opposition doesn't understand the secondary boycott provisions. I thought, just for the sake of their edification and hopefully some education in this House, I would bring to their attention the leading labour relations....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, if I may continue....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the case of Oakmont Industries, the Labour Relations Board looked at -- and this is one of the leading cases with respect to the secondary boycott issue -- a provision that was contained in a collective agreement with the carpenters that dealt with non-affiliation of secondary boycott provisions. The panel on that decision said:

"'Its objective is to pressure the general contractor on the construction site to deliver an ultimatum to the supplier that unless the latter signs a contract with the Teamsters -- a contract which will require its employees to join the Teamsters -- the employer will lose the building supply business on that construction site. In our view that is an improper use of the non-affiliation clause. These arrangements are designed as a response by the building trade unions to a distinctive common problem they face in the construction industry. But they are now being used by one of those unions as a lever to reach out beyond the boundaries of the construction industry in order to compel the employees of the outside employers to join the trade union'."

The board went on to say:

"'...in particular, we reaffirm the judgment of the panel that a building trade union such as the Teamsters may not use these clauses as a lever to reach beyond the boundaries of the construction industry in order to compel employees of external employers to join the union'."

It went on, in conclusion, to say:

"...the board will not allow...the use of an unfair declaration to effect either an organizing purpose" -- to organize a non-union fabrication shop, in this instance -- "or the use of an unfair declaration in circumstances where the negotiation of a prefabrication clause in the contractor's collective agreement will achieve the desired results."

[ Page 4007 ]

I want them to reflect on this decision, because they're not aware, quite frankly, of the purpose of secondary boycott and non-affiliation clauses.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: "I'm glad to see that they're still awake," says an hon. member. But I'm not too sure if the lights are on in terms of understanding the purpose of those clauses. I would highly recommend to the members opposite, who have been engaged for the last two weeks in reckless fearmongering with regard to that provision, that they look at the jurisprudence in the area. They would realize that there is no basis for their fearmongering. Not only that, I would urge them to recognize that in every other province in Canada there is some form of secondary boycott or non-affiliation clause in legislation. They should recognize that until 1987, secondary boycott and non-affiliation agreements were commonplace in British Columbia. The effect that the hon. members opposite are suggesting would happen did not materialize prior to 1987 or in any other province in Canada.

They suggest that these provisions are alien to the province of British Columbia and are not found elsewhere in this country. This government will do business with small businesses. We have indicated time and time again that small businesses, unionized or non-unionized, will have the opportunity to bid on government projects and indeed to secure government projects -- be it directly with the provincial Crown or with Crown corporations.

An Hon. Member: If they're unionized.

Hon. M. Sihota: Listen, hon. member, I said that fearmongering has no place. Whether they are unionized or non-unionized, we will do business with those companies. We will watch very carefully, as an administration, judicial interpretation and the interpretation of labour relations boards with regard to secondary boycott provisions. We will guard, as I said earlier in this House, against unintended consequences. Both the Premier and I have said very clearly and unequivocally to representatives of small business groups that if there are those unintended consequences, we will proceed with triggering the advisory panel provisions of this legislation to review those provisions.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: If it adversely affects small businesses' ability to compete and do business with government, then we will use those provisions at our disposal to correct that situation. We have made that commitment publicly in this House, and the opposition has chosen not to hear it. We have made that commitment privately to business groups. They have heard it, and they are hearing it again tonight. If it is not clear enough tonight, we will take the opportunity in committee stage to further clarify it at that time.

So the intention of this government is clear. We will proceed with the provisions, but we will guard against unintended consequences. We have given assurances with respect to the advisory panel provisions, and we will respect those assurances.

An Hon. Member: Write it into the law.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the members say: "Write it into the law." I just read them the law. I told them what our interpretation of the law is and what we think the interpretation in law is.

Let me deal with another issue.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: You know, it's amazing to listen to the opposition. I think there were two members -- the member for Richmond who was speaking today and the Finance critic for the Liberal Party -- who actually once, during the course of their presentations, commented on the fact that they had no problems with 95 percent of the provisions that are found in this legislation.

An Hon. Member: What about the 5 percent?

Hon. M. Sihota: A big chunk of that 5 percent is the provisions that they take issue with regarding anti-scab legislation. We don't. We recognize that those or similar provisions have existed in the province of Quebec since 1978.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The Leader of the Opposition is now pleading. He's saying: "Please accept my two amendments, and we'll buy into it. Let's cut a deal here right on the floor." I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, this government will work in a consensual way with labour and business.

Quebec has had those provisions since 1978. At the time, the opposition indicated that it would scare away investment. The Globe and Mail noted in an article this year that fears that the law would hamstring employers and scare away investment have proven unfounded.

We need anti-scab legislation in this province to prevent against violence and brute force on the picket lines. The use of replacement workers during the course of a dispute has no place in this province of ours. We want labour peace and stability, and we want management and labour to work out their differences. We as a government make no apology whatsoever for introducing anti-scab provisions in this legislation, and if that's the 5 percent that the Liberal opposition has problems with, so be it. Good public policy demands that the public interest be protected by introducing provisions which protect against violence and brute force in the workplace. The day will never come, hon. Leader of the Opposition, when this government backs down on the principle of anti-scab legislation.

By the way, I am the designated speaker, if that's an issue. I don't know how close we are to the half-hour provision.

[ Page 4008 ]

The other day during the course of debate on an amendment, I talked about the first-contract provisions. I want to amplify the comments I made during the course of that debate. As I said earlier, to my mind, those are the most progressive provisions anywhere in Canada with respect to first-contract resolution. I have pointed out during the course of....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: You ask whether or not Dr. Weiler agrees with me. I'll tell you what I agree with. I agree with giving people who engage in collective bargaining for the first time legislative instruments to ensure that first contracts are resolved. Why? Because we have seen too many incidents over the course of the last two or three decades in this province where working people have been intimidated....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: The legislation this House now has before it will make a significant difference in the way in which those people are treated. Let's take a look at some examples. The Comox medical dispute: women in that valley spent 15 or 16 months, if my memory serves me right, on a picket line trying to secure a first contract. The employer, which engaged in surface bargaining, bad-faith bargaining, ultimately prevailed, and those poor women found themselves without a job at the very place that many of them had spent most of their working life, engaged in assistance to those doctors.

[9:15]

Canadian Tire, Prince George -- similar example, similar circumstances. The other day in this House, I think I gave the example of K-Mart, and perhaps in the course of those comments I went too far, because that situation is currently in negotiation. During the course of my comments on that situation I did not, in any way, mean to suggest that the employer was not engaged in good-faith bargaining. I've communicated that fact to the employer, and I do so here again in this House.

The point I am making to the members opposite is that this government will not betray the interest of those women on the picket line at the Comox medical centre. I want to tell you that these provisions, which bring in mediators, which prevent strikes or lockouts during a first-contract dispute and which give arbitrators the ability, yes, to engage in binding arbitration, now make it possible with regard to those people who have been denied first-contract opportunities in the past.... These are provisions that not only do I feel the strongest about but that, quite frankly -- and I've already said this to them by way of letter -- are dedicated to those women at the Comox medical centre. Had those provisions been in place, they would find themselves working productively with the physicians in the community of Comox.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I could give you lots of other instances.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Again I call the House to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, you know, the truth hurts sometimes, hon. Speaker, for the opposition.

One of the provisions which the members opposite -- including the leader, if memory serves me right -- have criticized is that this legislation gets rid of the public interest inquiry board and of the powers that were vested in the hands of Ed Peck. Somehow the members opposite criticized the fact that public interest determinations are now in the hands of the Minister of Labour and this legislation, as opposed to some bureaucrat's.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: The members opposite don't understand how our democratic institutions work in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! I would call the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I think in that case you're going to have to mention the member by name, because I don't think he knows the constituency he comes from.

The Speaker: Minister, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was just trying to help, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Please continue with the debate on second reading of Bill 84.

Hon. M. Sihota: Elected officials in our democratic system of government have the responsibility to make public interest decisions, not some flack and not some bureaucrat. I want the hon. members opposite to reflect on that point. Earlier this year we saw a dispute in our own hospitals. British Columbians were worried about the effect of that dispute on family members who were in hospital and may have had to be removed out of the hospital. They were concerned about time lines for their own surgery. They were concerned about what was going to happen in the event of a labour dispute with respect to the hospitals.

The opposition in this House correctly asked the Minister of Labour: "What are you going to do about that kind of situation?" It was appropriate to ask that question, because the Minister of Labour ought to have the public interest responsibility, ought to have the power to make public interest determinations in terms of being involved in labour disputes.

[ Page 4009 ]

Under Bill 19 -- and this shows the depth of ignorance on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, who says that we have that power -- that power was vested in Ed Peck, a bureaucrat, a flack and someone who is not elected or accountable in this Legislature for his decisions. Under our democratic institutions the determinations with respect to public interest ought to be vested in government, represented through a minister, accountable in this institution, in this chamber of ours, and not vested in someone who's out of reach from government.

Those provisions were rightfully the most harshly criticized ones in Bill 19. In every other jurisdiction in this province, we recognize that a fundamental precept of our democratic system is that public interest decisions are made by and held accountable to political officials elected directly by the people, not a bureaucrat. We, therefore, in respect to those democratic principles, have now taken away the power from some bureaucrats. We've stripped it away from some bureaucrat to invest public interest determinations where they rightfully belong: in the hands of the Minister of Labour, accountable to this Legislature and elected by the people of British Columbia.

When you think about it, we have legislation before this House with, I believe, 164 provisions, of which 160 are agreed to unanimously by labour and management -- 98 percent. Even the members opposite say that they have no difficulty with 95 percent of the provisions found in this legislation. It is remarkable that in this highly polarized province, where we have historically had adversarial and confrontational relations between labour and management, for the first time in history a government has produced legislation that has such a high level of support from labour and business. Therefore we take pride in the legislation before this House, as we should. It is legislation which we recommend to all members in this House, and I am sure that when the opposition comes to inform itself of the intricacies of labour law in this province, it too will come to see the wisdom of the legislation.

The Speaker: You have before you the motion on second reading of Bill 84.

[9:30]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 84, Labour Relations Code, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:31 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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