1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 6, Number 14
[ Page 4065 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure where they are right now, but I'd like to draw to members' attention the presence of Mr. Haig Farris, chair of the Science Council of B.C., and Dr. Julia Levy, chair of the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. They've been visiting the Social Credit Party and government caucus today, and I believe that the official opposition has granted them an audience as well at some indefinite time in the future. So I'd like to make them welcome.
While I'm on my feet, I'd also like to recognize a constituent, Mr. Chris Gainor, of the Hospital Employees' Union, and a noted journalist in British Columbia as well.
B.C. FERRIES LABOUR DISPUTE
G. Wilson: A question to the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for ferries and for thousands of British Columbians stranded on the roads of British Columbia right now. Can the minister tell us why, when he was fully aware of the safety dispute at Long Harbour for well over a year, he has done nothing whatsoever to resolve that issue -- until a wildcat strike was required to bring this ministry to try and deal with that question?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to answer this question, because it gives me an opportunity to comment on the shameful and irresponsible comments of the Leader of the Opposition on this question. I think most British Columbians would be appalled that the Leader of the Opposition is supporting an illegal work stoppage on the part of the ferry workers at this time. It's very clear from his actions and his comments that he supports this kind of industrial disruption between contract negotiations. It's unacceptable to the people of B.C., and it's unacceptable to the government.
G. Wilson: We usually expect a lot better from the Minister of Finance than that rather bizarre commentary. The question was quite simple to the minister, and let me ask it again. After the Nemetz inquiry, this minister said that implementation of safety procedures on B.C. Ferries would happen with lightning speed. The Long Harbour dispute is a longstanding dispute that this minister has been fully aware of and has done absolutely nothing to resolve. Can the minister tell us why his inaction has resulted in the stranding of thousands of British Columbians on the highways of B.C.?
Hon. G. Clark: What's bizarre is that the Leader of the Opposition is supporting the ferry workers in this illegal work stoppage. Let's be clear about the facts. The Saltspring Island route, which loses $8 million a year of taxpayers' money, over the last six years has moved from a large ship to a smaller ship during the winter months. The smaller ship requires less crew. It meets all Coast Guard safety regulations. That has been documented and has been the case for years.
We are in the middle of collective bargaining. The place to deal with collective bargaining issues is at the bargaining table -- not through illegal work stoppages, which the Leader of the Opposition supports.
G. Wilson: Well, it's rather bizarre that I would be attributed with saying that an illegal work stoppage is something I would support. I would like the people of British Columbia to be aware of what is likely to happen with this new labour bill, given that the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union is going to be in a legal position to strike very soon. Perhaps the minister can tell us, given that the wildcat strike is unacceptable and has stranded thousands of British Columbians -- which all of us would agree with -- why he broke off negotiations with the union? Is he prepared to say today that the Ferry and Marine Workers' Union provides an essential service and therefore shouldn't be given the right to strike?
Hon. G. Clark: Whose side is this member on, hon. Speaker? Is he in favour of the right to strike or not? Now he wants us to take away their right to strike. Ferry workers have the right to strike legally when they take the appropriate action.... We're at the bargaining table.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. G. Clark: They do not have the right, in the middle of contract negotiations, to strand people illegally in order to press their own point. That member obviously is taking solace from the fact and supporting the ferry workers in their actions. That's not acceptable to the government.
I want all members to know that today we have gone to the Industrial Relations Council, and they have issued a cease-and-desist order. On Friday we will be hearing the full question of damages and giving the Ferry Corporation leave to sue for damages.
It is not acceptable labour relations to strand people and to have an illegal work stoppage on this very important feature of transportation policy. That member should be ashamed of himself for standing in this House and supporting that kind of action.
TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVE
ON NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance confirm that Treasury Board has issued a directive to all government ministries asking them to come up with new sources of revenue?
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that on notice.
F. Gingell: Can this minister confirm that there is a proposal that ministries will receive a 25 percent finder's fee or kickback or bounty on all new revenues they may generate?
[ Page 4066 ]
Hon. G. Clark: I'll take that question on notice as well.
B.C. FERRIES LABOUR DISPUTE
J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the minister responsible for ferries. Indeed, the ferry strike was not only an illegal act; it was a heartless act, and one without provocation or notice. Why didn't the minister simply get on the phone last night and tell them to knock it off and get back to work? Why did the minister sit it out quietly in his office while British Columbians by the thousands were sitting in ferry lineups overnight?
Hon. G. Clark: We took immediate action. We applied to the Industrial Relations Council for an ex parte injunction, which was not granted. There was a hearing scheduled for this morning at 11 o'clock. That hearing has now been completed and the Ferry Corporation has been successful in a cease-and-desist order, and we expect workers to report momentarily.
In addition, we asked leave for the right to sue the Ferry and Marine Workers' Union for damages caused by this. That hearing will be held on Friday and we will be pursuing it at that time.
J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the minister. The minister met quietly yesterday with Ken Georgetti in his office. The Premier is on record as saying they would make no backroom deals with business. What backroom deals did the minister make with Mr. Georgetti? Indeed, was this strike a notice from Ken Georgetti that he's prepared to play hardball with this government in order to force the government to abandon amendments to the Labour Code?
Hon. G. Clark: I was meeting with Mr. Georgetti and I'm obviously not obligated to discuss these kinds of questions. But just to give members some comfort, I was meeting with Mr. Georgetti and some other members of the B.C. Transit board of directors and discussing transit-related issues. That's all that was discussed at that time.
IMPACT OF FEES AND TAXES
ON TOURISM INDUSTRY
L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. The motels association and the resorts association have written to this government complaining about the lack of consultation before the new taxes and the new fees for water and health permits were imposed. Can the minister confirm that both of these large associations in British Columbia are urging their members to withhold the payment of these fees?
[2:15]
Hon. D. Marzari: I can't confirm that the associations are encouraging their members to withhold these fees. That's basically up to them. But I can assure the House that this issue is being dealt with among the Ministries of Finance, Economic Development, Tourism and Health in an effort to inventory and tabulate the economic impact of these fees and licences on the tourism industry. That initial report will be available very soon.
L. Stephens: Will the minister admit that her ministry is part of a governmentwide process to put the squeeze on small businesses by imposing dubious fees which are simply taxation without consultation?
Hon. D. Marzari: No. But this minister will tell the House that every effort is now being made to inventory and analyze and do a decent study of the impact of these fees and licences on the industry. In doing so, this ministry will be taking the lead in assuring the tourism community that this government has nothing but the growth and the health of the tourism industry in mind.
HIGHWAY SIGN POLICY
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The minister has acknowledged that the new highway sign policy was introduced by the former government in response to safety concerns and growing complaints about signs that marred the scenery -- in other words, the policy was demand-driven. Can the minister tell us who's demanding the removal of Neighbourhood Watch, range patrol and other security-related signs, and why are these signs being removed?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The process has been driven -- if that is the phrase to use -- by both members of staff and members of the public, who object to unauthorized and sometimes quite poorly executed signs being put up without permit within public rights-of-way. We have taken a step to ensure that the clutter problem will be reduced, in consultation with the people involved, advising them that there are alternatives, through our hospitality signs to sign on to, and also making sure that those people who are complying with regulations and doing their bit to not clutter do not get penalized at the expense of those people who do.
C. Serwa: It seems to me that it's common sense that we must either replace or continue to allow the Neighbourhood Watch and other signs that promote public safety and security. The sign policy is perhaps a classic example of a good idea that's gone wrong. Will the minister agree to take immediate action to ensure that those kinds of public safety signs are allowed? They are definitely not part of highway clutter.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'd be pleased to take the issue under advisement and to have that aspect of it reviewed.
PIPER AIRCRAFT AND
JOB CREATION IN B.C.
J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, and I hope I can get a straight answer today. Yesterday the Premier misled the House by saying that the Piper organization had asked for a considerable amount of money -- and that is not true.
[ Page 4067 ]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order! Before the hon. member continues with her question, did the hon. member intend to impute any improper motives to any member of this House in her preamble?
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, it may have been unintentional, but the statement made was that a considerable amount of money was requested.
The Speaker: I'm asking the hon. member a simple question.
J. Tyabji: No, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you. Continue with your question, please, hon. member.
J. Tyabji: Will the Minister of Economic Development confirm that the thing Piper Aircraft wants from this government is a letter of support that their capital investment would be welcomed in the province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm just not sure how many letters they want. I've sent at least two. What they wanted was an upfront commitment for $35 million before we saw the business plan, and we don't do business like that.
J. Tyabji: I am glad this minister has raised the issue of the business plan, which was raised yesterday in the House. I'd like to explain to him that until you get a site located, you cannot have a business plan.
My question to the minister is: will he admit that because his ministry will not deal with Piper Aircraft regarding a site and because they still don't know if the Brenda mine site will be released or if the 500 acres they're looking at will be released by the government, they cannot file a business plan; and that because he will not pick up the phone and talk to them about which site his government would favour, they're completely stalled in their process, and 500 jobs are on the line?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If I could start by telling you about all the things we do, the Speaker would cut me off. I want you to know that, yes, Piper Aircraft needs a site. It's up to the proponents to find a site. There are other sites. They happen to want to possibly take one out of the agricultural land reserve. I don't deal with agricultural land reserve applications. They have to find a site. They also have to find investors and produce a business plan. They can do that for a number of sites. But I want you to know that the particular proponents of this project, the economic development commission there, admitted that they haven't done a big deal like this, so they aren't absolutely sure of what they're doing. I want to assure this House and the citizens in Kelowna that we have done everything we can to assist and to evaluate the project in advance, in preparation of receiving a business plan from them.
Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, in question period the opposition House Leader referred to the Premier as "misleading the House." That's clearly and unequivocally unparliamentary. I'd ask that member to withdraw that reference.
The Speaker: On that point of order, hon. member, the Chair did intercede and asked if the member intended to impugn.... If members will check Beauchesne and May, certain words have been declared unparliamentary, and parliamentary, in conjunction with other words. In this case the Chair asked the member the appropriate question, and she has advised the House that she had no intention of impugning the motives of another hon. member.
Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 84, Hon. Speaker.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 84; E. Barnes in the chair.
On the amendment to section 2.
C. Serwa: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment, because it contains two fundamentally important concerns that have not been addressed in the drafting of the legislation. The concerns are in regard to the public interest, which is not addressed, and the competitive market economy.
I have been listening to the minister speak on this. He has indicated that there is no need for the competitive market economy to be addressed, because it's perfectly obvious. I wish to remind the minister that almost 100 percent of the public sector employees in British Columbia are unionized, and they are not driven by any response from a market-driven economy. The wage increases that have happened in the public sector over the past 10 years clearly reflect that. Other unions, such as 115 or the IWA, are cognizant of the market economy and competition and costs. Because of their awareness that their employment is only available if it's cost effective, they bear a certain amount of responsibility. If it's not cost effective, they have no jobs. It's as clear as that.
If we're going to have legislation that has as its objective to be perceived as fair, reasonable and balanced, the minister should incorporate those two concerns into the objectives or the purpose of this particular bill at the onset, so it works as a constant reminder for all those who are engaged in union negotiations and is a constant reminder that -- incumbent on the whole thing -- there is a sense of responsibility on the employer as well as the employee and the union echelons that manage employee rights.
Hon. M. Sihota: A couple of comments with regard to the member, and he obviously heard what I had to say earlier on, so I'm not going to repeat that. But I will say this: with regard to public sector settlement, I think the hon. member knows full well that private sector settlements play a role in determining public sector rates. There has been a problem over the last ten
[ Page 4068 ]
years. He need not look any further than his own administration, which negotiated those agreements for the last ten years. I think if the hon. member takes a look at the rate of private sector wage increases this year, they have been averaging somewhere in the neighbourhood -- if my memory serves me right -- of about 4.5 percent. If memory serves me right, the BCGEU agreement this year comes in around 2.5 percent; therefore under the private sector. Last year I think the private sector average was in the neighbourhood of 5.9 percent, and I believe the BCGEU agreement was around 6 percent. I don't have those numbers with me, but I think again the point is that they were in the same relative range, albeit the BCGEU arrangement was a tad higher.
In terms of our negotiation as a government, we have to be sensitive to private sector settlements and mindful of those who are negotiating with the public sector. I bring that to the hon. member's attention. If he looks at the facts, we've actually done quite well as an administration.
C. Serwa: I certainly listened to the minister. While we can play with figures and percentages and toss them back and forth, the reality remains that there is a large section of organized labour that is in the public sector. There is another prevalent reality that over the past ten years public sector wages have increased approximately 70 percent; private sector organized wage increases were approximately 52 percent; and the consumer price index rose about 44.6 percent, according to my information.
The reality is that while you look at it on an annual basis, the net result of pyramiding over a long period of time creates two different economies in British Columbia. It's significant to understand that whether we deal internally in the province or nationally or internationally in trade negotiations, the cost of government has to be borne by the private sector in every case. We have to incorporate the cost of government in the manufacturing processes and the goods and services that we provide internally and externally; so it has a substantial factor. It seems to me to be incredibly important that the recognition of the public interest as a valid concern and fundamental objective of this labour legislation, as put forward in the amendment, should be taken into consideration. It is just as important that the objective of this legislation be related also to the free-market economy and the competitive approach. If we lose sight of those, we're really doomed here in the province. It seems to be so imperative and obvious to include this.
[2:30]
The minister stated in earlier discussions on this section the importance of a number of the elements in it, but he has indicated that these, although important, need not be written into the legislation because they're perfectly obvious. It again appears to me that they should be written so that everyone understands -- whether it's in the organized sector or whether it's the public of the province -- that their best interests are looked after and protected, again with the concept of fairness and balance in mind. If he feels comfortable with the concept of fairness and balance in this legislation, I don't understand how the minister can fail to take into consideration those two elements -- public interest and the competitive free market.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't wish to be disrespectful to the hon. member, but he has alluded to the fact that I dealt with these issues this morning, and indeed I have. I don't want to repeat what I've already said on the record, but let me just paraphrase what I said earlier on.
First of all, in terms of public sector and private sector agreements, I've got no basis to quarrel with the numbers that you give -- 70 and 52 percent -- and I don't think you've got any quarrel with me when I say that it was your administration that negotiated during those times. You have to deal with that, and we have to deal with the negotiations that we're involved in, and we will. We're accountable to the public for that, and I think our record has been pretty good on that issue.
Second, I've indicated already that there are references in this purposes section to the public interest.
Third, it's self-evident that we live in a competitive market economy, and it is so self-evident that I don't think it needs to be stated in legislation.
I amplified on all of those points why I've taken the position that I have, and therefore I'm not going to do that again. I've paraphrased them, hon. member, and I invite you to review in Hansard what I've had to say with respect to those issues.
C. Serwa: I think that I'm very comfortable with the direction the minister indicates he wants to go and with his views in respect of this particular section. But again, what the minister is aware of is that this particular Bill 84, the section that is under discussion and the amendment at the moment will be there for a long time. It is obvious and apparent to me that those in organized labour and those in the public and private sectors who will be looking at this legislation ought to be reminded that a significant purpose of this legislation is consideration of the public interest and a competitive market economy.
While it's not necessary for reminding the minister, I think that it is necessary for ensuring that every time something is addressed, it is addressed in a responsible manner. Failing to include that in the purpose of the act fails to continue to send a message out there that responsibility has to be the key word if we're going to achieve harmony and balance in labour negotiations.
J. Tyabji: I apologize in advance if I'm going to be pushing a few buttons that have been covered before, but I want to go to the changing of the wording from "improve" to "encourage." I know that this minister touched on that, but I'd like to know the chain of thought that brought him to the conclusion that he really had to go from the word "improve" to "encourage," and how he sees that translating in terms of the organization of certain groups.
To go back to the second reading process, we have some of this minister's colleagues, such as the member for Parksville-Qualicum, listing real estate companies, insurance companies, banks, restaurants and bars as
[ Page 4069 ]
some of the places where they would like to use section 2's provision for encouraging organized labour.
Could we have this minister's thoughts on moving from "improve" to "encourage," and how that would affect some of those places as listed by one of his colleagues?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think this issue has been canvassed before, although it may have been by your critic.
There are a number of points I'd like to make. First is that I think the wording is an improvement, if I may say so, because we're encouraging parties to cooperate, to participate in the process of collective bargaining. We're encouraging the parties to resolve workplace issues cooperatively. We're encouraging parties in this legislation to adapt to changes in the economy. We're encouraging parties to develop workforce skills and promote workplace productivity. So in that regard, we're doing better than simply improving; we're encouraging the parties to work cooperatively. The reason for that is that it's the intent of this government to try to encourage the parties to work together, to pull together to solve the problems.
In terms of encouraging the practice of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions, we as a government think that there's a social objective -- which I would suspect most British Columbians share -- of wanting to build an economy in which we have higher wages and better working conditions for working people. There's nothing wrong with encouraging the process of collective bargaining. It has worked remarkably well in this country of ours, one of the most affluent countries on the globe, a country that has achieved its success in part because of the success of the collective bargaining system, in terms of both adapting to the world marketplace, which has changed from the turn of the century to the 1990s, and allowing workers and management to achieve their collective goals. There's nothing wrong with encouraging a system that has worked well.
Nor is there anything wrong with making these changes, which the hon. member should know are no different than changes in other statutes. For example, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, introduced by the former Conservative government of Bill Davis, says, "...encourages the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions" -- which are really designated as employee representatives of employees. So you can see that other jurisdictions have taken the same approach. In fact, the federal government uses the words, "to encourage access to collective bargaining by interpreting liberally the definition of 'employee'," and it goes on to talk about bargaining units and so on.
So again, other jurisdictions have used those words, because there's been a recognition in this country that the whole process of collective bargaining has worked to encourage.... Excuse me, my neck is sore, and I think the hon. member knows that.
L. Fox: Is this bill a pain in the neck? [Laughter.]
Hon. M. Sihota: No, hon. member, this legislation is certainly not a pain in the neck. In fact, the only thing that is giving me any relief is the opportunity to deal with some of the comments that are coming from the other side of the floor.
But let me say that the practice of collective bargaining has worked well in this country, and it needs to be encouraged.
J. Tyabji: Well, frankly, hon. Chair, I'm a little confused with what was not working well in the status quo. For example, I know that we have the working poor, people who are working full-time at minimum wage and who are still below the poverty line, and I can understand that that should be addressed. I don't think it will be addressed through this bill. I don't think unionization is necessarily the remedy for some of the problems that are really ailing the economy.
I'm extremely concerned that when we don't hear what was wrong with the status quo but we hear references to other jurisdictions.... And if we want to talk about Ontario, as some of the other members mentioned, in Ontario they took the bill to a public committee, and we see that they had to make a number of changes as a result. It's unfortunate we can't do that here.
However, we have this minister saying that the system of collective bargaining, and therefore the encouragement of unions, has worked well in other jurisdictions. I don't agree with that. I think we have a free market economy, and yes, we do need collective bargaining in some places, and obviously unions work well in some jurisdictions and in others they do not. What I haven't heard from this minister is his rationalization for interfering in jurisdictions where traditionally.... Real estate offices, insurance companies and banks are not areas where we find the working poor, yet these areas have been specifically targeted by some of the members in the House. In section 2, where it talks about the encouragement of the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, those are areas that this minister is targeting. And that concerns me.
An Hon. Member: Those pink slips?
J. Tyabji: I could comment in the House, and I won't.
The Chair: Order, please.
J. Tyabji: I would like to hear from the minister why he feels the need to interfere in the free market system, first of all, by removing the competitive market economy provision for referring to section 2, and second, by moving away from "improving" the collective bargaining process and toward "encouraging" it.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll be brief. I haven't had an occasion to speak on Bill 84, so I take this opportunity, because the member opposite provoked some discussion, I think.
[ Page 4070 ]
One question you have to ask yourself is what the members opposite have against workers in the banking industry or the insurance industry unionizing.
C. Serwa: Point of order. Clearly we are speaking on the amendment to section 2. Perhaps the minister would contain his remarks to the amendment.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I think your point is well taken. We have had second reading of the bill, and I would ask the member who is speaking to keep that in mind.
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point that section 2 is a fundamental aspect of the bill; it's the purpose of the Labour Relations Code. The amendment tries to change the purpose of the code. The purpose is quite clear, and it's underlying....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. The member has his place and should be allowed to speak without interruptions, please.
Hon. G. Clark: The question is really this: is it someone's right to join a union? Is it a fundamental right? If it is a right of an individual to join a union, then we should facilitate that right. We should make it as easy as possible for people to exercise that right. The labour code fundamentally says it is someone's right to join a union. The whole purpose of the code is to allow people the right and to encourage them to exercise their right to join a union and to facilitate the smooth and peaceful functioning of the labour relations climate.
All the sections of the code -- I know we're dealing with section 2 -- talk about mediation, consultation, first contract arbitration and ways in which we can facilitate first contracts and diminish violence on the picket line. The purpose of the code clearly....
[2:45]
C. Serwa: On a point of order. While I enjoy the remarks of the minister, it would be most appropriate if they were uttered when we're dealing with section 2. But we are speaking on the amendment to section 2 at the present time, and if the minister would speak to the amendment, I would deeply appreciate it.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The point is well taken. We are on the amendment to section 2. However, the Chair will note that the points being made by the government House Leader are in line with points that had been made by previous speakers. Would the member please continue.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm trying to deal with the purpose of the Code and the amendment to that purpose. I think the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House is a fundamental difference, and I think it's highlighted.... [Applause.] I know members are applauding, and I'm delighted with that, because this amendment highlights the difference.
This amendment basically goes back to Bill 19, which says that it's not really a right of people to join a union; it's a competitive world environment and that's the principle dominating guidelines for labour relations. In fact, we're saying that it is a fundamental right of workers, if they choose to exercise it, to collectively join together and form a union. The purpose in this section 2 is in fact to facilitate people being able to exercise that right. When you strip it all away, that's what it comes down to.
Members opposite say: "No, we have to have all these hoops and hurdles in the way, and it shouldn't be easy to unionize. It shouldn't be easy for unions to go and try to get a first contract. It should be tough and hard, because we have a tough world-competitive marketplace out there which we have to deal with, and workers have to be part of that, and they should have to earn their privilege to join a union."
That is a fundamental difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. This amendment highlights that, because section 2 clearly deals with the fundamental purpose of the code, which is to encourage people to join together; which is to encourage people to organize collectively; to encourage people to have harmonious labour relations; to encourage workers to be part of the solution by working in a harmonious way to achieve the objectives of the company and the province.
It is different from what we've had in the past, and it is fundamentally more consultative. It is fundamentally less confrontational, and it is fundamentally a way in which we can help people exercise their fundamental right to join a trade union. That is the very essence of the bill; that's what this section 2 represents and talks about so clearly, and, frankly, I think fairly eloquently.
The amendment takes us back to the days where it was not a right, where it was a privilege; where those sections of the economy which have been underrepresented -- mostly women...
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand we are in the purposes section. The minister is totally off topic and irrelevant to the amendment. I would ask him to perhaps read the amendment first, and then I'd be glad to hear his comments.
The Chair: The debate has been straying on both sides of the House, to be quite candid. I would ask all members to try and keep in mind that we are required by standing orders to address the amendments before us specifically and as concisely as possible.
J. Tyabji: I had directed some comments to the Minister of Labour, but I am happy to hear the Minister of Finance put so many thoughts on the record with regard to his government's commitment to encourage, promote and in fact to a large extent ram unions down the throats of the people of the province, regardless of what they want.
I'd like to comment on the fact that he's talking about rights versus obligations. This opposition believes that of course it is the right of every worker in the province to join a union if they choose to do so. That is up to the
[ Page 4071 ]
individual's will: the free will of the individual, and the rights of the individual. However, this bill says in section 2: "to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions...." The employees aren't even mentioned, except where it says: "...trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees." So we qualify the reference to employees in reference to the trade unions. The employees are not spoken of in terms of individuals here; they're only spoken of in relationship to the trade union.
So where they're talking about encouraging the practices and procedure of collective bargaining -- and the Minister of Labour, with his legal background, should be able to realize -- the positioning of the words in that section is extremely important, because the employees are only recognized in a qualified sense through the trade union movement. They are not even referred to as individuals. They're not referred to as a separate entity. We have employers and trade unions, and trade unions as trade unions are the freely chosen representative of employees. By freely chosen, we're talking about the no-secret-ballot process, so then we could get into the semantics of whether or not that even qualifies as freely chosen. Perhaps we could say later on that, technically speaking, it doesn't even refer to the unions which are unionized without a secret ballot, because those aren't freely chosen; we could get into that argument as well.
But because we're talking about employers versus trade unions, this bill is saying that it is the obligation of the employers and the trade unions to come to a collective agreement. That takes us away from rights. This government doesn't realize, in its paternalistic, Big Brother approach to everything, that people don't want this government to make up their minds for them as to which way they should be going with regard to their workplace. They want freedom of choice and the right to organize, if they choose to, but they do not want to be obliged to do that. The Minister of Finance clearly does not have any understanding of the difference between right and obligation. Perhaps it's his own background as a union organizer that is colouring his view of this in that he assumes that every working individual would prefer to be in a union than not. That is not the case.
The other thing is the reference of the Minister of Finance to facilitating. Facilitating is not the same as encouraging. For example, if this minister chose to leave cabinet, we would help facilitate that. In fact, even if the minister doesn't choose to do that, we might encourage him to do that. Getting back to the amendment....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The examples you are using are treading on very thin lines in terms of the scope of the amendment.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I'll keep in mind that I should always stick to the relevant issues.
However, the distinction between facilitate and encourage is relevant. In the minister's past life as a union organizer he knows very well how convincing union organizers, like himself, could be. There's a very big difference between encouraging workers to do something with an agenda set out by an organizer as opposed to those workers who freely decide on their own to do it and then having that facilitated through legislation. There's a world of difference between the two, and this government has failed to realize that.
I'd like to close with these comments to either of what I call the tax-and-spend tag team. Either one of the tag-team members may like to respond to the fact that the competitive-market economy provision was taken out. We heard our own Minister of Finance, no less, say that the reason to encourage this is because we need high wages, we need to have these workers organized, and we need to encourage them in their collective bargaining units. This is despite the free-market economy. Our Minister of Finance must realize by now, because of his own portfolio's revenue shortfalls, that we do not operate in a vacuum in the province. Free-market economy is the reality through which we can afford to do everything that we do as a government. This government's decisions on every single portfolio in cabinet are dependent on the healthy functioning of the free-market economy. If this labour bill does not recognize that and if they do not put that in the definition through which we determine our labour practices, then the free-market economy will be severely hampered, and labour will interfere to such an extent....
Through the encouragement of collective bargaining, through the obligation of trade unions to organize, through the erosion of individual rights -- because employees are only referred to in reference to choosing a trade union as their method of negotiating with their employer -- the free-market economy will not be well served. Therefore every single portfolio in that cabinet will suffer. All people of the province will suffer through this labour bill if they do not amend it, put the reference to competitive-market economy back in and realize the difference between obligation and right, and facilitation and encouragement. I would definitely like to hear from the Minister of Finance, who thinks that the free-market economy is in a vacuum, and from the Minister of Labour, if he understands the difference between encouragement and facilitate. Perhaps we can use the words of the Minister of Finance and change "encourage" to "facilitate," because that would obviously take us in a different direction.
C. Evans: I wonder if the House would facilitate and encourage me to make an introduction by giving me leave.
Leave granted.
C. Evans: In the gallery we have a gentleman named Abe Friesen. He's the president of Pope and Talbot Ltd. Pope and Talbot represents a company that travels through lots of our constituencies: Greenwood, Midway, Castlegar, Grand Forks. In my short time as an MLA Pope and Talbot negotiated very well with the communities of Revelstoke, Nakusp and Castlegar to put a whole lot of people back to work and bring stability to some communities that were up and down
[ Page 4072 ]
through the Westar era. I would like all of us to make Mr. Friesen welcome.
The Chair: Hon. member, you did go beyond the scope of the motion to make an introduction.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I listen to this debate, it's evident to me that there is a remarkable race to the right going on here. The Liberals are trying to out-Socred the Socreds and be more right wing than any other government in Canada. The hon. House Leader for the Liberal Party somehow thinks that it's wrong to have legislation in place that encourages collective bargaining in this province.
J. Tyabji: You're right.
Hon. M. Sihota: She says that I'm right in saying that, and let the record make that clear.
We in this government philosophically believe that collective bargaining should be encouraged, and for that we make no apologies whatsoever.
The hon. member opposite says that if we "encourage...collective bargaining" -- to use the words of the legislation -- there will somehow be unionization in such areas as the retail sector, banks, real estate, insurance companies and restaurants.
Quite frankly, the hon. member should reflect on her comments with care. She is a woman. There is a disproportionate number of women involved in those fields. Women in this province earn 60 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Many of the fields in which women work are areas that have been non-unionized.
J. Tyabji: I've been there, and with pride.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says that she's been there with pride, and that's fair enough. If she's been there, she should have some sympathy for the fact that women need the opportunity to freely decide whether or not they want to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. Historically those elements of our economy have most strongly opposed unionization.
Banks. One need not look any further than Powell River, in the riding of the opposition leader, to see the difficulty that employees of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce have had in terms of organizing at that site. One should look very quickly at the kinds of difficulties that people are currently having in Campbell River and Port Alberni with respect to K Mart, the difficulties that workers had in Prince George with respect to Canadian Tire or the difficulties that women in Comox had in seeking organization at the medical clinic, which I referred to earlier during the course of my presentation. We on this side of the House think that there is a viable social objective -- and indeed a social imperative -- that we try to construct a society where ordinary working men and women can have high wages and work in desirable conditions.
All of that is tempered by the realities of the competitive marketplace that we all live in. The ability of employers to make concessions at the bargaining table is tempered by the competitive marketplace in which we all live. The extent of the demands that can be made and accepted is tempered by what is happening in the competitive marketplace, and that is as true for the public sector as it is for the private sector. One need only witness the good work that the Minister of Finance has done this year in terms of the contract that he negotiated with the BCGEU, which I am advised falls below the rate of private sector settlements.
[3:00]
The hon. member overlooks the fact that when we move to a regime of collective bargaining....
J. Tyabji: A regime of social engineering.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says "social engineering." I'll come to that in a minute.
When we move to a regime of collective bargaining, workers then make a collective and democratic decision to proceed with the election of a bargaining committee to represent them. It is a collective right, obligation and responsibility. The legislation places some parameters on exercising those collective rights, responsibilities and obligations.
What the hon. member overlooks is a statement that I made earlier this morning, when I said that there are individual rights which accrue to employees prior to them making the decision to freely proceed to a regime of collective bargaining. There are individual rights protected in this legislation. The hon. member knows that. If she doesn't, she will come to learn that as we deal with the individual sections that deal with those individual rights.
This is not a case, as the hon. member would suggest, for social engineering; this is a recognition that societies here in North America and elsewhere -- in western Europe, for example, and even to the south of us -- have advanced in the level of working conditions and wages enjoyed by working people because of the structure of collective bargaining in this world of ours. Collective bargaining works, and it ought to be encouraged. Collective bargaining is here to stay, notwithstanding the wish of the member opposite that it should not find its way into areas such as retail and real estate or the banking institutions. From my way of thinking, I would suggest that if there is one area in society that ought to see a higher level of collective bargaining in its day-to-day activities, quite frankly it is the banking system.
Let me say this in conclusion. I hope that British Columbians will pay attention to the exchange that has just occurred between myself and the member opposite. I'll tell you why, hon. Chair. I think that during the course of this debate British Columbians will see the fundamental difference between the party opposite -- the opposition -- and this government. On our side is a party that stands for a society where there are high levels of employment and high wages flowing to workers in this economy, so that we maintain our competitive ability in this global economy.
We are not interested in building an economy based on some kind of perverted race to the bottom, where we strip away wages, working conditions and workers'
[ Page 4073 ]
compensation protection and where we move to that notion of economic and regulatory free zones that were proposed by the Social Credit government a decade ago. We are not here to build a society in this country that competes with low wage countries. We're not here in competition with Mexico. As we said earlier, we see no provision for items like NAFTA. But we are here in competition with the Japanese, Germans, Swedes and Americans. We have constructed a society where we have tried to find a market niche and where we can produce quality goods, compete competitively in a competitive marketplace and pay working people in this province high wages and provide them with the good working conditions which they so appropriately deserve.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. opposition House Leader, I would remind the committee that we are now beginning to re-enter second reading of the bill. I think that all parties have had an opportunity to express their philosophical view, and I would ask that in future the members address the specifics of the amendments. The Chair will be much more diligently pursuing that objective.
J. Tyabji: With that in mind, obviously I am standing again to speak in support of the amendment. I would like to make just a couple of brief comments in response to the minister, to get it on record, and after that turn it back to a more specific addressing of the amendment.
With regard to it moving from "improve" to "encourage," and us wanting to amend it back to "improve," what I'd like to say to this minister is that I don't understand how he can say that the move to use the word "encourage" is going to result in higher wages and more jobs for the province. I don't know where the money's going to come from. I think that represents a fundamental lack of understanding -- if you want to talk about fundamental -- on the government side, where they think there's some kind of endless pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and that you can increase wages, increase jobs and everything will go well as long as you encourage collective bargaining. That is not the case.
With regard to social engineering, there is no question that those very patronizing remarks made by the minister are representative of the social engineering attitude of the cabinet. I have to put it on record that I am extremely offended, as a woman who has worked in most of the areas where this minister says he is now rushing in a crusade to save the women who are working and would love to be in a collective bargaining unit.
I don't remember any of the other women I was working with ever bringing up the fact that they wanted to be in a collective bargaining unit. It didn't come up, and neither should this minister feel that he must intervene to the extent of encouraging them to organize into a collective bargaining unit, if they do not choose to do that. If they choose to do that, the legislation that's on the books right now would allow for it.
The Liberal opposition does not support Bill 19; however, this bill is so heinous, disruptive and damaging to the economy that we would prefer to have the status quo and amend it, rather than put in place something like this -- with this minister's patronizing attitude that he has to rush out on some kind of crusade to save people and encourage them into a collective bargaining process, when they have never asked to do that in the first place.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I believe the member has now responded to the questions, which were on second reading mostly. We would now ask that all committee members address the specifics of the amendment.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand up and speak in favour of the amendment. I was somewhat concerned when, just prior to the break at lunchtime, the minister suggested that it was his and his government's obligation to look after individuals' rights only up to the point that the individual became part of a bargaining unit. That is a philosophical difference to what I believe individual rights are and at what point I believe government should be ensuring that those individual rights are protected.
It seems to me that this minister and unions as a whole should be trying to ensure and protect the rights of individuals, not remove them. Being part of a collective agreement should not suggest that individuals no longer have any rights, that they are now only part of a collective right. I think that particular statement has done more to identify the difference between the Social Credit caucus and this NDP government than any other dialogue which has taken place up to this point.
I was also very interested to see the Minister of Finance stand up earlier and give us a long dissertation. It led me to wonder. Earlier the Minister of Labour indicated that this legislation was a pain in the neck. Perhaps the Minister of Finance had a pain elsewhere and decided that he had to stand up to relieve it. But, in any case, I really believe that the amendments put forward are extremely important to the rights of individuals within British Columbia. At this point I would like to sit down and ask the minister to clarify for me his statement just prior to lunch.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me say that the hon. member this morning, just prior to lunch, handed me a letter from Avison Management Services. Mr. LaForge, who is, I take it, the proprietor of that company, had written to him and asked him to forward a letter to both myself and the Premier. I want to thank the member for doing that. Maybe he can use this statement in Hansard to confirm to his constituent that he indeed did pass the letter on to us, and I thank him for doing that. I am sure his constituent does as well and I am sure it is much appreciated by his constituent as well as myself. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to deal with the issues that your constituent mentions in the letter when we get to them.
[ Page 4074 ]
With regard to the statements that were made this morning, hon. member, I don't think you should assume that the statements mean that for some reason the rights of the individual cease upon them having collective bargaining rights. I said that that legislation struggles with those tensions and that then there's a preponderance of attention paid to collective rights.
As you know -- later on we'll get into debate -- there are natural justice provisions in section 10 of this legislation that protect some of the rights which I think you are mindful of when you make your comments, and they exist once the collective regime kicks in.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too would like to engage in this debate and look at some of the issues before the House in the form of an amendment.
The minister spoke this morning and said that government was concerned with individual rights up to the point of unionization and after that it was the collective rights they were concerned with. I have very strong concerns about the rights of individuals with this bill and certainly this exact provision, section 2. And the amendment that's been brought forward tries to correct that direction the government is taking, an unfortunate direction.
How is it that the minister or the government in general can think for one minute that somehow Bill 84 deals only with the collective rights of workers and not with their individual rights? It deals with individual rights in numerous sections of this bill concerning certification, decertification, fair representation; it goes on and on. There are a whole list of areas in this bill where individual rights are paramount. That is why the amendment has come forward to this minister to ask him to continue to make reference to individual rights in section 2. The minister has not done that.
In fact, he says that individual rights are protected elsewhere in the bill, but the reality is that section 2 is the interpretive section of this bill. It is the section that everybody is going to have to come back to to ensure that they are interpreting each individual section correctly, so it's critical that the reference to individual rights be included in section 2. I would hope that the minister would try and get beyond his personal feelings on this one and come to a reality of what is going to suit the public best and not necessarily what's best going to suit his encouragement of collective organization in this province.
A few minutes ago the minister and the Finance minister illustrated wonderfully exactly what the problem is with this government bringing in this type of legislation. They forgot to check their last job title at the door when they took over in government. The Finance minister stood up and spoke at length about the need to encourage collective bargaining and the Minister of Labour talked about the need to encourage collective bargaining, as if it's some panacea for all the social problems we have in this province, by encouraging collective bargaining, by somehow unionizing all of these workers whom he talks about in the various sectors by his paternalistic reference to unionizing the women of this province to ensure that in B.C. we have high wages and a high standard of living.
Well, money is not going to fall from heaven just because someone is unionized. That's not going to solve all the problems. The government throughout this debate and certainly within this section, in some of the comments the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance have made, seem to feel that somehow there is this big pot of money out there that businesses have and they're hoarding it from their workers. And it's the duty, the personal crusade of this minister and this government, to go out there and encourage and facilitate people to become unionized so that they can go, with the help of this government, and make a big raid on that pot of money to make sure that it's distributed properly, in his terms. I don't think that's the reality. That's why it's so critical for us to look at what the minister has done with this bill.
[3:15]
He has taken out the reference to competitive market economy and the reference to individual rights. He has subjugated the comments that relate to public interest and put them much further down the list of purposes of this bill. None of those changes go unnoticed. The minister can stand up and say whatever he wants. He can say: "They're all included in there; we've just moved them around. We still have a competitive market economy and individual rights protected in this bill." We still have all of these wonderful things that he likes to talk about; they're still there in section 2, so we don't have to worry about it.
But the reality is that when the minister makes changes to a piece of legislation, I assume he does it for a reason. I assume that he takes out the reference to competitive market economy and the reference to individual rights for a reason, and I also assume that he takes out the reference to "improve" and puts in a reference to "encourage" for specific reasons. The minister has just highlighted that.
The duty of this bill, this legislation, the Legislature and the minister is not to go out there and take one side or the other -- the labour side or the business side. Their job is to provide legislation that permits and facilitates people to exercise the right that he and the Minister of Finance talked about. That is what they should be doing. If they want to go beyond "facilitate" and improve the process of collective bargaining in the province, there's nothing wrong with that either. Improving merely makes it easier and makes it a more well-oiled machine to allow collective bargaining to take place.
That is very different from "encouraging." To change the word from "improve" to "encourage" means something. I'm sure the minister wouldn't have done that if he didn't have a reason for it. He has stated his reason, which is to ensure that in British Columbia we encourage all the workers out there to join a union and that somehow, because they join a union, money is going to fall from heaven and all the social ills of the province will go by the wayside.
I would ask the minister why he feels that as a legislator, who is supposed to be fair and balanced and is supposed to govern for the interests of all British Columbians, it's necessary to encourage and to take one side or the other in this debate. In this case he has taken
[ Page 4075 ]
the labour side, and he is going to encourage and extend the provisions -- the work that the Minister of Finance was doing before he got elected -- and ensure that organization in this province not only becomes easier, but that the government encourages it to take place. The government is clearly taking a side in the purposes section, and I'd like the minister to expound on why he thinks that is appropriate behavior for a Minister of Labour.
Hon. M. Sihota: A lot of these issues have already been dealt with, and the hon. member can refer to Hansard, because he knows that they've been dealt with already. We don't think there is an endless pot of money; we know that. We engage in our own collective bargaining with our employees. Every private sector entrepreneur and every union knows that as well. No union is out to lose the vocation of their employees. We all know that we work under a competitive system in a competitive economy, where we exchange matters across the table and resolve our differences through a process of negotiation. It's a system that has worked well in this country. It has given us the standard of living that we have in this country, and it should be encouraged.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think it's naive for the Minister of Labour to think that collective bargaining -- one process or element in our society -- has resulted in the wealth and the standard of living we have in this country. We have them not because any one government is trying to encourage collective bargaining or because collective bargaining exists. We have them because we have great wealth in this country and in this province, and people work hard in this country and in this province. They ensure that we have gradually created enough wealth to have a decent standard of living. For the minister to think that we've achieved all these things because of collective bargaining is extremely naive.
There are some substantial problems with the purposes section. The minister is making changes that he himself cannot defend as a balanced piece of legislation. He has removed the provisions about a competitive market economy. We had him stand up again and say that we all know it's there, so there's no problem. I always think that actions speak louder than words, hon. Speaker. This government obviously thinks there is a pot of money somewhere, because they just gave $123 million to the BCGEU when we don't have $123 million.
In looking at the amendment as it reads concerning the public interest, as it reads concerning individual rights and as it reads concerning the competitive market economy and the encouragement as opposed to improvement of collective bargaining in this province, it is clear the minister is off track, in my opinion, and has made these decisions for a much narrower motive than the rest of the public would think was necessary. He has clearly made these changes for certain reasons, and those reasons are becoming more and more evident as he speaks. I think it's highly unfortunate.
One of the things the minister talked about when he was talking about individual and collective rights was that somehow the improvement or encouragement of collective bargaining in this province was what delineated the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. This side of the House realizes that collective bargaining is there. We realize that in some cases it works very well and in other cases it doesn't work so well. But it is not the job of this side of the House or that side of the House to take a side and encourage it one way or the other. We have advocated that we have respect for collective bargaining. If workers choose to become a collective, to organize and become members of a union, then so be it. That is the way it should be. But we do not believe that the government should be out there trying to encourage that to happen, that it should be out there trying to continue with the union organization background that many of them come from and bring that bias into legislation that's supposed to balance the whole province.
The minister talks about individual rights and how they relate to this section, and about the fact that there is no need to discuss it in section 2 anymore, that he can somehow take that out of section 2 and shuffle it off into other areas of the bill. Section 10 was one he talked about -- natural justice -- and somehow that deals with individual rights. Clearly the purposes section doesn't do anything in the bill. It's not a piece of implementing legislation, so to speak. There are no real rules that govern anything. What it is, is the overlying principle that all the other sections are supposed to be interpreted by.
We on this side do respect individual rights. We want individual rights to be recognized, and we want them to be recognized in the purposes section, so that not just section 10 in its reference to natural justice protects individual rights, but that individual rights are taken into consideration in every single section of this bill. When it comes to certification, when it comes to decertification, when it come to replacement workers, when it comes to secondary boycotts and, perhaps somewhere down the line, to sectoral bargaining, we want those provisions in this bill to be taken and examined in context with section 2. That is why this amendment is on the books. This is why we're proposing this amendment, why the members to the left have proposed this amendment that individual rights be recognized in the purposes section, not shuffled off to individual clauses in other sections. It's critical. It's extremely important. I agree: that is the difference between the New Democrat side and the Liberal side. That's why this amendment has been put forward, and why the minister refuses to accept it -- or appears as though he is not going to vote in favour of it. That is critical; it is very important.
It's interesting to note, and if you highlight why we feel it's so important, as it relates to individual rights in section 2, that we on this side have proposed -- certainly when we were back in second reading -- that there be provisions for an ombudsman and that the minister has refused to accept that. So it is very clear why we are defending individual rights and why we will vote in favour of this amendment, to ensure that individual rights are put into this bill and that
[ Page 4076 ]
individual rights are recognized not just in one or two clauses in various sections but throughout the whole bill. The minister clearly has removed parts from section 2 that should be brought back into the section, and I would encourage him to do that.
The other ones that I want to deal with are the changes that have been recommended in the amendment to public interest during labour disputes. Once again, it's clear that public interest should be recognized throughout the whole bill, not just during a labour dispute. The reference to public interest, as it is in section (e), has been amended to ensure that it exists not just during labour disputes but year-round -- 365 days a year. That is important. It is critical. Many of the sections of the bill don't just deal with labour disputes; they deal with the ongoing process of collective bargaining and secondary boycotts. In those cases they aren't necessarily labour disputes, but the public interest certainly is a factor there. The reference to public interest cannot be narrowly defined as it has in Bill 84, as it relates strictly to labour disputes. This is an amendment to ask that the public interest be recognized 365 days a year and not just during a strike or lockout.
The other issue that certainly needs to be looked at as we go through the purposes section, of course, is the competitive market economy. I don't want to belabour that point, but I think it is critical for the minister to understand that, again, every single section of this bill must be taken in the context of a competitive market economy. Therefore it must be included in the purposes section. It was put there for a reason, and I assume the minister has taken it out for a reason, just like he took out the section relating to encouraging or improving and replaced "encourage" with "promote" -- to promote collective bargaining and organization.
I assume that the reason competitive market economy was removed is that when the new Labour Relations Board is ruling on how some of these other sections deal with labour disputes and the ongoing organization and conflict that's going to happen.... As we all know, the labour climate in this province isn't always the best. When they interpret that and when arbitrators are looking at this bill to determine a fair compromise and determination, when they're looking at how it will affect other labour disputes, if they're arbitrating on a play back and forth between the provincial government and one of the unions that works for the provincial government, they are going to have to take into consideration the provisions for a competitive market economy. In British Columbia there is not some managed economy where the government -- as the Minister of Finance has mentioned -- can shift or reallocate money from one section to another in order to solve labour disputes. There is a limited amount of money. That money is allocated, and unless there's some slush fund out there, the arbitrators or mediators who are dealing with this code must take into consideration the fact that this province exists in a competitive market economy, and respond accordingly.
The provisions that have been brought forward that we have certainly supported and have spoken on at some length are critical to this bill. Section 2 is one of the most critical sections in this bill. It is crucial that we get it right from the start. If we get into the rest of this bill and find out that the implications of some of these other amendments are going to cause us problems because of the section 2 that we've passed, we will indeed be in difficulty, because there is really no way for us to go back and fix it up without going through this whole routine once more.
It is critical that the minister explain very clearly the reasons those changes have been made and the purpose behind them. Perhaps he should rethink some of his stated purposes: that somehow these changes are going to encourage collective bargaining, improve the standard of living, increase wages, and ensure that women in this province -- particularly, but men also -- will gain more money from this bill; that somehow there's money out there for everyone, at the instigation of the government, to create wonderful high-paying jobs because of the amendments to this code. It's simply not realistic.
Hon. Chair, with those comments, I would ask the minister to perhaps take a second look at some of the things that he has said and to come into a little bit of reality as to what the effect of section 2 is going to be.
[3:30]
C. Serwa: I'm going to refer to a sporting contest, such as a football game, in trying to make my point. If for some reason or other the referees didn't show up and we had volunteers step forward, and the volunteers happened to be the owner of the team and the coaches of the team and they stepped in as referees for a football game, I wonder if the public viewing this particular game would believe that there was any sense of fairness in their particular position as referees. You and I know, hon. Chair, that the difference between winning a game and losing a game can often be as small as half a step. We recognize that objectivity has to come forward in the refereeing to assure the neutrality of the referees and the equality of the opportunity in the contest. I use that analogy to elaborate on the point that I want to make.
Government has an incumbent responsibility to be perceived by all parties as neutral. Biased labour legislation has no reasonable or realistic opportunity of succeeding, no matter how good the intentions are. What I clearly see in this amendment is a move to substitute the word "improve." "Improve" implies a neutral action, and I think that's objective. Surely that should be the aim and objective of this particular package of legislation. But I suggest, hon. Chair, that the word "encourage" is dramatically different and worlds apart. In fact, my worst fears -- and I described them in second reading -- are certainly sharpened and heightened by the use of such a word as "encourage" in section 2. It clearly shows an incumbent bias.
Interjection.
The Chair: Please take your seat, hon. member.
The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands rises on a point of order.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have a quorum.
[ Page 4077 ]
The Chair: Hon. member, under our standing orders the Chair does constitute a member; therefore we do have a quorum -- ten counting the Chair.
J. Tyabji: No, two of them are not members.
The Chair: Oh, the member is quite correct. Two are ministerial assistants. Thank you, hon. member.
C. Serwa: I was trying to make the point in a rather innovative way to show what happens when there is a bias in a sporting event, such as a football game. Utilizing that same analogy, we can see that the use of the word "encourage" is a subjective word that clearly indicates a bias.
I spoke in second reading of the all too cosy unity between the New Democratic Party and organized labour and wondered if, in fact, organized labour has infiltrated the party. The reality is that they are one and the same. It clearly shows here. The minister has to be aware that the word "encourage" indicates a bias on the part of government. If this were an event like a football game, the spectators -- the public whose interests we're bound to and responsible for serving -- would feel uneasy with the outcome of the match, because the owner, trainers and coaches are also referees at this event. This is indicated in the writing of the legislation. What makes the amendment so appropriate is changing the word from "encourage" to "improve." Perhaps the minister would respond to that.
Hon. M. Sihota: The Canada Labour Code supports "the encouragement of free collective bargaining." The Ontario legislation, introduced by the previous Ontario government and not by the current Ontario government, talks about "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions." The Manitoba Labour Relations Act says: "...encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and unions as a freely designated representative of employees." So the hon. member should be mindful of the fact that other jurisdictions use similar language. If one canvasses these experiences, it's not as if we have a biased referee on the football field.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
C. Serwa: There are two issues here, and the minister has addressed one. One is the use of the word "encourage." The second one is the relationship between the government and big unions. Those two events unite as one, and they create a perception of reality. I'm afraid that that's the challenge the minister is confronted with at the present time. Is that perception because of the use of the word and the historical relationship enunciated in second reading? That is the reality. The public has to view this with a great deal of apprehension and concern.
You've mentioned that similar wording is used in other jurisdictions. I would suggest that in most jurisdictions that relationship wasn't there when the legislation was drafted. There is a great deal of concern with that. I would suggest, on the basis of balance and fairness, that this amendment should be adopted.
I would also like to address the second part that is carried in section 2, and that is the need for a reference to the competitive market economy. I know that the minister is very interested in the competitive market economy, because without that there would be no business in the province, and the Minister of Finance would not have the ability to collect the taxes required to provide the goods and services that government provides to the people.
The concern here is that in altogether too many cases the government of the day is concerned only with the internal competitive market economy. This government has gone on record as strongly opposing breaking down interprovincial trade barriers in Canada. As a matter of fact, there are more interprovincial trade barriers in Canada than there are between the sovereign states in the European export community. So the competitive market economy is not simply restricted to British Columbia. The government of the day has also gone on record as being in violent opposition to the bilateral trade negotiations between Canada and the United States, wanting to divorce themselves from competition. But we're a trading province and a trading nation, and in order to succeed, we have to trade.
Furthermore, I have a concern with the requirement in the amendment -- and the amendment speaks clearly to it -- regarding the competitive market economy. That is very necessary, because we're facing greater challenges. We're facing trilateral trade negotiations between Mexico, the United States and Canada, and we're also facing increasing competition from the Asia-Pacific market. It's improbable that we can succeed in maintaining our position as an exporting province while at the same time striving to restrict the competition of their exports into the jurisdiction of British Columbia or Canada.
In light of this, when we refer to the need for a competitive market economy, as it is stated in the amendment, it clearly has to be part and parcel of section 2: the constant recognition that the functioning of our economy is not internal; in fact, we must trade in order to survive and provide the cash flow for the strength of British Columbia's economy. Perhaps the minister would elaborate in his response.
The Chair: The minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair. I was looking at you and reflecting on the nature of this somewhat dreary debate on a dreary day and wondering what your immediate predecessor, who had quite a knack of enlivening discussion in the House, is doing today as he sets forth for the greener pastures that he has discovered. I won't get into it, but certainly in the time that I've spent in the House, I've never seen anyone who had the capacity that that hon. member had. In many ways we actually miss his presence in the House. Of course, that's not to say we don't like the current member, and that's no disrespect to the current member. Mark Rose....
[ Page 4078 ]
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry I offended the Chair by mentioning the name.
The Chair: The Chair is patient but....
Hon. M. Sihota: On the first point that you mentioned, of course those perceptions can be made, and they will be made in the political arena, as you're endeavouring to make them, hon. member. But those perceptions will only take hold if you continue the tack that you have taken of trying to suggest that's there. Let's not forget that this is legislation in which 98 percent of the provisions were worked through between business and labour and for which there is consent. Let's not forget that on the other four issues, two of them in particular, on which business expressed some reservation, we acquiesced to their concerns. I think that reality does not warrant that kind of perception being propagated in this case.
On the second point that you raised with respect to international competitive forces, those provisions appeared in the 1987 legislation. They did not exist prior to that. We did quite well as a province competing in the international marketplace. They are now removed from this legislation, and I suspect that we'll continue to do quite well, given the ingenuity and imagination of British Columbians to be able to do well in a competitive market economy.
C. Serwa: In responding to a couple of the comments that the minister made, it is certainly clear that the people in the province are aware that the interests of big unions and big unionized business were taken into consideration when coming up with the recommendations in this bill. The majority of businesses in British Columbia are small businesses, in which there is the greatest opportunity for job creation. I want it stated clearly for the record that the public interest and the interests of small business were not taken into consideration. At no time has the minister filed a list of presenters who made either verbal or written presentations on labour legislation to the three wise men. We don't know where they came from, who they were employed by or who they were representing. I would suggest that it is a myth to think that the interests of business were taken into consideration in the drafting of this legislation.
There was another myth that the minister tried to propagate, and the former Minister of Forests also mentioned it in second reading, that the standard of living that we have in this province is the result of the unionized sector. I would suggest that the public is aware that the unionized sector of the private sector is relatively small in the labour force. The fact is that the success of this province is the result of the risk-takers willing to work hard and to develop and facilitate the province and strengthen the economy that we enjoy today.
[3:45]
I think the minister has missed the point. If the minister fails to address the modification and the use of the words "to improve" rather than "to encourage," and if the minister is reluctant to incorporate into the objectives and purpose of this legislation the public interest and the market economy as a significant force and objective, all parties -- whether they be small or large business, organized or unorganized labour -- should be constantly made aware of it. It seems necessary that the minister include those items in section 2.
R. Neufeld: Mark Rose would have had that right on.
I have to comment a little to the minister on some parts of section 2 in favour of the amendment and of changing the words from "encourage" to "improve" as we have stated in our amendment -- the way it was previously.
The minister has said on quite a few occasions that some of the words that are changed are really not that significant. They're just putting it in what they think is a little better order. Then later on in the debate he gets a little further along and talks about his party's ideology, which is driving the need to change the words from "improve" to "encourage."
I have no problem whatsoever with unionization. As long as the employees and the employer agree on unionization, there's no problem with it. There are quite a few industries that require a union to represent the people, but they should represent those people as individuals, not as a collective. I've said in a number of other speeches during the hoist motion and the motion to move the bill to a legislative committee that when somebody starts talking collective to me, it gets me a little nervous. It should get a lot of people in the province very nervous, because they are injecting their total ideology into this labour bill.
What you should be doing when you're elected is representing the people of the province of British Columbia. Obviously this government is determined to be a one-term government again, because they're not representing everyone. They're not representing the individual in the way we'd like to see changed in our amendment. We'd like to see them represent the individual, not just the collective right. In fact, when they talk about their ideology -- and of course they're going to put it in their legislation.... I go back to 1987 -- I'm glad to see that the Attorney General is here -- and I'm just going to quote very quickly one of the now Attorney General's statements: "Government's responsibility in administering labour-management relations isn't to choose sides."
But that's clearly what the government has done. It has clearly chosen sides, and in choosing sides it has made unworkable whatever provisions are included in the legislation. That's a direct quote from our now Attorney General. But the Minister of Labour says: "This is our ideology and this is what we want in the labour legislation." I wonder what happened to that member's mind from that time until now. There is nothing wrong at all with improving the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. But it is not the
[ Page 4079 ]
government's role to encourage collective bargaining in any way.
It would be just lovely, I guess, in a world where everything's perfect, if we could all be unionized and we could all be making lots of money and we could all go to the store and buy everything we wanted. It goes on and on and on and on. But at some time the piper has to be paid. And it was interesting to note that the Minister of Finance, the minister who has tabled the largest deficit in British Columbia, the largest ever deficit in this province....
The Chair: Order! The chair is allowing some latitude, but I would remind the hon. member to keep it relevant to the amendment.
R. Neufeld: I didn't mean to strike a nerve, but obviously I did.
It does have some relevance, however, because to have the words "encourage unionization in the whole province" is what I'm trying to get at. If we can't even make ends meet right now, the way the province is, how in the world are we going to do it if we encourage unionization in the whole of British Columbia? We have to compete in a competitive world. Those are other words that we have in our amendment. We have to compete. And how are we going to compete?
I'm going to digress just a little bit, and I hope you give me the latitude. I'll be very quick. I'm on a legislative committee struck by the government and I'm out with forestry looking at how we can help that industry compete in this world. That's what we talk about in our amendment. We want the government in their labour legislation to be cognizant of the competitive market economy. What we're told when we're out there is that they can't be competitive with higher wages and higher input costs. They can't. They cannot sell their goods. So the idea of unionizing the whole province, the ideology of encouraging unionization, is not the way to make this economy go if we're going to be able to receive the goodness that we've received from British Columbia for these many years.
So for this government to encourage its ideology.... I don't think it was the three wise men so much on this one. I think this comes straight from probably a few union heads, like Mr. Georgetti. I don't know what meeting it took place at, but I'm sure that this is part of their driven agenda; and when you listen to the members of the government talk about the bill, it's obvious where the union organizers coming from.
We have to look closely at the public interest during labour disputes, because the government should have the right to take the public interest at heart through the whole bill. We can't just take it during labour disputes, because it won't work that way. The province just will not work that way. I would encourage the government to remove "during labour disputes," but the government should have the public interest at heart to encourage an economy in British Columbia that is wealth-generating. We have to have that wealth-generating part of the province before we're going to have the employment. You can't have just the employment and nothing down below, or three years from now we will be exactly as we are today, looking at a $3 billion deficit. We can't continue down that road.
I would encourage the Minister of Labour to look very closely at the words we've inserted in our amendment, "the rights of individuals," not the collective rights that I spoke about before. It makes me and a lot of other of people in British Columbia nervous when this government talks about collective rights. People should really think about those words, because that hits right home -- collective rights. It should be individual rights.
We should be looking at harmonious relations between labour and management, and we should be looking very closely at removing "during labour disputes." The government should have the public interest at heart at all times. With that I'd like to sit down and await the minister's reply.
Hon. M. Sihota: If there ever was a bill in the history of this province where the government tried to impose its own ideological agenda, it was Bill 19, and if there ever was legislation that was fair and balanced -- given the process engaged in with respect to Bill 84 -- it's Bill 84.
F. Gingell: I'm sure that the minister understands and recognizes -- as we all learn to as we spend time in this Legislature -- that the key to so many things is perception. On many occasions what was said or the fine-tuning of the wording doesn't really matter; it is the perception of the way our messages are taken into people's minds and interpreted.
When we deal with section 2 of this bill, we have a set of circumstances where this government is continually saying, "We welcome you," as they go throughout North America and the rest of the world encouraging entrepreneurs to come and invest in this province, start new businesses in this province, get into value-added manufacturing in this province and create good economic growth jobs.
I can assure the minister that if he were to change the word at the start of section 2, paragraph (1)(a), from "encourage" to "improve," the message would not go out that the intention of this bill and this government is to cause certification of workers to take place. The message would then go out that the purpose of this bill, according to section 2 -- we will argue about many of the other issues later on -- is to improve and facilitate, to use the word that your own Minister of Finance used when he was speaking earlier, the proper, sensible procedure and practices of collective bargaining.
At this moment in time, this bill says that the purpose of the bill, and the purpose of this government, is to encourage certification. That's not a message that goes down well with potential investors. We can't be saying one thing on Monday in Hong Kong and a second thing on Tuesday in this House. I ask the minister to really seriously consider making this change. It isn't that big a change, when you come down in the end to the way the bill is going to be dealt with and the way labour relations are going to be in this province in the future, but it will send a much-improved message to potential investors.
[ Page 4080 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: The comment the hon. member makes with regard to perception is well taken. I guess that any time people from the investment community ask me about perceptions, I'll be quick to remind them that the member opposite indicated during second reading debate that he had no difficulty with 95 percent of the provisions in this legislation. Therefore I would assume that the opposition can live with the vast majority. I'm sure the fact that the hon. member made that statement will assist us.
[4:00]
Secondly, I will remind people that 98 percent of the provisions have been agreed to by labour and business, both big business and small. I note that small business, in fact, issued a press release to the Business Council congratulating this government on its involvement in the process of developing the legislation.
Thirdly, I will let them know that of the 164 provisions, there is no disagreement on the 160.
Fourthly, I will let them know that the boycott which was in place with respect to Bill 19 will have ended.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, the minister is falling back into second reading and not staying within the parameters of the amendment to section 2 of this bill, which is before the House. I would ask him to keep his remarks within those parameters.
The Chair: I'm sure the minister will take under advisement the remarks of the Chair that we are.... In fact, I would say to all members of the House that we are dealing with the amendment on section 2, and I would ask all members of the House to keep their remarks as specific as possible to the amendment on section 2.
Hon. M. Sihota: For those reasons, we would not support the amendment -- and I would hope that the Labour critic opposite will heed his own advice.
L. Hanson: It was very interesting listening to the minister and to the comment of the Minister of Finance on the amendments that we brought forward. In listening to the minister, it was excellent to get on record that the philosophy of the bill is to encourage certification and collective bargaining. I would just point out to the minister that there is a difference in philosophy or ideology between our views, and that 40 percent of the people in British Columbia supported his philosophy.
But Mr. Chairman, the process that we have seen leading up the presentation of this legislation, where it was clearly a definite manoeuvre to restrict the people who were interested in the process to organized labour and to organizations that are organized.... There's no question that it was deliberately structured to ignore the public interest, and obviously the result is structured very carefully to ignore the interests of the individual.
I ask the minister, in fairness to the people of British Columbia, to give serious thought to the amendment as presented. I remind the minister what the amendment says. It says: "to give effect to the wishes of employees with respect to bargaining." If I can then refer to that section of the code, it says, "to encourage," which the minister has acknowledged, and at the end: "...as the freely chosen representatives of employees." Would it not be fair and reasonable to include a recognition in the bill that employees have the right to freely make that choice?
I listened to the Finance minister say that they should have the right to organize. I couldn't agree more. But they should also have the right to turn down organization if they feel that should be the case. That is the crux of this amendment. It simply says to ensure, in the purposes section of the code, that when the Labour Relations Board considers the various issues before them, they are aware that the purpose is to give the individual the opportunity to freely express what they want to do. Whether it be pro or con whatever the issue is, give them the right to freely express that. Don't suppress that, as this bill will do.
The second issue: "...having regard to the public interest, the rights of individuals, and the need for harmonious and productive labour relations." That's also a quote from the amendment. When you look at the process that we developed the bill under, it would seem that if it wasn't a deliberate manoeuvre to subdue the public interest or their opportunity to comment on it, the report would have been tabled prior to the legislation being tabled, and there would have been an opportunity for the public to comment. Why not give direction in the bill that the Labour Relations Board should consider that public interest when they are making their decisions?
It isn't as good as it could have been if the bill had been presented to the public for comment before it was introduced to the House. I understand that the two parties of interest that I mentioned earlier had the opportunity to look at the report and the legislation in the report prior to it being introduced. Why not rectify that by stating in the bill that there is a public interest and that the public interest should be considered when you are making decisions?
I believe that if this minister and this government were to consider this amendment, the people of British Columbia would applaud.
Hon. M. Sihota: I do not wish to be disrespectful, but as I said earlier, I will be short, because all of these issues have been canvassed during the course of second reading debate and more particularly during the debate that occurred this morning. I don't think any value is served by each one of us repeating ourselves. There are rules against repetition, and the hon. member is repeating himself with respect to both process and content.
The process is very clear. I don't want to be unnecessarily vitriolic, but it certainly is far preferable than the process in Bill 19. It's a process that included individuals from all walks of life and went beyond just the two stakeholders that the hon. member refers to. The hon. member is free to review the list of people who made submissions. That information has been available to the public through the libraries at the
[ Page 4081 ]
Ministry of Labour and the employment standards offices in Burnaby.
We have not lightly dismissed the amendment that is being put forward by the opposition, but for all of the reasons that I articulated this morning, we will be opposing it.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 18 | ||
| Tanner | Reid | Wilson |
| Tyabji | Farrell-Collins | Gingell |
| Hanson | Serwa | Dueck |
| K. Jones | Chisholm | Dalton |
| Hurd | Anderson | Symons |
| Fox | Neufeld | De Jong |
| NAYS -- 31 |
||
| Petter | Marzari | Boone |
| Sihota | Priddy | Edwards |
| Cashore | Charbonneau | Jackson |
| Pement | Schreck | Lortie |
| Conroy | Smallwood | Hagen |
| Gabelmann | Clark | Zirnhelt |
| Perry | Barnes | B. Jones |
| Hammell | Evans | Dosanjh |
| Doyle | Lord | Garden |
| Kasper | Brewin | Janssen |
| Miller | ||
G. Farrell-Collins: I move an amendment to section 2, that section 2(1)(b) be amended to read as follows: "to improve cooperative participation between employers and employees or their freely chosen trade unions in resolving workplace issues, adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity, all within the context of a competitive market economy.
[4:15]
The Chair: Could we please have a copy of the amendment.
J. Tyabji: I may have to repeat these remarks if the minister doesn't get it the first time. Basically, the reason for this amendment is that, as we noted earlier, section 2(1)(a) does not make reference to employees without them being in the context of a trade union. We find that unacceptable. As we've stated over and over again in this debate, the individual rights of the workers have to be paramount. This section says: "...to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions...." They've overlooked the most important person in the equation, the employee. Because they are only referring to employees in reference to them freely choosing trade unions -- and this minister is no doubt aware of what he has done -- in terms of the legal reference, we are encouraging the practice and procedure of trade unions acting on behalf of their employees. That is one way you can interpret the way the words have been put together.
We will give the minister the benefit of the doubt on this one: he didn't understand the implications of removing the word "employees" from preceding the trade unions. Perhaps this minister didn't understand what he was doing in that sentence by putting the word "employees" only in reference to them having chosen trade unions as their representatives. He is putting them into a lower class, and basically, in a tiered system the employees are at the bottom of the rung. The official opposition is extremely uncomfortable with this.
The other thing is, of course, that we're reintroducing the free-market-economy concept. Unfortunately the previous amendment was not accepted by the minister. We're giving him another chance to look at the fact that we must have the competitive-market-economy provisions within the purposes of the code. It is not enough for us to say that we are amending this labour bill, and that we will have high wages and more jobs in the province. In order to have high wages and many jobs in the province, there has to be some money. The only way there can be money is if we have the healthy operating of the competitive-market economy.
That's why we have put this in the bill. We urge the minister in the strongest way possible to accept this amendment, to understand what he's doing to employees by taking them out of the first section of these words and to change the way the bill reads.
G. Wilson: Further to the comments by the Opposition House Leader and in an attempt to allow the minister to reflect on the answer to the first question, let me suggest also that there is a second and equally compelling reason why this amendment should move forward. It has to do largely with the nature by which the act is going to be changed should the existing language remain. The current section 27 of the act, as we know it today -- "Purposes and objects" -- suggests that in securing and maintaining industrial peace and furthering harmonious relations between employers and employees, there is a question of emphasis on the employee section. In the current section trade union is usually qualified by the words: "...freely chosen representatives of employees," as well as "employers and bargaining agents." We have essentially eliminated the proposition whereby that can be a functional part of this act and have transferred those powers into that of the union, and not that of the employee. That fundamentally alters the principle by which the existing code operates, and it changes to the negative, in our judgment, the opportunity for the employee as an individual, in terms of the individual right within the act, to be protected and maintained. That's a fundamental philosophical difference that we think is not in the interests of modern labour law. I would hope that the minister would accept that, in terms of this amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Chairman. I certainly have no problem with the hon. member making comments, but it is very difficult for this side of the House when the opposition produces an amendment that is not on the order paper and then doesn't serve us with a copy. It's very difficult for us to know exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to
[ Page 4082 ]
in his comments. We just asked for a copy of it, and it may be appropriate for us to take some time in terms of discussing this issue -- if the hon. Leader of the Opposition gets my drift -- until such time as we receive a copy of the amendment, so that we know what he is speaking of.
G. Wilson: I apologize. I thought that was what the minister had gone out to get. However, now that we all have the amendment and we know what we're talking about -- at least those of us on this side of the House know what we're talking about -- let's proceed again with the question of the change in the language. It does fundamentally alter in principle what the bill is going to provide for, in terms of the protection of the employee.
I can't emphasize enough that it is critically important, when we look at the competitive market economy provision, to understand that in an act that talks about a reflection of the modern economic realities of the day, this is a progressive step forward that does not erode in any way or change the rights of any of the three agents that are covered under this act. The three agents, as I once again remind this minister, must be management, the union and the employee -- and I emphasize "and the employee." It acknowledges that British Columbia is a progressive province in which progressive labour law recognizes the realities of what exists in the economic marketplace generally and does not take us back to legislation that was perhaps more suitable in the early 1970s.
Hon. M. Sihota: The purpose of this legislation is to prevent us from going back to the seventies and to look forward to the nineties in order to deal with the kind of labour relations attitudinal change that we have to have in this province. We have a history of adversarial and confrontational relationships between labour and management in this province. That has not existed, as the hon. member suggests, for the last year, but it has existed for decades in this province -- not the Leader of the Opposition, but other hon. members who were heckling.
That needs to be changed. The purpose of this Labour Relations Code is to bring about that kind of attitudinal change. That attitudinal change has to start first with a government that is prepared to bring about that kind of change. We are. It also has to come about by engaging in a process of change to the legislation that involves all the parties in labour relations. We've done that through a process that went on for some ten months and intimately involved labour and business, both big and small, in the development of this labour legislation.
It's reflected in a document where labour and management have 98 percent agreement on the provisions that are incorporated herein; 160 of the 164 changes meet with the consent of labour and management. That represents a fundamental difference in the way in which labour legislation in this province has been drafted, and it's a marked departure from the exercise that was engaged in with respect to Bill 19, where ideological legislation was drafted in the back rooms while a public process was ongoing.
It is also important for administration, when there are differences of opinion between the parties, to try to remedy those differences. It became apparent to us after the filing of this report with the minister that there were some differences of opinion, and it is important that government try to bring the parties together to resolve those differences. We've endeavoured to do that.
Since the introduction of this legislation -- and I don't mean to be telling any tales out of school here -- we have also endeavoured to bring the parties together with respect to the outstanding differences. We will continue our work as an administration to try to bring about a resolution of the concerns that both business and labour have. That is the obligation of government and it's fundamental, in our view, to bring about the attitudinal change that is requisite in this province in order to allow us to compete in the economy that we find ourselves in at this point.
With regard to the provisions of the legislation, the legislation states: "to encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues, adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity." We have purposely and very consciously used the word "encourage" there because we think that the parties ought to be encouraged not just to improve upon the cooperative efforts, but to encourage the fostering of that cooperative relationship. Quite frankly, the use of the word "encourage" strengthens the desire on the part of this legislation to make sure that there is cooperation.
Admittedly there is no reference in this legislation to the context of the competitive market economy to which the hon. member's amendment refers. I think it's superfluous. I think quite frankly in this legislation it is taken that we exist in a competitive market economy. I think it is evident for all of us, in trying to bring about this attitudinal change with respect to labour-management relations in British Columbia, that one of the reasons that we have to do that is because we find ourselves in a collective bargaining regime that is inevitably, because of the nature of the economy we find ourselves in, subject to the pressures of a competitive market economy.
It's not necessary to say that in the legislation any more than it was necessary to say that in the legislation pre-1987. Pre-1987 we were then, as we are now, functioning in a competitive market economy. The legislation then didn't require it; the legislation now doesn't require it. The realities are that we are in that situation.
With regard to the rights of individuals and employees and their representation, this provision that we speak to, with regard to the purposes and provision of the code, makes it abundantly clear that it applies to the need for trade unions as entities which are the collective representatives of employees in working cooperatively with employers. That is not to say that the legislation ignores the rights of individuals. Indeed there are other provisions in this legislation which make ample reference to the rights of individuals, and in particular -- as I said this morning -- pay exceptional attention to the rights of the individual prior to the triggering of the
[ Page 4083 ]
certification process and prior to employees making a collective decision to have themselves represented by trade unions.
[4:30]
When they make that decision, they bargain with their employer in a collective fashion through trade unions. Those trade unions then represent the workers and the workers freely choose their representatives on the bargaining committee and freely choose the representatives that lead their trade union. We have, with regard particularly to that mode of representation, insisted upon natural justice provisions, which appear later in this legislation and I am sure will have the endorsement of the opposition.
So there is ample protection for individuals and the rights of individuals. There is ample recognition of the fact that at some point those individuals make a decision to be represented collectively through a trade union. There is a need to bring about an attitudinal change and to foster and encourage, if I may say so, cooperation between trade unions and employers. Because of the preferred strength of the word "encourage" over the word "improve" I do not find, as minister responsible, comfort with the wording that's proposed in the amendment.
The purpose of this section of the code is very clear, it's very explicit, and the message is loud and clear to labour and management in this province. They have to work together, they have to pull together and they will do it. We have an obligation as the government to involve them in the development of the legislation. We've done that.
I think I need only to remind the hon. member of the words that were used by the panelists in the preparatory comments to their report, which I think bring the point home. They said that "there was general recognition that the relationship between employers and unions had to change." I emphasize those last three words. Labour articulated this in terms of the need for unions to be recognized by management, government and society generally as legitimate institutions having a central role to play in the workplace. That, if I may pause for a moment, is indeed true.
The report went on: "Management said that the existing relationship was too adversarial and that unions would have to change their approach to representation: in essence, to cooperate more in workplace reorganization and work practices." That is indeed true. We have to move away from that relationship, hon. member. This legislation lays the foundation for the fundamental change in attitude that has been so lacking in this province historically. We're going to do it, because we have to in order to maintain our competitive edge. We will do it, and I have enough confidence in management and labour in this province to recognize that they now feel that the time has come to bring about that change. This government will do what it can within its resources, including the provisions of this legislation, to bring about that fundamental attitudinal change.
G. Wilson: That was an impressive speech and one that I don't necessarily take exception to, in part. Nobody believes that we're trying to create a labour relations act that promotes disunity. Nobody in this province would believe that any government would attempt to create a labour relations act that has division between management and labour as its cornerstone. It's patently false to suggest that anybody would think we're trying to create or draft a bill that enhances and promotes the kind of partisanship that perhaps has been all too frequent in British Columbia.
I believe we all are trying to create a bill that looks after the interests of all working women and men in this province, whether they happen to be in management, in a trade union or are non-unionized -- which also is a group that's going to be affected by this bill in general. I come to the specifics of the amendment, and I hope that the minister will listen to the detail in the words that I'm going to suggest.
I am not in disagreement that we have to try to get away from this polarized system; but what this has done, in the judgment of the members of the Liberal opposition.... I come back to the words that were offered by the hon. member from Vernon, who suggested that we have to look after the interests of the individual as a functional part of the overall negotiation in putting this bill together. It's something that we in the Liberal opposition have emphasized from the second reading debate.
What this bill has done -- it's the reason we're moving this amendment -- is detract from the opportunity for individual right within the collective bargaining process to be protected outside the right of the union itself. By virtue of that, what it does is allow the trade union, which is qualified normally by the words "freely chosen" -- which we acknowledge and have no problem with -- or the words "representative of employees," which we understand is the case, and that the employers and bargaining agents are the other side.... What it says is that those two are now going to be paramount in the purposes and objects of this bill -- to be the two agencies that are going to be addressed in all of the subsequent clauses, and that we have virtually eliminated, or not mentioned at all, the employees. As a result, what we're trying to do in this amendment is recognize that there is going to be an issue where we have to essentially maintain the proposition for the employee to have some rights.
If I could use the analogy, it's a little bit like saying that you elect government, and because you elect government and you have an opposition, therefore you have an adversarial system. The right of the individual voter is no longer in place or is suspended until the next time you have a chance to elect your government. Well, that's just patently false. Because we have government that looks after interests on the one hand in terms of delivery of government programs and on the other hand an opposition, in a manner similar to the way management is there and the union is there, it doesn't mean that the individual rank and file member of a trade union doesn't have rights that should be protected under the bill. That's what we're saying.
I would hope that the minister would specifically address this question and not get into the generalities of who agreed and who didn't agree and whether it's 85
[ Page 4084 ]
percent or 89 percent or whatever it may be. We wanted to have the board members here so they could have spoken for themselves, but that was denied us. However, if you look at what this says, it suggests that the functional part of the amendment is to improve cooperative participation between employers and employees and, as a result, move toward that, and within the context of a competitive market economy. This has to be an advance. Surely to goodness the minister can see that this is a productive, constructive and positive amendment. I find some difficulty in the fact that he would not just simply say: "Yes, it's better language. We'll put it in place."
Hon. M. Sihota: I listened very carefully to what the hon. Leader of the Opposition had to say with respect to his analogy of this system of government. Somehow his effort to leave the impression that the individual worker becomes irrelevant in an adversarial system, to use his analogy as he said.... Perhaps he was not meaning that individual voters become irrelevant, but that was the analogy he used.
The individual employee is not irrelevant, nor is the individual employee ignored, nor are the rights of that individual employee ignored in the legislation before this House. Let's make that abundantly clear. It's protected and it's encouraged. It's protected and encouraged through a series of provisions carefully woven into the fabric of this legislation -- provisions such as the fair representation provision, provisions such as the religious objections provision, provisions such as those which talk about the freedom to join or not to join, provisions such as the rights of individuals in organizing drives, provisions such as the reference to natural justice, in particular with regard to section 10, and provisions such as expedited arbitrations and first contracts. In all of those cases the inherent rights -- if I can use that word -- or at least the rights of individuals are well recognized, respected and protected in the provisions of this legislation.
So it's abundantly clear to anyone who takes a casual moment to go through the legislation that there are provisions in there that protect. Surely the hon. member is right when he says that the trade unions are freely chosen representatives of employees. I'm glad he agrees with me on that point. They have protections. Those protections are found in the constitutional bylaws of trade unions. If those provisions do not adequately protect the rights of individual employees, they are required to be protected under the appropriate provision, which is the natural justice provision found in section 10. That places an obligation on the part of trade unions to recognize the rights of employees.
Hon. member, I'm glad that you agree with me with regard to changing the adversarial nature of labour-management relations. We have a job to do in this province with regard to changing that attitude. We want to get on with it. We don't need to play games with little words that really don't have a consequential effect in terms of changing those attitudes. We've got the words here in the legislation; they're before the House. They have the unanimous approval of the business representative, the labour representative and the neutral representative on the panel that we put forward. They have the approval of the advisers -- the whole panel of nine -- which includes representatives from big business and small business, hon. member, and they are before the House as unanimous recommendations. If business, labour and neutrals can buy into this language, it seems to me that the only problem is that the politicians opposite are the only ones left in this province who can't. I say: show some respect for those who have unanimously come to the view that these provisions are acceptable to them, hon. Leader of the Opposition.
The Chair: Order! I would ask members to please address comments through the Chair.
G. Wilson: Once again, it's entertaining dialogue. Let's be very clear, Mr. Chairman, that those of us on this side of the House are very much involved in trying to make a more productive labour-management climate here. We should be working with unionized workers and management. In fact, if we'd had a minister who could have looked after the safety provisions on a particular ferry, we wouldn't have had thousands of people stranded. That's the kind of thing that we would have been doing to try and move in advance of these kinds of tensions that build and create problems. We all understand the need to do that.
I suggest that the minister is simply missing the point on this question. In fact, if you look at the wording of this particular part of section 2 and at what exists in the current act with respect to the employee, what you have done in this is remove the protection of the employee under the purposes and objects section of the bill -- and that is an important omission. We would argue that if you look at the language -- "...encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues...." We are suggesting that you are putting powers into the union that will allow the confrontational climate to blossom, not to be moved away. I'd like the minister to explain why that shouldn't be read as a carte blanche guarantee for contract reopeners, for example, at virtually any capricious fancy or idea of a union at any particular point.
Secondly, if you leave it the way it is, without the amendment we're putting in, without the context of a competitive market economy, I would suggest that what this essentially does is enforce.... If you look at section 53, parts (1) through (5) -- which we will get to at a later date -- it virtually puts management in a straitjacket. It clearly does not provide the kind of climate that the minister is alluding to. If it did, we wouldn't have problems with it.
That's why we have put together far better wording. It is more progressive wording. It is wording that should not be offensive to anybody, least of all to this most progressive-thinking minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member opposite may think that the way in which you resolve safety issues on ferries is through illegal work stoppages; we on this side of the House don't.
[ Page 4085 ]
With respect to the points you talked about, section 53 and on, we'll deal with those sections when they come up. With respect to the comments you made about contract reopeners, remember, hon. member, the only way a contract can be reopened is if both parties mutually agree to reopen the provisions of the contract, or if they mutually agree to provisions in there for a process for reopening the contract. That's something that the parties negotiate during the collective bargaining process. We're not interested in fettering their ability to exercise their discretion at the bargaining table with respect to those provisions.
[4:45]
Let's make it abundantly clear here that we are out to change the adversarial relationship in this province. Management knows that. Business knows that. Labour knows that. If there is an abuse of power, which the hon. member referred to, they know full well that there is further opportunity for legislative changes to deal with those abuses. We're confident, given the process that has been followed to date and the acceptance that the parties have with respect to this wording, that there won't be those types of abuses, and that there will indeed be changes in the nature of that adversarial relationship. That's why we have comfort in the wording, and that's why we're not going to support the amendment that the hon. member has put forward.
G. Wilson: At least we're finally getting this minister to acknowledge that there are going to have to be some further amendments to this legislation in order to make it fair. I'm pleased that he's finally beginning to recognize that this is not going to be the end of it.
Secondly, with respect to the commentary, it's patent rubbish that anybody on this side of the House has ever suggested that an illegal work stoppage is the way to resolve anything at all. So let's get that on the record and make sure that's clearly understood.
Let's get back to the matter of the amendment, which is what we're trying to get through here. The fact of the matter is that by removing what exists now with respect to employees as a functional part, the minister must, and surely will, admit at least this one point: if he says it's true, that's the way he wants it to be because that's the political agenda or the philosophical attempt, or whatever it may be, to put in place here.... Removing "employee" is not simply a matter of superfluous wording; it is a fundamental change to the purposes and objectives of the section of the bill that entrenches greater powers for the trade union as the duly elected representative of the employee. It virtually eliminates "the employee" from the language in the balance of the sections in that act. That is a fundamental change; it's not superfluous at all. If that's what the minister is intending to do, then I think he should at least say that that is what they are intending to do: entrench greater powers in the union itself. Then we'll understand what the philosophical agenda of this particular government is with respect to this bill.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member asked us about intent and agendas. Well, let me make it very clear what the intent is here, and let me make it abundantly clear what the agenda is. The intent and the agenda are very simple: we want the parties to work together. We want to change the adversarial relationship that has existed in this province. This legislation does that. It sets the foundation for it, and accordingly, we will proceed.
With regard to the amendment, the answer is no.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to ask the minister a simple question. As I prefaced my first remarks on this amendment, I figured that I might have to repeat them again due to the state of mind of the minister at the time. So I will go over them very briefly.
The purpose of this amendment is to draw the minister's attention. We will give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not intend to do what he does in section 2(1)(a). By putting the only reference to employees in that section, with regard to them being members of trade unions, he has changed the way in which employees are being viewed. The way it is worded is: "...employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees." So the employees are an afterthought.
I understand that the minister stood up and said that he does not intend to make employees an afterthought; he intends to have employees' rights properly represented in the purposes section of the bill -- and I'm not talking about later on in section 10. But if it is the purpose of this minister to have employees as an equal part of the equation with employers and trade unions, then the opposition would like to point out that that is not what he is doing in section 2(1)(a). We have given him the amendment for (b). In that amendment, specifically at the point where we say: "...to improve cooperative participation between employers and employees or their freely chosen trade unions" -- and then it goes on from there.... Will this minister please share with us the difficulty he has either in understanding how that changes things or in accepting that change?
Hon. M. Sihota: I have no difficulty in understanding the issue; I think the opposition has some difficulty in understanding the position of the government. With regard to the change, we do not support it.
J. Tyabji: The second part of the question was not answered. You do not support our amendment to make employees an equal part of the equation, but you say that your intent is to have employees as an equal part of the equation. Could you please explain that total dichotomy? If this minister does say that he wants them to be an equal part of the equation, then maybe he can come up with an amendment. As the Minister of Finance said earlier today that his interpretation of "encourage" was actually "facilitate," we encourage this minister to change the wording to "facilitate" -- although that wasn't done. Would this minister please explain to us how he sees employees being an equal part in the equation when this is not the wording and how he plans to change the purposes section of the bill so that the employees are an equal part?
Hon. M. Sihota: Employees are an integral part of the collective bargaining system. There are provisions
[ Page 4086 ]
elsewhere in this legislation that deal with the rights of individual employees.
J. Tyabji: We're on section 2.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member doesn't want to hear the answer but wants to ask all the questions. Without employees there are no members, and without members there are no trade unions. Right? So employees play an integral role in the development of trade unions. They have certain rights and responsibilities, and those rights and responsibilities are amplified elsewhere in the legislation. There is reference in this clause, as with the others, with respect to employees, and that's fair enough. But, hon. member, we've said very clearly that there are some rights of individuals that need to be protected, and they are elsewhere in the legislation. Accordingly, there is no need to bring about the change that you request to this section.
J. Tyabji: If, as the minister says, there is no need to bring about a change in this section, why did he change Bill 19's wording? In that wording, employees preface the trade unions. It is more along the lines of the wording that we have in the amendment, which is obviously better wording. First of all, why would he change it if there's no need for change? But since he has changed it and if he does intend to have the word "employees," why would he not accept the wording in our amendment? What problem does this minister have with changing the wording to "employees or their freely chosen trade unions"? Why does he want to have it the other way around?
Hon. M. Sihota: Bill 19 did not reflect a fundamental truth. As I said earlier, without employees there are no members, and without members there are no trade unions. If you wish to go back to the language of Bill 19 and embrace the kind of attitude, ideology and confrontation that is a consequence of Bill 19, be my guest, hon. member. With regard to this provision, it adequately protects the interests of all parties involved.
C. Tanner: The minister is avoiding the question we've been asking. We're saying that the nub of this whole piece of legislation is in the purposes of the code. A number of times you've said that we'll find defences of individual rights further on in the legislation. We're asking you why you can't put it in the purposes part of the code, which by your own admission is the nub of the legislation. After the definitions come the purposes of the code. Why can't you put those individual rights there?
Hon. M. Sihota: Because there is no need to have a general provision in the purposes when there are specific provisions elsewhere that protect the rights of individuals.
W. Hurd: I just want to explore with the minister the idea of divorcing the collective agreement from the context of a competitive market economy. Surely the minister must recognize the principle that collective bargaining is, at times, an adversarial type of process. If we don't insert the phrase "within the context of a competitive market economy," is he not concerned that the overall purpose of this bill might be for unions and management to conclude that the collective agreements they signed could be at the expense of or are not reflective of the competitive market economy?
If you look at the history of contract bargaining in this province, you soon realize that there are many examples where contracts were signed that in retrospect were not in the best long-term interests of either the company or the employees. Indeed, we've had examples where the job protection commissioner has had to wade into these contracts to try and arrive at language that will allow the company to survive. I can't quite fathom why the minister isn't encouraging the parties to work within the very real economic constraints that are being faced by companies in a global economy.
Surely inserting that type of language into the bill at the purposes stage would lead the parties to conclude that they have a responsibility to negotiate in an open and honest manner, and that they also have a broader responsibility to ensure that the contract they sign is within the context of a competitive market economy. Otherwise, why retain the job protection commissioner, for example, who has been retained by this government and has indeed rendered excellent service to this government over the past few months. Often he's dealing with collective agreements that in practice have not been in the best long-term interest of the survival of entire communities and individual unions in this province.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that this issue was fully canvassed this morning and part of this afternoon. I know he hasn't been in the House, so let me just paraphrase a number of points. Let me also ask him to take the time to review in Hansard comments I made earlier today.
There is a reality in this province, and the reality is very straightforward: collective agreements are negotiated in the context of the economy that we find ourselves in, which is clearly a competitive market economy. When there are contractual negotiations underway, they're set in the context of the existing economy.
It's not as if a pulp mill owner, talking to a pulp workers' union, is immune to considerations with respect to what's happening in the economy -- no more than is a public sector employer dealing with a hospital immune to what's happening in the economy. The economy and the realities of that market force clearly drive the contractual relationship that emerges at the end of the day.
There are times when what emerges at the end of the day cannot sustain an operation because of economic factors or other changes that happen. The hon. member is correct in saying that we've seen situations in this province where collective agreements or other negotiated instruments have been amended by the job protection commissioner to maintain the viability of a company. A lot of those agreements that we're dealing with
[ Page 4087 ]
today through the job protection commissioner were negotiated with the current wording of Bill 19 in place. It's not as if that wording saved the industry, or saved the collective bargaining process, or maintained the viability of an industry.
Prior to 1987 we did not have this language. We don't have this language proposed now in this legislation. It's not necessary to state the obvious. The obvious is that we're involved in a competitive market economy, and hence that will influence the direction of collective bargaining in this province, both public sector and private sector. It always has in the past, and I'm sure that it always will in the future.
It's not necessary to state the obvious. For that reason, there's no need for us to bring about the change that is on the floor in terms of this amendment. We will be opposed to it.
W. Hurd: From the benefit of personal experience in being part of a bargaining team which negotiated a contract, I can say that it is not in fact the responsibility of the union to assess the financial capability of the company to pay. When you're negotiating a contract, the responsibility is to negotiate the best contract that you can on behalf of the employees or the bargaining unit you're representing.
[5:00]
There have been many examples in this province where companies, because they want to sell the business, or because they want to leave the province, want to get a fast agreement signed. There are a number of reasons why an agreement would be signed that wouldn't be in the best long-term interests of either the company or the employees. To suggest that there's an implied assumption here, that we don't need the provision about a competitive market economy, just flies in the face of what the contract-bargaining process is all about. We can take the example of the last pulp industry settlement in this province, which the industry would be prepared to concede was probably more than they could afford at that time and which may even have resulted in some of the layoffs and plant closures that we're now seeing.
Surely the insertion of this type of language -- "in the context of a competitive market economy" -- forces the parties to recognize that they have a broader responsibility than just negotiating the best deal on a contract. They have a responsibility to ensure that the contract is negotiated within the context of the survival of the company. Right now that is not necessarily the mandate of the union's bargaining committee. Their responsibility is to get the best deal they can. The company's responsibility is to try to get a deal they can afford, but they may not be in a position to do that for whatever reason.
So why not insert this language which recognizes that in this particular global economy, competitive market forces determine the long-term survival of jobs and not the wording of a union contract and the dollars and cents that were achieved in that union contract? As the minister well knows, there have been many cases before the Labour Relations Board and the courts where the company's ability to pay has not allowed them to remove themselves from the requirements of the contract they've signed. There are many precedents for that, where the company can't plead poverty in order to get out of the obligations under the contract. Indeed, the Labour Relations Board would not allow them to go before the tribunal to plead that type of case.
Inserting this language about a competitive market economy provides the framework for the parties to negotiate an agreement which will at the end of the day sustain both the jobs and the company that they're trying to deal with. It encumbers the parties to recognize that the long-term survival of a company and its ability to compete in a market economy should be of paramount importance when they sit down to negotiate a contract.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll try again. Hon. member, if a company has been ineffective during the bargaining process.... Let's say it has negotiated a contract that is too rich, and it has done that for all the reasons that you articulate. They want to sell the company and move into another province. How is the provision that you are proposing going to solve that problem? It doesn't solve the problem; it doesn't do anything.
Just having the words "free competitive market economy" is not going to solve the problem. If you think that putting those words in will somehow give the Labour Relations Board -- or ought to give the Labour Relations Board -- a power to overturn the contract, then, first of all, you're asking for a power that isn't even in Bill 19; second, it requires a high degree of state intervention in the free collective bargaining system; and third, it's tantamount to the wage and price control regime that we saw in the seventies. If you want to go back to that disaster, be my guest. If that's the Liberal view, then so be it. But that type of heavy state intervention does not solve problems. Nor does that kind of provision in this legislation overcome ineffective bargaining or give any power to the Labour Relations Board, as you would suggest, to roll back contracts -- which is foreign to labour relations in this province and in much of this country.
So get serious, hon. member. I don't think you really understand, despite your experience, how the system works. The system works by the pressures that are there already. You don't need this language to remind people that we exist in the type of situation you allude to.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Finally, you overlooked the fact that these provisions with respect to purposes are simply a direction to the board to be mindful of these purposes when making its adjudicative decisions in interpreting the provisions of the legislation. It's not to give them the power to roll back contracts which, you would argue, are too rich. That's not the reason for the provision.
Having said that, hon. member, if you want to continue along this line of debate, that's your prerogative, but I will remind you that I did deal with the issue this morning. I will be referring to the matters that I raised this morning and the comments that I made then.
[ Page 4088 ]
G. Wilson: In the Liberal opposition we're always delighted at the imagination of the minister, who would see an alley cat come forward and think it was the king of the jungle.
We have never suggested that the language of this amendment was going to be used for state intervention or to turn back collective agreements. We've certainly never suggested that that kind of right and power should exist within the LRB, or that there should be some kind of provision that a contract could simply be tossed out because of "free market" language. We have suggested -- which I think the minister has avoided -- that in the purpose and intent of a bill it is important to recognize that within the context of the free collective bargaining process there are times when companies and unions cannot agree. There are times when we get down to the end of the line in the negotiation process or we get down to the point where dollars are the sticking point with respect to a fair agreement. That usually moves us to some form of dispute resolution mechanism that is usually in the form of mediation or arbitration.
I can tell this minister opposite, because I don't know how many trade union negotiations he has been involved in, that this member has been involved in quite a few and has sat in arbitration and mediation on a number of occasions. In fact it is useful, especially within section 2 -- the purpose and intent of the act -- that we embrace the concept and understanding of a free market economy, which is the driving force that essentially keeps business and industry that is under negotiation in a position to employ those who are in the bargaining unit and make a profit, and keeps management in place also. That's what the member for Surrey-White Rock was referring to, not this draconian kind of wage and price control that was referred to by the minister -- some kind of enormous state interventionist power that we wanted to have that would allow the LRB to roll that back.
The language is not offensive. It is not superfluous. In our judgment, the language in this amendment clearly advances the notion that it is more progressive, modern and forward-looking bill than the language in Bill 84 as it stands unamended, which is the reason we would urge the minister to see the point of view that we're putting forward and recognize that it is an advance for all working women and men in the province, be they management, union or otherwise.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to stand up in this exciting debate on section 2 and support the amendment that was put forward. Reading the amendment, again, it says:
"...having regard to the public interest" -- which is very important -- "as well as the rights of individuals" -- which the minister concedes is very important -- "and recognizing the desirability for employers and employees to achieve and maintain good working conditions as participants in and beneficiaries of a competitive market economy, the following shall be the purposes of this code."
In a way, I sympathize with the plight of the minister in this. He has to come up with a piece of legislation that will be consistent throughout British Columbia in all of the areas, whether it's small business, big business or the public sector. There are clearly enormous challenges in coming up with something that is sensitive to the various challenges that a piece of labour legislation has to face.
A few minutes ago the minister enunciated on the free market economy, signifying that it was clearly self-evident and didn't require enunciation in the legislation. This amendment refers to it. And in listening to the minister's remarks, I could clearly see that he avoided the public sector and the limitations on the public sector in that free market economy and the insulation that that sector enjoys.
We'll go back for a couple of examples. Bill 82 was repealed, with devastating results in education. We have a lot of young teachers who are not able to be employed in the system. We have more kids in the school system. We have fewer teachers and fewer counsellors in that particular system. Clearly the intention of repealing Bill 82 was good from the government's perspective, but the net results of those good intentions have proved devastating. It is an example of it being difficult to come up with legislation that has some sort of automatic governing by the free market economy, unless that free market economy is alluded to. It is one of the things that must be contained in the purposes of the code. It is not controversial; it's relatively neutral. But again, it speaks very clearly of those three terms brought forward in this amendment -- public interest, rights of individuals and the competitive market economy -- clearly up front, right in with the purposes of the code, ensuring that responsibility in all sectors is recognized.
Surely for the government of the day as well as ourselves, we want to see responsibility and fair treatment, equality of opportunity and balanced and fair legislation out there, so that we in British Columbia can enjoy the quality of life and the quantity of life that we do now. And just as clearly this doesn't change the legislation nor the intent of the legislation, but really defines something called responsibility. I'm confident the minister is aware of the necessity of defining responsibility, because all too often in society we talk about rights. We go on and on about rights, and we don't define responsibility. Responsibility is the item that is shouldered and gives us our rights, and just as clearly it seems to me that the minister has to recognize that.
[5:15]
I presume the minister has the sole jurisdiction in this particular matter. He has the control and the stature and the ability to accept this amendment in the legislation. You know, I thought we might be here until the snow flies, but I suspect that if the minister is not willing to listen to reasoned debate and make some form of accommodation, we'll be here until hell freezes over.
L. Hanson: Well, I listened with interest to the minister's remarks as a result of the leader of the official opposition and other members of the Liberal caucus speaking, and I noticed that he suggested that the overall intention of the bill -- and I'm not going back to
[ Page 4089 ]
second reading -- was to discourage the adversarial nature that we have now and hopefully bring it on to a more equitable and reasonable plane. I think he also mentioned, when we started to talk about individual rights, that woven throughout the bill were these protections. Well, I kind of like that word "woven" -- a lot of analogies have been used today; one I remember was a football field -- because when I think of "woven," I think of a spider web, and to suggest that this piece of legislation is good for the interests of the individual is to suggest that a spider web is good for the interests of the fly. And I really find that very difficult to accept.
The minister suggests that if there are examples of the abuse of power, there is the opportunity to amend the legislation. I accept that; that's fair and realistic. But I have to ask the minister: if very simple changes to the legislation would ensure that the abuse of power doesn't happen, why wouldn't he agree to them? They seem to be a fail-safe sort of situation, even though the minister's suggestion is that the reference to the competitive market economy and so on is so obvious that you don't need to put it into the bill. If it is so obvious, what is the harm in putting it into the bill? Our pulp industry in British Columbia produces enough paper, if that's the concern, to write these amendments into the bill. So I don't understand why the minister doesn't impress all British Columbians by putting into the bill some of these amendments that we're proposing and thereby providing some sense of security for the people who are sincerely concerned about these clauses -- which appear to be an omission, and when the minister says quite clearly that that's not the intention. Why couldn't they be included? There's no reason. We're not short of paper or a printer. Are they still on strike? I don't think so.
An Hon. Member: Almost everyone else is.
L. Hanson: We could easily get it printed into the bill, so I don't understand why the minister doesn't support these amendments. They appear so logical and so reasonable to the citizenry of British Columbia and certainly to all of us on this side, and I don't understand why the minister doesn't agree to them. I speak in support of the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has been here for the better part of the last three hours while we debated it, and I suspect he understands why I am taking the position that I have reiterated during the debate today.
However, I just want to pick up on one point that the hon. member made. You talked about concerns on my part with regard to abuse of power and asked: why not make those changes at this time? Well, we don't have those concerns. I said to the Leader of the Opposition that if his scenario arose -- which I would describe as a worst-case scenario -- of course we would introduce amendments to check against abuse of power. But there are some very strong messages emanating out of this legislation, including this section, that make it clear to the parties that they have to work together and that encourage changing attitudes.
In addition to that, we're confident that the provisions here provide the appropriate checks against any abuse of power. To a large measure, I say that because the parties themselves have agreed to the wording that is now before the House, they have bought into the attitudinal changes being requested. They have bought into the wording, and I think they have bought into accepting the natural checks that would flow. There are other provisions that provide additional checks, which we will deal with later on.
C. Tanner: Would the minister accept a proposition that we don't make a decision on this clause today and that we let it sit there while we go on to another clause, and let him and his officials have time to think about it? Obviously it's very important, and it is a nub of the argument by this side of the House. Does the minister lose anything by giving us a couple of days to let him think about it, while we go on to further clauses in the bill?
Hon. M. Sihota: If I had not had the better part of the day to think about it, I would probably agree. I've amplified the reasons why, and I haven't hidden those reasons. I've been fairly upfront with you during the course of this debate, hon. member, with regard to those reasons. It's not as if I've been short in terms of the responses, and when I have been I've indicated why. I've taken care to respond and explain the rationale of the government. I appreciate both the tone and the intent of your suggestion, but as I said at the outset, I've had the better part of the day to reflect, and it's on that basis that I would reject what is a legitimate and kind offer.
If I may say so, I'm sure that there will be other occasions when the opposition will introduce amendments which will give the government a basis for thought, and when that arises I will obviously be mindful of the points the hon. member just made. Should there be a need at that point to stand down a provision and proceed with other provisions, we clearly will. This isn't one of them.
G. Farrell-Collins: As I'm listening to the minister, I do recall the spring session when the HEU strike was underway in this province. I remember being in a scrum outside this chamber, listening to the minister responding to questions. When asked by a reporter for the reasons that he felt it was inappropriate or that the union would want him to go to binding arbitration, he said that there are provisions within the labour legislation which ensure that those arbitrators -- or a mediator, if that's the case -- have to take into consideration the well-being of the public and also the fact that British Columbia exists as a competitive market economy. I clearly remember the minister making those comments.
So it is crystal-clear that the public interest and the competitive market economy as highlighted in this amendment are critical, and they are very critical as they relate to the public sector -- not necessarily when the negotiations are going back and forth, but certainly in the case where an arbitrator has been appointed and
[ Page 4090 ]
is having to make a decision. The arbitrator uses this legislation to make that decision, and certainly the arbitrator will go back to section 2 -- the interpretative clauses of this bill -- and say that the arbitration which is underway at the time must be done within the context of a competitive market economy and with the public interest at play.
The minister used those very words himself in a scrum outside the doors of this chamber no more than six months ago. Perhaps that's the reason the minister was at that time leery of appointing an arbitrator, and perhaps that's the reason he chooses in this case to pull those sections out of this code.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, you talked about the HEU situation, and with regard to that labour dispute you are correct in pointing out that I referred to the public interest. I believe that you ought to put your mind to the provisions of this purposes section, where it is stated: "...to ensure that the public interest is protected during labour disputes." So we're stating in this purposes section that the public interest has to be determined or brought into consideration during a labour dispute. That point is made in this purposes section, as it should be.
With regard to the competitive market economy, I'm glad you recognized that. I think you should reflect on that for a moment. We as a government fully appreciate the fact that there are limits to what a taxpayer can pay with regard to the cost of government, and that the pressure from this marketplace is heavy on the shoulders of this government as it engages in negotiations. It was in that instance, and it will be in future instances -- and in some instances that are happening today in this province, be it transit or ferries. Those realities are not lost to a negotiator. Those pressures are there. I said it then, and that should give you comfort in terms of you knowing that this government is mindful of the taxpayers' ability to pay.
You should know that with regard to private sector disputes, regardless of what the legislation says, employers are mindful of the competitive market economy. With regard to the public interest, if you only read the provision here and applied it to the ATU labour dispute, you would see that this provision here attends to the very concern that was salient at that time.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister clearly does not understand. He said it again -- and we listened very carefully to the words that he used -- that a negotiator will take into consideration the provisions for a competitive market economy because it exists all around us. He also goes on at some length about his government and their concern for the taxpayers' ability to pay. I would say that the only concern his government has for the taxpayers' ability to pay is how much they can suck out of the taxpayers. We see that time and time again.
If we look very carefully at this bill and look at this amendment and listen to what the minister said.... It's not so much a problem when the negotiators are debating back and forth as to what the deal is going to be; but it is critical when a dispute goes to arbitration, because the arbitrator doesn't necessarily have to look at a competitive market economy. They are not looking at that. Yes, they are looking at the public interest, but they also, under the present legislation, need to look at the competitive market economy. Under the legislation the minister is bringing forward, they do not, so an arbitrator may just find middle ground between the two and say, "Well, that's what the decision is going to be," rather than keep in the back of their mind the purposes section, section 2 of the bill, and say that a competitive market economy is one of the critical purposes of this bill. We must take that into consideration when we're looking at what an arbitration decision is going to be.
Those provisions are critical. They're not frivolous; they're not unimportant -- and they're not mentioned elsewhere. They must be included in this section 2; they're not included anywhere else. It's critical that they be included, if for no other reason than the sort of instance of arbitration which the minister had to deal with this spring -- in a practical example -- and which we may well be dealing with in the next few days as far as the labour disputes at the community colleges, transit and B.C. Ferries go.
All of these issues will be ongoing all the time, and the minister should keep in mind where he was six months ago with the decision that he was making -- had he had to go to arbitration, and what sort of a scenario he would have had. That is why we need to put this in section 2. That is why we're bringing it forward. That is why the minister, as a responsible minister of the Crown, should be agreeing with this amendment and ensuring that the competitive market economy is included in this legislation.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I said this yesterday, and I've tried not to say it today: the more the hon. member talks and presents his arguments, the clearer it is how unfamiliar he is with labour-management relations in this province.
G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. The minister is not dealing with the amendment; he's dealing with personalities. If he doesn't like me, that's fine. He can write me letters and tell me he doesn't like me, but he doesn't have to bring it up in the House. We can deal with this as it applies to the amendment.
The Chair: The point is well taken. I would note, however, that the member who has just taken his seat was making references to the minister in a manner that I think would also have been out of order. I would ask the minister to address the amendment, and keep in mind that we are in committee. This is not a wide-ranging debate, as in second reading. We have strayed considerably from the rules of the House this afternoon.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry to see that the hon. member is so tender.
Let me deal with the issues straight up. Anyone who is familiar with labour relations would understand the following, and it would not be necessary to bring this element into the debate. We had a pulp dispute this summer in the province. During the course of that
[ Page 4091 ]
dispute, we engaged the services -- if memory serves me right -- of Mr. Ready. Only the naive would think that employers would not bring to Mr. Ready's attention the fact that there were competitive variables with regard to the pulp industry that warranted the position the industry was taking. Only the naive would assume that Mr. Ready did not take time to consider what was happening in the industry worldwide. Only the naive would think that somehow a mediator would be immune to the realities of the marketplace. Only the naive would think that those variables did not play a role in the development of the recommendations of the mediator.
[5:30]
Earlier on this year we had a dispute with respect to hospitals, and there were arbitrators and mediators involved in that dispute. The hon. member should recognize that the Minister of Labour is not the one who appoints those arbitrators and mediators. Those who were involved in that dispute looked at the situation, and it would be naive for anyone in this House to think that they weren't mindful of the fiscal situation of the province. It would be naive for anyone to think that somehow those involved in the resolution of that dispute did not understand that there are limits to what the taxpayer can pay. It would be naive in the extreme for anyone to think that the recommendations of either Mr. Kelleher or Mr. Munro in that situation were not sensitive to the fiscal problems that this government inherited. Those realities, hon. member, are often front and centre during the course of labour negotiations, and those who are involved in the negotiations understand those. It is not necessary in legislation to state the obvious except only to give comfort to the naive.
C. Serwa: In speaking in support of this amendment, I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the government of the day exhibits a substantial amount of pride in that the labour legislation that they developed in the former administration under Dave Barrett stood the test of time, basically unchanged until almost 1984. I think the minister is aware of that and is certainly pleased about the ability of the legislative package that that government had developed at that particular point in time.
What is imperative is the recognition that we're faced with a number of things that have changed dramatically. Clearly what we're discussing here, to a degree, is the intent of the legislation, and that's what the minister is enunciating: the intent of the legislation. But subsequent to the discussion that we're having here in the Legislature will be the word of law that will be followed. That's where my concern comes in. When we start going back to the legislation, there will be those who will be interpreting this legislation, and it will be challenged in the courts by both the labour side and the management side. The court will find what has been omitted, and they will believe that there was a purpose for the omissions. It's clear from statements by the minister that he finds no difficulty with the suggestions in this amendment; he appears to have difficulty in incorporating them. I assure the minister that this will come forward later on, and court interpretations will be necessary. It is not objectionable or biased; it's neutral, but it clearly imposes that sense of responsibility.
If this amendment is not shaped into the legislation, two things will have to happen. The legislation will be perceived as biased. When this government is turfed out -- and nothing remains forever -- the legislation will be turfed out as well, because it will be abundantly clear that it is not working. If the government of the day is only concerned with their brief mandate and not with exhibiting a sense of responsibility -- as was exhibited by the former opportunity in the '73-75 period -- then the big unions and their rank and file will clearly be the losers.
It appears incumbent that the minister dwell on this, use his discretion, perhaps even think it over during the night, discuss the reasonable nature of this proposal with others and incorporate it.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I listened to the hon. member's comments, I wondered where responsibility lay during the course of Bill 19. The hon. member was a cabinet minister in the previous administration, although not at the time of the introduction of Bill 19. The previous legislation was so biased that it brought about a boycott by one of the parties that it sought to serve. The words of the former Minister of Labour when he introduced that legislation stick out in everyone's mind. He indicated in his opening comments that if the legislation did not have the support of those it purported to serve -- and I think acquiescence is the word he used -- the larger objective would not be achieved. It failed in that objective, because it was boycotted by labour. There was no sense of responsibility.
The hon. member is also correct that a lot of time has passed. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the 1972 to 1975 era. We all have opinions with regard to what happened then -- some stronger than others and in many cases different opinions from others. But it is true that during the course of that time period, there was an adversarial relationship between labour and management in this province. Some would say that was encouraged by the opposition, some would say it was encouraged by government and some would say that was inevitable because of the historical realities of labour-management relations in the province at the time. Be that as it may, there's a responsibility on this government to bring about a change in that type of adversarial relationship.
We had a choice, hon. member. We could have replicated the process of Bill 19 and swung the pendulum back the other way by imposing an ideological agenda on labour-management relations in this province. We chose not to do that. We could have continued the adversarial atmosphere in this province, which has existed for as long as any one of us in this House can remember. We chose not to do that. Rather, we made a conscious decision to intimately involve labour and management in the development of labour legislation, for reasons that I've already outlined in this House. The reason for doing that was very straightforward -- and I won't amplify, because I've said it enough times today. It was to bring about a change in that adversarial attitude, to get the parties to cooperate and work
[ Page 4092 ]
together by getting them to work with the government in the development of the legislation and by dedicating the better part of a year to intimately involve small business and big business. And I'm mindful of what you had to say earlier about small business.
Let the record be clear that small business made approaches to this government, both with respect to representation on the panel and the content of the report. Again, I don't want to say what I said earlier except to remind the hon. member that the B.C. business coalition, on the date that this report was tabled, applauded the government -- to use their word -- for involving them in the process. They had differences of opinion with us with regard to the content, and they still do. But they applauded the government for bringing them into the process. Don't lose sight of that fact, hon. member.
Because of taking that new progressive approach, we have produced legislation that has the support of business and labour, to the tune of 98 percent of the provisions found in this legislation -- 160 of the 164 changes. Of the remaining four, we addressed two to accommodate the concerns of business. The members opposite in the Liberal Party have said -- and I don't think I am quoting them out of context -- that they don't have any difficulty with 95 percent of the provisions. When the members for Richmond and Delta are in the House, they will attest to the fact that they said that during the course of this debate.
This achieves the objective of fair and balanced legislation. The provision, to which you asked for reflection on and to which I had said earlier, in response to the member from Saanich, that we had reflected on -- and there's no need to reflect on it overnight -- is a provision that was acceptable to both business and labour. The changes you are proposing, with all due respect, are unnecessary. It is unnecessary to state the obvious. We are involved in a competitive-market economy. It is unnecessary, in my view, in this section to refer to the individual rights of employees when they are amplified upon in other sections of this legislation. As I said earlier, and as I will say in conclusion today, we have a job to do in this province.
We must ensure that the foundation that has been laid in terms of bringing about that attitudinal change is deliberated upon over the course of the term of this government. There are few other issues that I can attach a level of imperativeness -- if there is such a word -- that are as important to this administration as the need to bring about that change in attitude. As a government, we have dedicated ourselves to bringing about that change, first to the process that was involved in this legislation, and second to the changes we have made to date, which have been highly consultative, with regard to the structure of the Industrial Relations Council. We will continue to ensure that the objective of the Labour Relations Board as being fair and balanced is met, and we will continue to make those changes.
The amendment is not necessary to bring about that change, but that change is necessary for us to be able to compete in the economy we find ourselves. I want to make sure that the hon. member understands, appreciates and, I am sure, ultimately agrees with the government that there is an imperative need to bring about that attitudinal change. That, hon. member, will happen, and this legislation is part of the process of making that happen.
W. Hurd: In addressing the amendment the minister made some rather bizarre comments about the pulp strike, which certainly can't be allowed to remain unchallenged. The fact remains that Mr. Ready forced a provision on statutory holidays on the pulp industry that exists nowhere else in the competitive world. We understand that the reason industry signed the contract was a concern about intervention by the Minister of Labour. So if that represents a reflection of competitive market economies, then we're in deeper trouble in this province than even I imagined.
There's a pattern in this province of contracts and arbitrations that do not provide even as a touchstone any relation to the competitive market economy. There are many contracts that reflect that type of long-term damage to the provincial economy. In addressing the pulp strike alone, where the decision by the mediator on statutory holiday provisions was clearly a competitive disadvantage for the industry, surely the minister recognizes that a competitive market economy should be the guiding principle by which contracts are signed and by which arbitration and mediation are provided.
I can't even begin to understand why the minister would illustrate the pulp dispute, of all things, as an example of a competitive market contract bargaining session. It's almost hilarious that that would be brought up as an example, because the pulp dispute was a classic example of where there was no reflection of general competitive market conditions at all. Unfortunately, the Labour minister had a dramatic and direct impact on ensuring that competitive market economies and forces were not reflected in the final contract settlement.
C. Serwa: We've got almost all of the directions, hon. Chair. In any event, the minister responded to me, and I appreciate that. But I will take some of the wide-ranging latitude that you allocated to the minister in his response.
When we speak briefly on Bill 19, we will say that with every indicator that the minister would care to propose -- save one: the political element -- Bill 19 was a success. It was not adversarial; it worked. By every indicator, economic or social, it worked.
I might also bring to the attention of the minister that if the Labour Code that was brought in during the period of 1973 to 1975 had been brought in by a Social Credit government, there would have been a general strike in the province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, there almost was a general strike in the province of British Columbia. Labour, while being very strong, has a very strong bias. I appreciate that bias, and I understand it. I applaud that bias. That is the purpose of unions; I know that. But the purpose of legislation and government is to come up with this fair and balanced package. In spite of the minister stating that the obvious should not have to be included, I suggest, in listening to the minister, that every word he utters indicates more
[ Page 4093 ]
clearly in my mind that the obvious must be included if we're going to have harmonious labour relations in British Columbia. The solution is not to eliminate that. If it is neutral in language, and if it is included, it's there for the permanent record to be interpreted. It's fair and balanced, and it's a reasoned amendment. I really suggest, in spite of the minister stating that he has reflected on this, that perhaps he hasn't reflected adequately enough.
[5:45]
W. Hurd: Further to the constructive amendment by the opposition, in the course of the minister's reflections this afternoon it's a shame that he hasn't had an opportunity re-read the report from the job protection commissioner in this province, who, as he wades into difficult job-saving projects in British Columbia, is often having to deal with collective agreements that have been negotiated in the spirit of some acrimony. I think particularly of the Westar situation, where the job protection commissioner categorized those negotiations as some of the most acrimonious and negative he had ever encountered. In speaking to this constructive amendment, I think there's a dramatic need to provide the competitive market economy as a general framework for negotiations. I would urge the minister to re-read the job protection commissioner's report, because the way things are going in this province, there will be more of a role for the job protection commissioner soon than the mediation services of his own ministry.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 18 | ||
| Tanner | Reid | Wilson |
| Tyabji | Farrell-Collins | Gingell |
| Hanson | Weisgerber | Serwa |
| De Jong | Neufeld | Fox |
| Symons | Anderson | Hurd |
| Dalton | Chisholm | K. Jones |
| NAYS -- 31 |
||
| Petter | Marzari | Sihota |
| Priddy | Edwards | Cashore |
| Charbonneau | Jackson | Pement |
| Schreck | Lortie | MacPhail |
| Smallwood | Gabelmann | Clark |
| Zirnhelt | Perry | B. Jones |
| Hammell | Farnworth | Evans |
| Dosanjh | Doyle | Lord |
| Krog | Garden | Kasper |
| Brewin | Janssen | Miller |
| Dueck | ||
P. Dueck: Was my name mentioned or did you miss it again, for the third time?
The Chair: The member is recorded as voting nay.
Section 2 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 30 | ||
| Petter | Marzari | Sihota |
| Priddy | Edwards | Cashore |
| Charbonneau | Jackson | Pement |
| Schreck | Lortie | MacPhail |
| Smallwood | Gabelmann | Clark |
| Zirnhelt | Perry | B. Jones |
| Hammell | Farnworth | Evans |
| Dosanjh | Doyle | Lord |
| Krog | Garden | Kasper |
| Brewin | Janssen | Miller |
| NAYS -- 19 |
||
| Dueck | Serwa | Weisgerber |
| Hanson | Gingell | Farrell-Collins |
| Tyabji | Wilson | Tanner |
| K. Jones | Chisholm | Dalton |
| Hurd | Anderson | Symons |
| Fox | Neufeld | De Jong |
| Reid | ||
J. Tyabji: On a point of order, my understanding is that the Minister of Women's Equality was not in her seat when she voted.
The Chair: Hon. member, the member's vote was counted, and in order to have been counted she would have had to have been in her seat.
Hon. G. Clark: I think that's called a tautological definition.
I move the committee report spectacular progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to remind all members that there are only 25 shopping days until Christmas.
Hon. Mr. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada