Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1992

Volume 6, Number 16

[ Page 4123 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's nice to see you in the chair.

I call committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 84; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

On the amendment to section 5.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just to remind people of where we are at, we are dealing with the amendment to section 5. I see the minister isn't here yet. If we'd like to wait until he gets here, that's fine also. Hon. Chair, I'll just take my seat until the minister arrives.

J. Tyabji: I'm assuming that the Minister of Finance is here to answer some of the questions with regard to the implications of Bill 84 and particularly this amendment.

Hon. Chair, it is always difficult, when debating an amendment, to be faced with the implications of that amendment not being accepted by the minister. If the Minister of Finance would care to jump in in the interim, I would like to hear his specific comments on the amendment to section 5 which is on the order paper.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I'll take questions from the members and then endeavour to answer them at the end of the questioning.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's always difficult to hold a debate when one party of the debate isn't present in the House and doesn't seem to be concerned with the rights of individuals.

We've added subsection (3) as an amendment to section 5. It tries to ensure that individual rights are protected and that the union, as a means of internal union discipline, cannot force or require an employer to fire an employee by removing the employee's card and then asking the employer to fire them. I think that is a reasonable request and a reasonable amendment, but the minister went on at some length yesterday explaining that in fact section 10 does the same thing because it makes reference to natural justice and all employees will now have recourse to natural justice.

I would argue that section 10 on natural justice is merely a procedural guarantee of individual rights. All it does is to allow the employee to seek recourse in the event that they are removed from their position. And that recourse to natural justice can take some time. There are cases in existence where members have been removed from their jobs due to the union removing their card, and recourse has taken a number of years. In fact, if one were to follow the process of natural justice through the appeal process within the union itself, the ultimate appeal process in a number of unions is a congress of that union, which in many cases takes place once every seven years. So if one loses one's job, is that natural justice to have to wait seven years to be reinstated and go through all the legal wranglings that will occur in the meantime? I think that's extremely unfortunate.

So what we have with the amendment to section 5 is a recourse to very substantive measures whereby an employee, if he is relieved of his position, can cite very quickly, within a matter of days -- 24 hours probably, or perhaps even sooner than that -- that he does have a right to his job and that the union is going beyond its means in trying to revoke it. I think that is a critical distinction between substantive and procedural applications. It allows instant recourse, as opposed to a seven-year recourse or perhaps even longer.

One of the procedures that the minister has used is to say that the employee can certainly go to the courts and the Labour Relations Board -- that they should have some recourse -- and that will be dealt with, or they can go to the union and that will be dealt with in the long term. But the reality is that we need instant gratification on this one.

He has made significant amendments to unfair labour practices. If an employer fires an employee unfairly, that can be dealt with within two or three working days. He has even changed that to make it 24 hours -- any of the seven days -- and they will go right through the process regardless of whether it's a Saturday or a Sunday. He has made extreme changes to the code in order to achieve that. We've gone along with him on his changes and have in fact approved them. But the reality is that for the minister to be so concerned about what happens to an employee when an employer fires him but not to be concerned at all when the union fires the employee -- and the only recourse for that is through natural justice, which may take up to seven years or even longer -- clearly outlines the bias the government has.

In my review of the debates on Bill 19 and of the objections the NDP had to this section being put in the bill -- and when reading from that dry document, Hansard, it sounds that it was a relatively heated debate -- the arguments put forth by the NDP opposition at that time were that this interferes with the union's rights to fire employees, to effectively discipline them by removing them from their jobs. My feeling is that there are lots of ways and means to discipline union members without having to remove them from their jobs. You don't have to take away people's livelihoods in order to ensure that they are working within the parameters and guidelines of the union.

[10:15]

The minister is talking about a procedural guarantee as opposed to what we're guaranteeing, which is a substantive guarantee: that the employee will never be at risk in their job, because an employer will know that 

[ Page 4124 ]

when the union comes forward with that case, all the employer has to do is look at the bill and say: "That's wrong; you can't do that. It's against the law." It won't even happen. The person doesn't have to worry about losing their job.

I find it really interesting that the minister would oppose an amendment or the addition of a clause in Bill 84 that has been in the Canada Labour Code for as long as it has under section 95(e). I'll start at the beginning. It says:

"No trade union or person acting on behalf of a trade union shall...require an employer to terminate the employment of an employee because the employee has been expelled or suspended from membership in the trade union for a reason other than a failure to pay the periodic dues, assessments and initiation fees uniformly required to be paid by all members of the trade union as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in the trade union."

That's almost identical to the amendment that we're proposing. It's in the Canada Labour Code, and it has been agreed to by the government of Canada. The minister likes to stand up and quote from the Canada Labour Code and give us examples of how the Canada Labour Code coincides with his bill. Here is an instance where the opposition is trying to increase the parallel between the two and use it as an example, and the minister chooses to defeat it.

It's very enlightening to go back to the debate on Bill 19 and the arguments used by the members of the New Democratic caucus in opposing it. Clearly their opposition at that time was that they wanted unions to be able to fire employees. They wanted employees to be subject to direct discipline from the union so that they could be removed from their jobs. I think that is a fundamental miscarriage of justice if that occurs. I ask the minister to explain why he feels that it's appropriate for him to object to this amendment when he quotes so extensively from the Canada Labour Code, which this type of amendment is found in.

Hon. M. Sihota: I hope the hon. member isn't suggesting that just because I read one provision from the Canada Labour Code, I agree with all the other provisions in it. He knows full well that that's not the case.

In addition to that, I should say that last night I did a lot of thinking about the arguments put forward by the member for Vancouver-Langara, in particular with regard to the amendment that's before the House. In fact, I took the opportunity to go to the law library and update myself on the laws that have developed with regard to natural justice. As I indicated to the House yesterday, it has been a few years since I practised in the area, and I wanted to be comforted in my own mind that the law in the area had not in any way eroded the rights of individuals. Looking at some of the recent decisions both in the province and outside which set precedent in this area, I'm more than satisfied now that in the last two or three years since I last looked at that area of law, the safeguards provided under natural justice have increased.

I think it's wrong for the hon. member to sort of belittle the protections provided under administrative law in terms of natural justice, and to suggest that they are somehow only procedural rights. It is true that they provide for procedural protections, but the reason we have that framework of procedural rights is to make sure that substantive rights of individuals are protected, and to give an individual the scope to make an argument with regard to substantive rights that they may have.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that section 10 -- and I say this with certainly a higher degree of comfort than I was speaking with yesterday, because I think all members know that I was choosing my words carefully then -- attends adequately to the problem at hand and provides the appropriate safeguards that are necessary. As a consequence, I must say that after considerable reflection overnight and this morning.... I did a lot of thinking last night about what the member for Vancouver-Langara had to say. He's not in the House, but I must say that in my own experience, his interventions are often quite welcome in debate. I've come to the conclusion that the amendment is not worthy of support and that the provisions that are in the legislation protect against harm.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister could outline for this House and for the public in general how he sees the time frame being affected in the event that a member of a trade union is dismissed from a job because the trade union has removed their union card and has lobbied the employer to remove the member from the job. What would the time frame be, if that was not a just removal, on reinstatement of that under natural justice and under the substantive provisions that would be provided by the amendment in section 5.

Hon. M. Sihota: I do not intend this morning to hold a seminar on administrative law. The hon. member can obviously take the opportunity to attend the library and make himself familiar with the provisions of administrative law. I think it might be outside the scope of the debate.

I said yesterday that under the rules of natural justice, people look at the potential harm that may accrue to an individual, and based on that harm make determinations -- trier of fact. In this case the Labour Relations Board would make determinations as to how expeditious a hearing should be. Obviously where the injury or the potential harm is great, then there is need for a far more expedited process than otherwise would be the case. I think that should provide the hon. member with the appropriate comfort.

F. Gingell: Do I take it then, Mr. Minister, that you see a set of circumstances wherein it would be justified that a trade union could require an employer to fire -- terminate employment -- an employee who has lost his standing within the union for some reason other than non-payment of dues or the other items set out in this proposed amendment?

Hon. M. Sihota: Section 10 of the act, which we will get to when we debate it, allows rules of natural justice to apply to matters of discipline by a trade union 

[ Page 4125 ]

-- if memory serves me. It insists that the principles of natural justice be respected in all disputes related to discipline by a trade union. Therefore matters that are different and that vary in terms of a fact pattern from what we have been discussing so far, I'm sure, can be considered by the board as to whether the rule of natural justice should apply to any disciplinary action taken as well with regard to the kind of fact pattern we talked about in others.

J. Tyabji: It seems to me that in every section we've come to so far this minister has failed to get the point of the amendment. Here again we have an amendment where the minister, whether deliberately or in naivety, is completely missing the point. The point is that under this section, unamended, we have provisions for there to be action taken on behalf of the employer, and our amendment is to balance that. Every amendment we've introduced so far, every section we've introduced so far, is trying to introduce some kind of balance into this bill. And the minister continues to miss the point.

The minister keeps referring to section 10. Section 10 provides some level of comfort, but if you read section 10 and you read this amendment, they are two totally different issues. What this amendment is doing is giving the employee some rights in the event of the union, for whatever reason, removing their union card so that person cannot be then summarily dismissed.

Does the minister understand the reason for this amendment and the fact that it balances this section?

Hon. M. Sihota: The minister fully understands the arguments put forward by the opposition, hon. Chair.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, if the minister claims he understands it, can the minister please explain to the House why he would rather leave section 5 unamended and completely unbalanced on the side of the unions?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I've indicated to the hon. member that I fully understand the arguments that are being put forward by the opposition. Regrettably, the opposition doesn't seem to fully understand the arguments that I have put forward in response.

The answer to the hon. member's question lies in the provisions with respect to section 10 which deal with internal union affairs, and that there is appropriate scope and remedies provided under that section to deal with matters of internal union affairs and discipline by a trade union.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I still have not received any answer from the minister why he would object to an individual's rights being protected in the event of the union withdrawing their card.

Hon. M. Sihota: I wasn't looking carefully enough, but perhaps the hon. member was talking to her colleague at the time that I gave the response. Again, let me reiterate for the hon. member, section 10 of the legislation, which deals with internal union affairs, which we are not at yet -- we're at section 5 at this point -- deals with the matters of the individual's right vis-�-vis their trade union and provides for a broad spectrum of protection for the individual under the provisions of section 10 as it relates to the principles of natural justice.

The hon. member should know that the principles of natural justice are wide, they are varied, and they provide for remarkable protection for an individual. They protect the individual's right, and they exist in section 10. The hon. member should understand that when we get to that section, we will be able to debate that matter in a fuller way. The fact of the matter is that the rights of individuals are protected in section 10.

G. Farrell-Collins: With the minister's midnight excursion last evening to the law library, perhaps he's up to date on a number of the legal precedents that have been set in this issue on the dismissal and removal or denial of union rights to employees. Perhaps he can comment on the case of Muller v. HEU Local 180, which took place in Victoria. He may be well aware of it, because I'm sure he was practising at that time.

It was a situation where a young woman who went through the nursing program at Camosun College had to cross a picket line as a volunteer in order to do her 40 hours of practicum and was advised by the union that it would be okay; volunteers were allowed to cross the picket line. But when she came to apply for a job as a nurse where she would have to join the HEU, she was denied the right to join that union and had to take that case to the Labour Relations Board.

[10:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member looks at the legislation, he will see that later on in the legislation there are provisions which give employees the right, should they choose, to cross a picket line.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll run that by the minister one more time, because I think he missed the point. The point here is that a young woman was denied membership in the union and therefore denied a job because of the lack of this type of provision in the British Columbia Labour Code. It was introduced in 1987, and the minister is trying to take it out. I am suggesting with this amendment that we put it back in or that we leave it in. The minister is not commenting on the particular case. Perhaps he should have done his research a little more thoroughly before he brought this type of legislation before the House, and should have looked at this case and seen what happened to this person. To state that picket line crossing provisions are somehow related is perhaps naive at best and uninformed at worst. Before the minister makes these types of recommendations, perhaps he should look at the cases on the books and ensure that he is familiar with them. I'd ask him what sort of recourse he feels this person would have under Bill 84.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member uses the words "naive" and "uninformed," and it's regrettable that he would use them without thinking through the point that he makes. He asks what recourse is available to the 

[ Page 4126 ]

individual now, given the fact that the amendment he puts forward is not found in this legislation.

The hon. member is obviously misinformed with regard to section 10 of the act. Section 10 would give the person the same procedural rights as they have there; in fact, it may well give them the same substantive rights.

But in the case the hon. member refers to, the person had the right to go to the Labour Relations Board and state her case. Under section 10 of this legislation they have the right to go to the board and state their case. The reason we have used the language of natural justice is to make sure they have the full opportunity to state their case. I can't, nor can the hon. member, control the outcome of every decision that comes down. In some decisions the Labour Relations Board has sided with the worker, and in other decisions they've sided with the union. The hon. member has selectively picked up one decision which I suspect had one outcome. I'm sure that when he went through the material -- and he's got only the short version of the report there -- he saw other decisions where the Labour Relations Board granted applications by individuals.

The point is that an individual who feels aggrieved because of an action taken by the union that seeks somehow to discipline that member should have the right to a hearing in front of an independent, impartial tribunal, to state his case and have them decide whether the discipline accorded by the union is in keeping with the principles of natural justice. We have -- for those who are informed -- a provision called section 10 that deals with internal union matters and gives an individual the right to state his case in front of an independent, impartial tribunal.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is missing the argument. Perhaps if he would put away his newspaper clippings and listen, we would get a little bit more informed debate from the minister. He's the one bringing this bill before the House, so he's the one who has to defend it. If he would listen to the question, he wouldn't have to ramble on, as he has for the last two minutes, making absolutely no sense.

This person had the same natural justice provisions -- or perhaps not even the same -- in 1986 when this case came up. Had the provisions that are presently in the code -- before Bill 84 -- been in place at that time, this could have been dealt with in 24 hours, because it would have stated very specifically that in that type of discrimination the person seeking employment with the HEU would have had a right to the job. If the person had the right to the job, it would have taken the hospital, or wherever it was she was applying to, all of about five seconds to decide that the HEU was out of line in making that decision, and that they should offer her the position anyway. That's how long it would have taken. This person wouldn't have had to go to the courts or through this natural justice procedure the minister talks about. This person wouldn't have had to go to the Labour Relations Board or the courts; this person wouldn't have had to spend money on it. They could have done it in all of about five minutes. The inconvenience and discrimination that was brought down on that member would have stopped immediately, and that person would have been offered the job because of her qualifications, not because she made the mistake of crossing a picket line some time before.

The minister is failing to understand the fundamental argument here. We're dealing with the minister wanting to grant some sort of procedural legal recourse to the employee or the worker, as opposed to giving them some concrete, substantive provisions in this code. The difference is night and day. If the minister can't understand that, he obviously doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. The job that a person is seeking should be given to that person on the basis of qualifications. That person should not have to go to court or before a tribunal; they should not have to rely on natural justice to ensure that they are not discriminated against by their union.

I think that's an easy thing for the minister to understand. I wish he would come clean, and tell us his real reason for opposing this section. It's probably the same reason that he used when he debated Bill 19: he wants the right of the union to fire employees from their jobs because of internal union problems and not because of qualifications or normally understood procedures that are in place across the country.

Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps the hon. member could, since he's got the decision in front of him, tell us who made the decision.

G. Farrell-Collins: In this case, D.J. Jordan was for the complainant, D. Blair for the union and Tom Roper for the CCERA. As for who made the decision -- if I can find it here.... I don't have that on this case, but I'd be glad to find it for the minister. It was before the B.C. Labour Relations Board.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member answered the question. The decision was made by the B.C. Labour Relations Board. This wasn't a decision made in five minutes. It wasn't a decision made without application to the Labour Relations Board. Under the provisions of section 10 -- if the hon. member understands natural justice -- one makes an application to the Labour Relations Board. Under the section that the hon. member refers to, as it was then in the legislation, they make an application to the Labour Relations Board. The hon. member has just answered his own question. The Labour Relations Board made the decision in that case. The individual didn't have the right to simply go in front of somebody and say: "Let's make a decision in five minutes." They had to go through a procedure, and the procedure was in front of the Labour Relations Board.

In this case, where there are matters of union discipline, hon. member, an individual who feels aggrieved makes an application before the Labour Relations Board. The principles of natural justice are on the side of the individual to protect against any unwarranted action by a trade union.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll speak very slowly. I'd ask the minister to, at least this time, put away his 

[ Page 4127 ]

newspaper clippings and pay attention to the job he's supposed to be doing in this House.

D. Lovick: Oh, come on.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Nanaimo gets upset. Maybe I should ask the member for Nanaimo.

This case took place in 1986, before the provision was in the Labour Relations Code. So what happened, hon. minister, is that this young woman had to go through the process of going to the Labour Relations Board, hiring a lawyer and going through that expensive process in order to get a decision. Had the provision that we are recommending in the form of an amendment been in place, all the employer that she was applying to would have had to do was open it up and say: "They can't do this. You get the job." Or easier than that, the HEU wouldn't even have tried to discriminate against this young woman and denied her the right to a job, because they would have known that if they did, it would have gone to this case, and they would have been ruled against. It would have been against the law, so why would they even bother to do it in the first place?

That is the critical, fundamental difference, and this minister should know it, because he's a lawyer. I hope he's a good one, but I'm beginning to wonder. This minister should understand, because that is the difference between a substantive provision in the law and a procedural provision. The reality is that the employee -- in this case a young woman -- would be better served by this amendment than by the proposal the minister brings forward. If he can argue in some realistic form and get his time frame correct, I'd be glad to hear his argument. Stand up and say that this woman would be better protected under his code than under what we're recommending in our amendment to section 5.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member's frothing is obviously affecting his ability to think through an argument. Let me put it to the hon. member this way: in 1986 an individual had to make an application to the Labour Relations Board; in 1992, under Bill 84, an individual would have to make an application to the Labour Relations Board. The amendment that the hon. member proposes is akin to the provisions that are now found in Bill 19. The hon. member should reflect on the debate we had in here yesterday when I pointed out that with respect to these kinds of cases there were indeed applications before the Labour Relations Board. It's not as simple as saying that because it's in the legislation, that prevents applications from going to the Labour Relations Board. They do. They did in '86. They did in '87, '88, '89, '90 and '91, and under this legislation they will continue in 1992.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then perhaps you, Mr. Minister, could tell us how many cases were before the board while this provision was in Bill 19 as compared to those cases that were brought before the board before that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have information with respect to how many cases went before the board in 1986, because the provision didn't exist in 1986; but I can tell the hon. member that since then, 15 cases have gone before the Labour Relations Board with regard to that section.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then perhaps the minister, with those 15 cases in the last five years, which is three a year, could find out or ask his ministry officials to find out how many cases of the type that I'm giving an example of here -- Muller versus the HEU -- were before the Labour Relations Board in the previous five years, so that we can get some sort of a comparison, because this deals with the issue. I know this provision wasn't there, so it couldn't have come before the board on that provision. But certainly there were cases that went before the board that dealt with this type of issue, and perhaps he can tell us.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member, now having realized that there were cases brought before the Labour Relations Board, and having the evidence before him that there were 15, in some sort of effort to save face, wants to know what happened in the five years before. The hon. member, I would imagine, probably intended to ask that question and would have prepared himself. The information is publicly available. The number of cases that appeared are available in the library. The hon. member can walk over there, do his own research and secure the comfort that he needs.

The Chair: Before I recognize the next member, I would remind members to please address their remarks through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've been doing that all day, and perhaps the minister.... Maybe it's just a bad habit he has, but he's been here long enough to know that he should be doing it. I'm not defending this bill before the House. I'm not bringing this bill before the House. The minister is bringing this bill before the House, and the minister is the one who should have the answers. If he wants to switch places, if he wants to resign, get rid of his government and put the Liberals in, I'd be glad to defend a piece of labour legislation that is fairer and more balanced than this one. But it's the minister who has to defend this bill and who has to come up with the answers, not me. I'm asking the questions, and he's the one who's supposed to be giving the answers. If he can't give those answers, I would be glad to put this section aside until such time as he can.

Hon. M. Sihota: Regrettably, the hon. member is not familiar with one of the first rules that one learns, which is that you don't ask a question to which you don't know the answer. He assumed -- to his regret now -- that there had been no cases since 1987, given what he thinks are black-and-white provisions in the act. I take it that it caught him off guard that there was adjudication before the Labour Relations Board with regard to some 15 cases on this type of matter. With that done, he had to sort of get into the next branch of the 

[ Page 4128 ]

argument rather than just simply acknowledge that there had been cases.

The information is public. I don't expect the hon. member to come in here and ask me about every case that was held from 1981 to 1986 with regard to any particular matter. If the hon. member wishes to make the point that the incidence of cases has decreased since the provision was brought into legislation in 1987, then he should be prepared to make that case. He should be prepared to come into this House with the material for that five-year period from 1981 to 1986 and compare it with the five-year period between 1987 and 1992. I've given him an indication of what happened between 1987 and 1992. If he thinks that some case is to be made that the incidence of cases on those types of situations decreased, then it's for him to make that case. It's not for me to make his case for him.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

However, it is my obligation, as the member obviously knows, to defend the provisions that are proposed in the legislation. I've indicated to the hon. member that it is the view of this administration that there must be provisions in legislation to deal with union discipline. There must be provisions to safeguard the rights of individuals as they relate to disciplinary action taken against individuals by a trade union. The hon. member knows that the discipline provisions or powers that a union can exercise range from a minor slap on the wrist to taking the ultimate action of asking an employer not to allow an individual to maintain employment.

[10:45]

In order to make sure that in the application of that power, which has existed in unions for as long as anyone can remember.... There must be safeguards and protections built into the legislation to ensure that unions behave in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Why? Because it is important that no one should abuse the power they have under the constitution that regulates their society. Under the provisions of the Society Act, the Cooperative Association Act and, indeed, under this act, we have taken steps to make sure that societies and organizations behave in the fashion that we would expect them to.

Specifically with regard to trade unions, it is absolutely essential to make sure that there is no unwarranted abuse of power under a particular constitutional provision by a trade union or an executive of a trade union. Accordingly, we have removed the section which the member now asks this minister to replace in the legislation. We don't think that amendment is necessary.

We do think it is necessary that there be general protections for the individual, and we have provided those. For those who understand the rules of natural justice and what they mean -- the right to a hearing; the right to cross-examination; the right to know the case against you; the right to be able to present evidence; the right to be able to give, in some cases, oral testimony; the right to know the reasons for a decision by a trier of fact; the right to be able to appeal on matters of fact or law to the courts -- all of those rights are captured by the notion of natural justice.

Those versed, skilled and knowledgeable in the principles of natural justice will find great comfort with the fact that those provisions now find themselves in this labour legislation, for the first time, in section 10. Protection of the individual from unwarranted, obtrusive and obnoxious action by a trade union is now found in section 10 of the act. Therefore the amendment which the hon. member puts forward in this House -- the provisions of which, as I have said to the House this morning, were reflected on considerably overnight -- will not be supported by this side of the House. The simple reason is that Section 10, as it relates to natural justice -- which we will debate later -- affords an abundance of protection to an individual who feels aggrieved by a trade union.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reality is that we know there were cases -- under what is now section 5 and the amendment that we're proposing -- before the Labour Relations Board, because the minister rose in the House yesterday and said that. In fact, he said then that it was rare, that there weren't very many; they did happen, but there were fewer than previously. That's why I wanted to get the actual numbers from the minister. I had hoped that he would have come up with that sort of information. He is the one who has a huge bureaucracy at his fingertips, and he should have those answers to questions when he comes into the House.

For the minister to stand up and say that somehow the provisions of natural justice are sufficient.... I find it interesting that under the Society Act.... This minister says that his New Democratic government is looking at ruling about abuses. Perhaps he will be saying exactly the same thing when the final reports come down on the investigations into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the abuses that took place there.

Section 5 and the amendment to section 5 show once again a crystal-clear difference between the New Democratic government and the type of government the Liberal opposition would provide, in that we would ensure that the rights of individuals were protected. Section 5(3), the amendment that we're proposing, would do just that. It does more than just provide procedural fallback positions for employees once they have been dismissed -- once it has already taken place, once they've been fired, once the union has pulled their card. It provides reasonable limits to what the union's discipline can be. That is why we're proposing the amendment to section 5.

Perhaps the minister can stand up and answer yes or no to a very simple question: is the reason that he is removing that section from the code that he wants to give more powers to unions to discipline their members "in a more effective way" -- to quote him -- than Bill 19, so that unions can fire employees?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member obviously has not listened to the points that have been made by government. What more can I say, hon. Chairman? It's becoming increasingly evident.... The answer to the 

[ Page 4129 ]

question the hon. member asks is no. And the reason I say that is that the hon. member should understand that there are checks and balances in this legislation which check and curb unnecessary and unwieldy use of power by a trade union. Those provisions -- if the member would be interested in reading ahead in the legislation -- are found in section 10. The hon. member knows full well that we can debate those provisions when we get to section 10 in the legislation.

The hon. member -- also in his preparatory comments -- says that this points out the difference between the opposition and the government. That is not true. The fact of the matter, hon. member, is that what is true is that this debate has pointed out the relative ineffectiveness of the opposition and its inability to understand the issues and principles which underlie the labour legislation. On that point, without much amplification, let me reiterate to the hon. member: there is every desire on the part of this administration to protect the rights of individuals. We have to make sure that the rights are protected appropriately when there is a threat to those rights.

G. Farrell-Collins: Where?

Hon. M. Sihota: They are found in section 10, with regard to the type of union discipline matters that the hon. member has referred to.

L. Hanson: Maybe the minister could help me understand his argument. As I understand it, the circumstances, if this section is passed as is, would be that the individual member.... Well, first of all, if there were a disciplinary action on the part of the union which resulted in the revocation of membership, the union could then request the employer to dismiss the individual. If the individual felt that there had been some miscarriage of justice, he or she then would have the ability to apply to the Labour Relations Board for a ruling, and this would ensure that they had the opportunity of a hearing. Is that not correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: Essentially that is correct. It would give them the opportunity for a hearing, among other things.

L. Hanson: I know that the minister is loath to deal in hypothetical situations -- and I may have even expressed that myself at some time in the past. The ability to earn a living is a very much protected right for our citizenry -- as it should be. What I would suggest could happen under these circumstances is that if there were a circumstance such as I just mentioned earlier, where someone was disciplined by the union, and as a result requested to be dismissed -- by the union to the employer -- that person would now be dismissed, because that's the rule. Then that individual would have the opportunity of going to the Labour Relations Board -- probably with the requirement of legal counsel -- and applying for a date to be heard in the meantime. All of this is providing that the individual has the resources to maintain their family, payments, and all of the other things that we all face in our day-to-day life, while they don't have any employment. Possibly, after a hearing of maybe more than one day, and some time for the board to deliberate on what the decision should be, that individual might be reinstated. That individual may, I suppose, have redress for the time and money lost as a result of not having worked. I suggest to the minister that a lot of the citizens of British Columbia could not withstand the financial burden of carrying it to that degree. While I respect the minister's suggestion that the availability of natural justice is something that we all should protect and all should have, in this particular case, concerning something as basic as the right to earn a living, I suspect that there should be more protection.

At the very least, if the minister cannot see his way clear to adopt this amendment, he might possibly consider an amendment to ensure that the individual could at least continue working until there was a hearing. That's the key to the thing. If there is a hearing and the decision is properly made that there was some contravention, I think that maybe there is some disciplinary action -- although I don't agree to it -- that should accrue to the rights of the union. But there is that interim period. That's the purpose of this: something as basic as the right to earn a living is being protected here. The union has many other avenues of discipline that it could use if that were the case.

Can the minister respond to that?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, employers terminate employees everyday, and there's no such protection for an employee that's fired. I don't know if the hon. member is suggesting that we should make amendments to the Employment Standards Act requiring that an employee cannot be removed from a job until such time as there has actually been a hearing by the employment standards branch for an aggrieved employee. I don't know if the hon. member is suggesting that we should make changes, let's say, to the Law and Equity Act to say that when someone brings forward a case of wrongful dismissal in court, the court should have the power to order the person reinstated at work, and that there should be an injunctive right on the part of the aggrieved employee to make an application to the court saying that they should be reinstated pending the trial being heard.

I guess I'm saying that the point the hon. member raises is interesting. But when you think through the analogies, it seems to me that the argument doesn't hold as much appeal as it may at first blush. In addition to that, when one thinks through provisions elsewhere in this legislation which require a union to comply with the provisions of natural justice and require the Labour Relations Board to tend to matters on an expedited basis, we've sent a strong signal to the Labour Relations Board that we encourage them to have hearings on a far more expedited basis than in the past. When you consider that they do have the power to order reinstatement, it seems to me that the time during which one may be suspended or unsure as to one's status is far shorter than would be the case in the examples that I cited.

[11:00]

[ Page 4130 ]

It seems to me, also, that the remedy that's available to the Labour Relations Board in terms of reinstatement is far greater than the remedy that would be available to the courts, or the remedy that would be available to someone who feels aggrieved under the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

L. Hanson: I have some difficulty in accepting that an employer's responsibility for dismissal of an employee and the effect on the employee is quite the same as this. As I understand this legislation, in the case of disciplinary action by the union, the request to dismiss the employee would be instantaneous. There's no requirement for notice and, as I understand the act, while it may be encouraged to hold expeditious hearings, it isn't necessarily written in that a certain time limit is involved. I would also like to point out to the minister that in regard to the requirement on dismissal, there are several things available to the employee. There is a requirement for notice -- either pay in lieu of notice or actual notice before that happens -- and there is also the opportunity for the employee to seek redress under wrongful dismissal policies.

It seems to me that such a basic thing could be remedied so easily, to provide some time for either an adjustment by the employee or a hearing to be held before the order became effective. The amendment that's before us would preclude the firing of an employee for reasons of disciplinary action other than non-payment of dues and other things. Maybe there's a modification of that which the minister might consider, because I think he has to accept, in fairness, that the harm to an individual under these circumstances could be severe and very traumatic.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member raises some interesting points. But remember that there is no requirement for pay in lieu of notice or for notice in cases of cause. Let's not forget that the central issue here will obviously be one of cause, and in that regard a board considering the matter will have to determine whether or not there was cause for an action taken by the union. And if there was not, then there is reinstatement and also, I take it, the potential for further orders by a board. So again, the analogy doesn't quite hold, hon. Chair.

F. Gingell: I think we come down to the conclusion that the people on this side of the House believe that the ability of a trade union to require the dismissal of an employee by an employer for a matter of dispute between that person and the trade union is an unacceptable punishment and a completely unacceptable power for the trade union to have.

Mr. Chairman, as we go through all the various amendments that we and the third party have proposed, we see a pattern of trying to bring what we believe to be fairness and democracy to Bill 84. I would like to suggest to the government and the minister that if they were to look on our amendments with more favourable eyes and consider making these changes, we would really be helping to pull them by their bootstraps out of the doldrums of acceptance by the people of Canada and British Columbia of their party and their party's policies. This morning a poll was released, and the popularity of the New Democratic Party is down to 14 percent -- only three percentage points above the Reform Party, for goodness' sake. The reason this is happening is that the NDP governments in British Columbia and Ontario are seen by the rest of Canada as being examples.... The leaders and people who set....

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, hon. Chair, I'd love to get into a debate about the relative standings of political parties, both in this province and nationally, but I don't see what that's got to do with the amendment before the House, which deals with a provision on termination and union discipline.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. The point is well taken. I would ask the member to please address the amendment.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry that I hadn't made my connection well enough.

D. Lovick: Or at all.

F. Gingell: Or at all, probably. There are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen. You are right.

We are trying to propose amendments -- as we are in this amendment to add subsection (3) to section 5 -- that we see as bringing equity and fairness to the act. We see it as inequitable, absolutely unfair and unacceptable that in a democratic country, where people have rights that they've fought and died for, a trade union can have the ability to cause the termination of the employment of an employee because of internal disciplinary actions in that trade union. We see that as being an unacceptable consequence of a dispute between a trade union and its member.

We have come close to the end of the discussion on this amendment. I really want to make the point that the refusal of the minister to recognize and accept and consider these amendments and the one-sided approach they are bringing to this legislation in order to put these kinds of draconian powers -- and they are draconian -- in the hands of trade unions is unquestionably a root cause of their lack of popularity in the polls. We would really like to help you get your popularity level up. That's what we're doing. We're offering you these amendments that would enable that to happen.

L. Fox: I rise to support the amendment. There have been lots of individual scenarios put forward to the minister as to why there is a need for this. The one issue that's bothering me substantially is that should this amendment not go through, it would allow unions to request that a member be dismissed by his employer with cause. Should that member win his appeal through the Labour Relations Board, who would be responsible for paying the back pay? Would it be the union, or would it be the employer?

[ Page 4131 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: The board has discretion to make an order based on the representations that it receives. I say that in a general way, because I don't want to prejudge what a board would do in every case. But I can tell you that there have been cases under section 7 of the current legislation where, in similar circumstances, the damages have been paid by the trade union.

L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's response. But should this amendment, which seems to give consideration and some rights to the employee as well as the employer, fail, is the minister prepared to guarantee that, where such cases occur, the liability falls on the union, not the employer?

Hon. M. Sihota: I was reading a rather remarkable note that was sent to me by someone inviting me to take the government jet on a ski trip or some silly thing like that.

If I understood your question, you are suggesting that there ought to be an amendment saying that the damages should be paid only by the trade union and not by the employer. Are you saying that there ought to be a restriction? I don't think that's necessary. And that's not to dismiss the point that you make lightly. I don't think a Labour Relations Board would dismiss a case of this nature very lightly. If harm has been caused to an individual by the actions of a party -- and let's say, in this case, a trade union -- then obviously the board has to consider the source of the harm and would logically, I would think, attach financial responsibility to the source of the harm, as opposed to a neutral third party.

If there are cases where that third party hasn't been particularly neutral, then you can see a fact pattern that puts a different complexion on it. The board should have some liberties there. But the general rule of damages in our society is that it's the party that causes the harm that pays. I don't think there's anything in this legislation that sends a signal to the board that they should rethink the general rule of damages. They have some discretion, and I don't want to fetter that discretion by any comments I make in the House. I think the logical thing is that the rule of damages, as we understand them in our society, would be the basis upon which the Labour Relations Board would behave.

[11:15]

L. Fox: I want to continue along the same trend, because it concerns me dramatically. It's not clear within the code that if the union is found to have penalized its member through asking or instructing the employer to fire that individual, and should the appeal be in favour of the employee, the total responsibility of such action falls on the union. If that is the case and given that this is new in the labour code, perhaps it might be in the best interests of those people employed within trade unions to have some mandated structure for a reserve for such situations set up within the union bargaining unit, because without those kinds of protections a union member may not have a recourse.

Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps this will give the hon. member the comfort which I think he deserves. Dealing with the powers available to the board, section 14 of the act says: "...in the case of a trade union, include a direction to reinstate a person to membership in the trade union and pay to that person (i) a sum equal to wages lost due to his or her expulsion or suspension contrary to section 10, and (ii) the amount of any penalty, levy, fee, dues or assessment imposed on him or her contrary to section 10...." So there's an explicit recognition in section 14 of the fact that there is this requirement on a trade union. I think that deals with the point that you originally raised.

With regard to an explicit provision to put aside funds, the general practice is that unions, like any other financial group, have money set aside for contingencies, and when they have been ordered to pay, they have to comply with that order. If they don't comply with the order, as happens, I guess, with businesses or individuals as much as anybody else, then there are remedies available to enforce those kinds of orders as well.

L. Fox: That certainly helps me to understand the process. I guess I would like a more definitive answer from the minister, though, with respect to the limited or no liability being placed on the employer in such situations. Being an employer of a number of individuals, I am well aware of the Employment Standards Act and the requirements made by that act. I'm concerned that this particular piece of legislation does not give the union membership the same kind of protection as the Employment Standards Act gives the non-union membership. It gives union leaders, certainly, all the strength that they need, but the individual union members seem to have lost some autonomy here rather than gained it.

Hon. M. Sihota: Under the Employment Standards Act we don't have the power to reinstate. Under this provision there are powers to reinstate an individual. It seems to me that the rights available to an individual are greater under this provision than they are under others.

W. Hurd: Just exploring that line of questioning, would the minister not agree that a more likely scenario would be for the company, in concert with the union, to fire the employee for some other cause, and if the employee then has reasoned and probable grounds to believe that it was his difficulties with the union that caused the dismissal, under the principles of natural justice he would have to pursue a case to the Labour Relations Board, or a wrongful dismissal action or some other means? How would the employee in this case pursue his suspicion that the union had somehow been involved in his dismissal and that the dismissal was in fact couched in other terms by the employer?

Hon. M. Sihota: I hope the hon. member now realizes the table to which he referred yesterday does not exist, and neither does any order for that table. I'm pleased to see that the Liberal caucus enjoys a high-

[ Page 4132 ]

quality table for their caucus meetings. Regrettably, they don't seem to have a high quality of research. I know the Minister of Finance is looking for areas to cut budgets in, and maybe....

Interjections.

C. Tanner: On a point of order, could the Chair please keep the member who is speaking in some close relationship to the subject at hand?

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I agree completely with your remarks. I think the minister has strayed somewhat and I would ask that he get back to the issue before us.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll try to do a better job restraining my tangential thoughts.

The answer to the hon. member's question lies in section 12 of the act.

W. Hurd: The minister referred earlier to the fact that the party creating the injury should bear the responsibility, so it's somewhat unfortunate that he didn't apply that same rule of law to the Bud Smith tapes affair.

But continuing the questioning, Mr. Chairman, if the employee has reason to feel that the dismissal was created by his disagreements or difficulty with the union, but the dismissal is couched in other terms, what action would the minister recommend that this particular individual take? Should he pursue his case to the Labour Relations Board to demonstrate the union's responsibility or involvement in his dismissal? Should the individual pursue his case through the employment standards branch or in the form of court action for wrongful dismissal?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member thinks it's okay to tamper with the administration of justice, then he thinks differently than I do.

With regard to the question, the aggrieved trade union member should pursue the option which protects his or her interests the best.

The Chair: If there are no other speakers, I would propose to put the question on the amendment.

[11:30]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 5 approved on division.

On section 6.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I wish to move an amendment to section 6 -- not the one that's on the order paper just yet, but another one -- which reads "that section 6 be amended by deleting subsection (3)(e)."

F. Gingell: And renumbering (f) as (e).

G. Wilson: Speaking to the amendment and the deletion of section (e), there are a couple of amendments to section 6 that we would like to move, this being the first one, because section 6(3)(e) essentially makes reference to section 68 of the bill. We've heard from the minister consistently for the last few days that if you've got protection in one part of this bill, you don't need additional language to the effect of similar protection in other sections of the bill. While we are going to speak specifically to section 68 when we get there, it is our judgment that section 6(3)(e) will create in effect a double-jeopardy situation that should not be acceptable. So we would like to delete that section and allow the provisions of section 68 to prevail. We believe that section 6(3)(e) is totally and utterly unacceptable, because it creates a number of insurmountable barriers to what will hopefully be the intent of this bill, which is for free and more harmonious labour relations. We'll deal with the matter of section 68 in a few minutes.

Let's underline one of the very grave concerns that has been expressed by the BCSTA regarding, for example, the safety of children in the B.C. schools if section 68 becomes law and section 6(3)(e) is allowed to prevail. Essentially this section underlines the more holistic nature of this new code, which relates each of the sections of one code to another. We expressed our grave concern with respect to the proposition of the definition of "employee." We have some concerns about the protection of the individual worker in this labour bill. This is one more area in which had the interpretation of "employee" been amended, that would have taken care of this concern. In light of the fact that the minister did not accept our amendments, we now have some serious concerns.

The minister has not given us any assurance that the new definition will not truncate what essentially is the 

[ Page 4133 ]

present group of excluded persons under the present interpretation of section 34 of the existing Industrial Relations Act. It becomes self-evident that if it does further restrict the exclusion of persons presently excluded by section 34 -- decisions and awards under the Industrial Relations Act -- the new meanings of section 6(3)(e) in conjunction with section 68 will create much greater problems with respect to increased confrontation and potential litigation. The only ones who are going to really benefit from this are those people involved in labour law who are going to have to try and sort out these provisions.

We also believe -- it comes back to the comment I made a moment earlier -- that management will be unable to manage the safety of the public, a plant or equipment, and there may be some considerable problems with respect to a strike. In our view, we either have to move toward an amendment of section 68, which is going to be a complex and difficult amendment to look at because of the section itself, or we can remove the double-jeopardy proposition that is in place by simply deleting section 6(3)(e) and allowing the protections that the minister requires to be maintained in section 68.

Hon. M. Sihota: The opposition has said in the past that there are some issues before the House which define the fundamental philosophical difference between the party opposite and the party in government. I suspect that with regard to the position that this government has taken on the replacement worker -- the anti-scab provisions -- there may indeed be a fundamental philosophical difference between the party opposite and the government.

I want the hon. member to understand that this government makes no apologies for bringing in anti-scab legislation in British Columbia -- none whatsoever. We feel that it's absolutely essential in this province that there not be violence or brute force on the picket lines. Therefore....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I can understand from the heckling that the members opposite think there should be strikebreakers in British Columbia and that people should be entitled to engage in violence and brute force. We've seen instances of violence in this province, but, thank God, there haven't been a lot of them. We're saying that in this legislation it's a preventive measure. We're going to make sure that violence and brute force don't find their way into British Columbia when it comes to picket lines.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. members, if they will just settle down for a moment and stop heckling, know full well that there have been examples of picket line violence in British Columbia in the past. All of us have witnessed them as we've watched television -- incidents of someone trying to cross a picket line or someone trying to take a placard to a windshield and the kind of violence that erupts as a consequence of those actions.

Hon. member, if the opposition thinks that there ought to be a place for violence in British Columbia, then they differ from the thinking of this administration. We are prepared to take preventive action to make sure that that kind of behaviour is not found in British Columbia. Through the provisions in this section, we've also declared it an unfair labour practice to do so. The hon. Leader of the Opposition somehow suggests that this means it's double jeopardy. Just because a matter is mentioned twice in legislation does not create a situation of double jeopardy, hon. member.

In addition to that, double jeopardy arises only if one is fined on two occasions with respect to the same incident. One would expect the Labour Relations Board to respect the principle -- as I'm sure they will -- that one ought not be fined twice for the same infraction. Therefore, in dealing with the provisions of this legislation and determining penalties which ought to apply, the Labour Relations Board will be mindful of that principle of double jeopardy in our society.

This amendment proposed by the party opposite is put forward, quite frankly, under the guise of some false argument with respect to double jeopardy. The position being camouflaged here is the fact that the opposition would prefer that we have a situation of violence on our picket lines in British Columbia. That is contrary to the views of the government.

For those reasons, hon. Chair, we will not support this amendment. We will not support violence and brute force on the picket lines. We will prevent those actions. We will vote against the amendment.

G. Wilson: I'm not quite sure what the minister was referring to when he suggested that anybody on this side of the House supported violence or brute force on the picket lines or anywhere else in British Columbia. And I think it's specious in the extreme for this minister to simply stand up and suggest that the Liberal opposition or, I believe, even members of the third party would advocate that there be violence or any kind of contravention of the laws of British Columbia or the laws of Canada. So let's make it very clear that the question of replacement workers is something we'll talk about more fully when we get into the section 68 questions.

What I'm talking about now, and what I want the minister to refer to, is that because the minister was unwilling to see the light on the definition of "employee," because we do not have a clearer, more defined definition and because we now find under section 6(3)(e) "use or authorize or permit the use of the services of a person in contravention of section 68," it means that once again we tip the balance more toward the rights of unionized workers and remove the potential for those people who are on the exempt side of the equation to be able to look after the interests of those people affected by the labour dispute.

Let's use an example of a high school principal. Let's use the BCSTA and their concern regarding the safety of schoolchildren if there is a teacher's strike in British Columbia, which is likely because of the inability of this 

[ Page 4134 ]

government to put an adequate and sensible process of block funding in place. We now see this problem coming out. What happens in the instance, then, if both under section 68 and section 6(3)(e) a high-school principal is required to answer telephones, which is usually work done by a striking member of a particular trade union? How does having section 68 as well as section 6(3)(e) provide for the kind of protection management has? It does not.

Let me go back. As the minister -- a lawyer -- talks about double jeopardy, let me rephrase the term so that we don't get bogged down with the strict legal definition of double jeopardy. It means that there are now two avenues whereby those kinds of issues will be raised and dealt with in the interest of those people who are in the striking unit -- that is, the bargaining unit. It does not provide the protection we require for flexibility with respect to the proposition of maintaining ongoing services in that case.

There's a much wider issue here than simply so-called scab labour. I hope the minister understands this, because I know he is a dedicated family man with children of his own who may be in school. When those schools are under labour dispute, he would want to make sure that their safety is maintained and protected by individuals who have the right to be able to cross the lines to look after the interests of students whose parents wish to send them to school.

Let's not talk about violence on the picket line. Let's talk about the sensible, necessary part of this bill that provides for a section on unfair labour practices that does not put those people in jeopardy who are required to look after the interests of the uninvolved public that may find itself negatively impacted by labour disputes.

Hon. M. Sihota: All the bluster in the world won't camouflage the intentions of the opposition with regard to this situation. The hon. member is either condoning violence on the picket lines of the province, or he has a profound misunderstanding of what's contained in the legislation that's before this House.

[11:45]

Let me amplify on the point that he raised with regard to the principal. There is nothing in this legislation that would prevent a principal from crossing a picket line at the school he works at that is being struck and answering the telephones or doing any other work at that school. If he is management at the establishment that's being struck, he's entitled to go in there and answer the telephones, hon. member. If you have even a basic understanding of what's contained in this legislation, you should know that. It seems to me that you either lack that understanding or you somehow want to encourage violence on the picket lines in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, order.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll conclude on this point. If the hon. member....

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, the members opposite have been extremely tolerant of the fact that this minister simply refuses to go through the Chair and continues to engage in personal assault. I would ask the Chair to call the member to order and ensure that he follows the rules of the House, like everyone else.

The Chair: The rules certainly should be adhered to by all members in the House, and I would ask the minister to take that under advisement.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll conclude on this point. If the hon. member is sincere about wanting to prevent violence on the picket lines of British Columbia, he should withdraw this amendment.

G. Wilson: Once again it seems to me that the rhetoric this minister is putting forward is unbelievable. This minister is suggesting that if we in fact have an amendment that removes the potential to tip the balance in favour of a bargaining unit, to be able to provide greater flexibility for ongoing service during a labour dispute.... This is notwithstanding the fact that we would recognize that if there is a bargaining unit that's on strike, it's undesirable for there to be any kind of violence. Good lord, none of us in this House, I hope, would advocate violence anywhere in society, let alone on a picket line.

But the fact is we're not talking about that, and I think it's important that this minister stop blustering on that question and get down to the specifics of the language of the bill. He talks about the high school principal. Let's ask about the same work stoppage, then, on the question of the superintendent of schools, or how about if within a particular district there is a need to move a district principal, somebody serving a wider region, to provide those services?

What we're saying in the simple amendment here is that through the deletion of (e) we keep consistent, and we're trying to do this minister a favour. We are consistent with his ongoing argument that if you have protections provided in one section of this bill, you don't need to have them somewhere else. What it does is tip the balance in terms of the language that is there to protect not only those people that are involved in the union but also those people who are innocent bystanders affected by a labour dispute.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member makes a number of points; and makes some points about superintendents. We'll deal with that issue when we get to section 68. That's the time and place to deal with that issue. The honest truth of the matter here is, hon. Chair, that the hon. member does not want any reference, any reference, in this legislation with regard to replacement workers. Well, we say uncategorically that scabs will not be allowed to cross picket lines in this province. The hon. member doesn't want anti-scab legislation; we're 

[ Page 4135 ]

prepared to proceed with anti-scab provisions. The hon. member is raising this issue at this point....

J. Tyabji: On a point of order, hon. Chair, the minister is obviously talking about something not relevant to the debate. The debate is on our amendment: to remove section 6(3)(e). It is not on section 68 and it is not on replacement workers per se; it's on our amendment. If the minister would stick to the amendment, that would be very helpful.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. All members should take those remarks under advisement.

G. Wilson: This becomes a little bit frustrating when the minister is more interested in trying to tell the Leader of the Opposition what he really is trying to say rather than listening to what he is indeed saying. Let me also say that it'll be interesting to see that the minister has said that he is going to state in an uncategorical way, rather than in a categorical way. This leaves some room hopefully for some amendment after all.

Let's perhaps look at the question of what we do if we don't amend 6(3)(e), but in fact leave it all for the debate on section 68. What we're saying here is that if we don't pull 6(3)(e) out of there, given any kind of amendment, we may find -- and hopefully this minister is going to see the light -- that they'll simply be able to back up and go through section 6(3)(e). That is what we're saying needs to be clear in this bill: that we can simply eliminate this.

It does not mean we're going to eliminate the potential to stop scab labour in British Columbia, nor would we in the Liberal opposition have any objection to fair labour laws that would protect the right of the worker during a strike. We all are in favour of doing that. But the minister must accept that if we do not remove and delete section 6(3)(e), essentially any amendments that we may get under section 68 will be diluted by the fact that this section still exists.

Hon. M. Sihota: No matter what amendment we make to section 68, I want the hon. member to understand that there will be anti-scab legislation in British Columbia. We may or may not make an amendment. It will be an unfair labour practice to engage replacement workers in British Columbia. The issue here is very simple. Regardless of what the hon. member says, the issue is that the hon. member opposite does not want any reference to anti-scab provisions in this legislation. The answer from the government is very clear: there will be anti-scab provisions in this legislation. Hear me loud and clear: there will be anti-scab provisions.

G. Wilson: I now understand the notion of two people talking past each other and neither hearing what the other is saying. I recognize that the minister is saying he wants to fulfil his obligation to the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour regarding anti-scab provisions. We understand that. We understand that this is part of a deal that has been cut, and we know that's there. We don't have unrealistic expectations about what we can do -- because of the deals that have been cut by this government with people who have been directing their labour policy.

Let it be very clear that the Liberal opposition understands also that if we have a bill such as we have before us now which protects workers who are in a legal strike position from having their individual rights eroded under that legal strike protection, that's a desirable thing, because it sets the parameters and guidelines for all people.

However, we must understand -- and hopefully the minister will understand this and not simply say that we don't want any reference to an unfair labour practice that would make scab labour illegal -- that there are some realities of maintaining, operating and running a business with respect to exempt employees, especially those who may be coming from off-site because they are in the employment of a company or a school district and have to move from one section to the other. We are saying to this minister that if you are going to put in place fairness for the worker, which we will all accept, you have to also recognize that you must put in place equal fairness to those who are on the exempt side of the equation and particularly for people who are non-unionized -- the average woman and man in British Columbia and their children -- and put in place some protection for those individuals by removing section 6(3)(e). In an eventual amendment, when we get to section 68, we simply won't allow this to become a second process by which the same problem that I'm alluding to now can and will be dealt with. It's a simple amendment that the minister surely has to understand is in the interests of all British Columbians.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should heed the advice of his own Labour critic, who stood up a few minutes ago and objected to the fact that I was talking about section 68. Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition proceeds to talk about the provisions of section 68. If you want to talk about outside people coming in, we'll deal with that issue when we get to section 68, because that's what section 68 is all about, hon. member. You don't seem to understand that very basic point.

This is not a case of trying to satisfy the B.C. Federation of Labour or the B.C. Business Council. This is a case of making the right public policy decision and acting in the public interest. It is in the public interest to ensure that there is no violence on the picket lines of British Columbia, and that it be deemed an unfair labour practice to engage the services of a strikebreaker to bring about that kind of violence.

The hon. member is opposed to anti-scab legislation in this province. That's why he wants this section amended. That's why this section won't be changed, hon. Chair.

Given the hour, I move the committee rise....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

[ Page 4136 ]

J. Tyabji: On a point of order. Hon. Chair, I think the opposition has been extremely patient with this minister on his repeated diversions from what is at issue. On every section of this bill and on every amendment to this bill he still does not understand that we are speaking on an amendment. Perhaps he doesn't understand....

The Chair: Order, please, hon. member. That is not a point of order.

J. Tyabji: Yes, it is.

Hon. M. Sihota: It is with great regret that I see the hon. House Leader for the Liberal Party questioning the decision of the Chair, who pointed out that what she was saying was not in order.

Hon. Chair, in order to give some time and comfort to the members opposite to consider the arguments they've been putting forward, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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