Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1992

Volume 6, Number 21

[ Page 4221 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise today to pay tribute to a great figure on the British Columbia political landscape, Mr. Frank Ney, who, unfortunately, passed away this morning. I knew Frank very well -- and I think a number of us in this House remember Frank -- not only from my involvement as a mayor, but as a member of a city council for a number of years.

He had a remarkable political career. He was mayor for 21 years in Nanaimo. He also served a term in this House as an MLA. During the time that he was mayor or a member of this House, and also as a private citizen, Frank Ney's main characteristic was his untiring and enthusiastic boosterism in the best sense: of being proud of his community and of bringing thousands of people together to have that same pride, with colour, character and a certain flamboyance. He is remembered not for wearing a chain of office but for wearing a pirate's outfit. I remember him coming a number of times to the Vancouver City Council chamber and dragooning me into coming to Nanaimo for a weekend of merriment that was supported by a very incredible grass-roots organization, the Loyal Nanaimo Bathtub Society, which brought people from all over the world to know British Columbia. Of course, in his own unique way, he was finding a way to promote Nanaimo and British Columbia.

Though he spent most of his political career tasting victory, even when he lost he did it with a twinkle and good humour. I remember when he was defeated in his final bid for mayor in 1990. I think we should all realize that this is one of the great benefits of our system of government, but Frank put it as only he could, in colourful but effective language. He said: "In South America they shoot the old mayor when they want a new one. I prefer this system."

Hon. Speaker, today British Columbians realize that we've lost a rare political figure, and I'm sure we'll all pass on our condolences and best wishes to Mayor Ney's extensive and fine family. I know we will never see another one like Frank Ney.

G. Wilson: We echo the sentiments of the Premier with respect to the great loss that British Columbia has faced with the passing of Mayor Frank Ney.

Mayor Ney and I first met during my involvement in municipal politics, when I sat on the executive of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. I had an opportunity to deal firsthand with the municipality of Nanaimo, as well as the companion municipalities that make up that organization. Mayor Ney was certainly a very colourful mayor, to say the least. I think the colour and exuberance that he showed for his community, as the Premier has alluded to, is something that will be warmly remembered by not only the constituents of Nanaimo but also all those who came in contact with him. As a politician, he was an individual who had tremendous longevity. When many decided that he had run his course and his time was up, he would rebound and come back again.

There are very few among us who have given their life service to the people of this province, both at the provincial level as an MLA and also to the members of their constituency, but Mayor Ney certainly was one who did. I think all members should send their heartfelt sorrow to the family for the loss of Mayor Ney, but should also rejoice in a life that was very much a part of British Columbia's history.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly would join the Premier and Leader of the Opposition by expressing our deep regrets at the passing of Frank Ney. He was a very colourful British Columbian, who was truly a champion of his province and the community he lived in. He was someone who served his community both as a mayor and an MLA, as has been indicated, and someone whom I think British Columbians generally were very fond of.

I think all three of us speak for British Columbians when we express our regret at the passing of Frank Ney. Perhaps it would be appropriate at this time if the Legislature were to send a letter of condolences to his family expressing our deep regret at his passing.

The Speaker: On behalf of the House, the Chair will ensure that a letter goes to the family of Frank Ney.

V. Anderson: It's my pleasure to welcome to the House a visitor, Donald Beckett, who was with me in high school many years ago. Originally from Nippewan, Saskatchewan, he now lives in Ottawa. Please join me in welcoming Don to the Legislature.

R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure to introduce to the House two people from my constituency in Peace River North, Jim and Margaret Little. Jim is here to be recognized for his 25 years of service to the government of British Columbia -- and, I might add, very excellent service. Would the House make them truly welcome.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like the House to welcome constituents of Point Grey -- or former constituents; some have moved away to Bowen Island -- Tim Higgs, Andrea Smith and Ross Johnson, all of whom are teachers at Langara.

H. Giesbrecht: It's one of those rare occasions that I have someone to introduce from my constituency. In the precincts today is Mr. Denis Griffiths from Terrace who's here to be recognized for his 25 years of service as a government employee. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Dalton: One of the previous members has acknowledged some of the Langara faculty here, but I would like to acknowledge some of my colleagues in particular. I unfortunately had to do so yesterday. My colleagues informed me that today they're here on a field trip -- perhaps. I'm hoping, however, that I will not have to acknowledge their presence again on Thursday of this week. Would the House please make them welcome.

[ Page 4222 ]

Hon. A. Petter: It's my great pleasure today to introduce a group of students visiting from my constituency. I understand there are approximately 60 grade 11 students from Reynolds Secondary School who are here to see how the Legislature works -- or doesn't, as the case may be. As part of that, hon. Speaker, they'll have the chance to witness some of their classmates, who are also from Reynolds School, acting as Pages. We have a new contingent for the fall sitting. I'd ask the House to make all of the Reynolds students welcome, including the Pages.

L. Fox: It's my privilege this afternoon to introduce an individual from Prince George, Mr. Howard Lloyd, whom many of you will know served this Legislature in the late sixties. Would the House please make him welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
TO CANADIAN AIRLINES

G. Wilson: My question today is to the Minister of Finance. The workers of the Canadian airlines industry are anxiously awaiting, in light of Mr. Corbeil's press release, a statement from you today as to whether or not this province is prepared to pick up the challenge offered by the federal government to assist in a successful resolution of this question. Will the minister tell us what he has in mind with respect to the announcements made in Ottawa today?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, it's important to note that there hasn't been a challenge from the federal government. The federal government has acknowledged for the first time that they have a role to play in trying to find a solution to this very difficult problem in the air transportation industry in Canada. They have agreed to provide $50 million, which will keep Canadian Airlines alive for a couple of months only. But it is a sign. It gives us two months in which to work out a solution. Officials from my ministry are meeting in Calgary with officials from Alberta, Manitoba and other provinces as we speak. Federal government officials are joining them this afternoon. We're working on the details of it.

I want to make one other important point, and that is that the federal government has acknowledged for the first time that re-regulation in some form may be required to deal with the airline industry in Canada. That is a positive sign.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Leader of the third party.

G. Wilson: Excuse me?

The Speaker: I'm sorry. Apologies from the Chair. Leader of the official opposition.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I knew that politics in British Columbia was volatile and subject to sudden change, but I didn't think it was that sudden.

A supplementary to the Minister of Finance. We are likewise delighted that the federal government has finally acknowledged that re-regulation is necessary. Can the minister tell us, however, what the final line is with respect to the federal government's position that would initiate this government's final involvement in terms of dollars committed to this project? Or is it simply going to allow the initial offer to stand? Is this government prepared to take an additional initiative in light of what came down in Ottawa today?

Hon. G. Clark: We have consistently maintained and continue to maintain that we are prepared to be flexible if it's part of a solution which shows the federal government's commitment to solving the problem and if the lead role is taken by the federal government. We'll certainly be prepared to be constructive in that regard.

The current proposal does not contemplate significantly increased resources from the provincial government. Even the federal government's early response is that they are contemplating working on the banks in terms of their interest in keeping this airline alive and continuing discussions with the employees and the provincial governments. But there has been no demand from the federal government that the provinces dramatically increase their offer, nor obviously have we suggested that. We're not particularly interested in that, but we are prepared to keep discussing it with them. We're prepared to be flexible provided it's part of a solution which leads to the long-run viability of that airline in Canada and which requires the federal government to take a lead role.

JOB CREATION IN B.C.

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in the House the opposition asked a question of the Premier about statistics from the Finance ministry which confirmed that of 16,000 new jobs created in British Columbia during October, 11,000 were civil service jobs and 4,000 were hamburger-flipping service industry jobs. We didn't get an answer then; perhaps I can ask the minister now. Of the 11,000 civil service jobs created, how many were actually provincial bureaucrats?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll be delighted to give the member details of answers to that question. We haven't worked out the details, but let me give you some short, general comments.

First of all, in the public sector generally, my sense is that there was probably no increase at all in terms of provincial government jobs. However, there was some shifting. For example, there was a decline in the number of jobs in the hospital sector, the institutional sector, but there was an increase in the number of jobs in the community care sector. What that means, it's important to point out, is that when they move into the community care sector they go on the books as government employees, and when they are in the hospital sector they are theoretically outside the ambit of government. So when you net it out, when you review those kinds of changes along with cuts in other ministries -- like the 

[ Page 4223 ]

Highways budget and the like, and the smaller number of people involved in highway construction -- my sense is that there has probably been a wash in terms of the net impact. If you count population growth, there may be some growth in line with population.

The announcement made today in terms of a vacancy freeze of over 1,100 jobs over the course of the remainder of this year and leading into the next budget clearly indicates that there is no appetite on the part of this administration for huge increases in government employment, particularly in our current fiscal environment.

W. Hurd: These figures are provided by the Ministry of Finance, which is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has left.

Perhaps I can ask the minister if he intends to revisit these 11,000 hirings during the month of October in light of his announcement today to make a real effort to control the size of what appears to be a bloated provincial civil service in this province.

Hon. G. Clark: This is one of those spend-less days again. It's the same thing every day. Every other day members of the Liberal Party ask us to spend more, and they want us to spend more in every sector -- except when it comes to certain areas. I'm keeping track, and I know the public is keeping track of this. We'll certainly remind members opposite of it. We'll keep a tally of it. I'll inform the members opposite of all of their spending requests over the years and how there certainly would be significantly more employment in the public sector if we had followed their advice.

DECREASE IN EXPORTS TO JAPAN

W. Hurd: I find it troubling that the Minister of Finance doesn't know anything about his own statistics. So perhaps I can ask the Premier a question.

Yesterday in this House the Premier described the need for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation to be under the auspices of the Premier's office. Given that the Premier is now responsible for trade and that the Premier himself has travelled to Japan, what explanation does he have for an actual decrease of 2.8 percent in exports to Japan so far in this fiscal year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I'm glad to see that the member opposite thinks that British Columbia has that great an influence on the Japanese economy. I'm pleased he thinks this Legislature has that much control over the drop in real estate prices in Tokyo and I'm delighted he has that sense of the impact that the province has.

If he wants to talk about the fall-off in the Japanese economy, if he wants to talk about the decreases in the prices of commodities that have affected the value of B.C.'s exports to Japan, then I'm prepared to do that. But if he's going to make these facile comparisons, they're not going to be of much help to this government when we are out genuinely trying to increase exports for the people of British Columbia rather than answering silly questions like that.

COST OF NEW BRIDGES
IN KOOTENAYS

L. Hanson: Now that I've heard the Premier's comments on his trip to Japan I have a question for the Premier.

Recently the Ministry of Transportation and Highways authorized the construction of two new concrete bridges in the Kootenays, specifically at Cody Creek and Bonanza Creek. The cost of the bridges was in excess of half a million dollars. The Arrow Lakes News called the decision completely bonkers. The question to the Premier is: when his government is crying that huge deficits and lack of money are a terrible problem in the province, why would the government spend $500,000 on bridges in the middle of nowhere that lead to nowhere?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I thought the member was describing his own question, but I will take that question on notice for the Minister of Highways.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE
OF ROAD TO HELMET GAS FIELD

L. Hanson: I have a new question, then, to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Recently the ministry has backed away from any responsibility for the maintenance of a road in northern British Columbia called Desan Road. It leads to the Helmet gas field, which provides about $40 million annually to the provincial coffers. I'd like to have an explanation from the minister, if possible, as to why, in light of spending $500,000 on a road that goes to the member from Nelson's residence.... [Laughter.]

The Speaker: Hon. member, just state your question.

L. Hanson: Would the minister please advise us who has responsibility for the road that leads to the gas fields?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure whether the....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could the minister just hold until we have order in the House? Please proceed.

Hon. A. Edwards: The member probably knows, if he thinks about it, that the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road is a resource road. It is not currently funded by the Minister of Highways. However, it doesn't fit into the pattern of how resource roads are run. We are looking at it and discussing it with the industry and the Minister of Highways, and we hope to come soon to some agreement on how to finance the maintenance of that road in the fairest way possible.

[ Page 4224 ]

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES UNEMPLOYMENT

L. Stephens: My question is to the Premier. Before the NDP came into power, unemployment in the primary industries was 11.4 percent. It is now the highest of all the industries, at 19.3 percent. What was this government's plan to find new employment for British Columbians, and why did it fail -- or did this government simply not have a plan at all?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think that most members of this House are aware of the fact that our primary industries are facing some difficulties. I think they're also aware that in the primary industries in this province, prices are not determined by the Legislature, by the members of this government or by the opposition. They are determined by world commodity prices.

What this government has done is increase public investment in infrastructure projects to over $2 billion this year, which is providing work for construction workers in the private sector like never before. In these difficult times we are making sure that we trim our budget while maintaining basic essential services. But we're getting on with the optimistic future that this province has. We're investing in infrastructure in British Columbia -- in new schools, hospitals and universities. When the commodity prices turn around, those revenues will start to help us reduce and cap the deficit even further.

L. Stephens: If the Premier doesn't know it, the lumber industry is doing quite well right now, thank you very much.

Over the same year, the number of cases on income assistance and GAIN has risen to 173,000, up by almost 20,000 from last year alone. When the government decimated the mining industry -- and it's now turning to the forest sector -- did it have a plan to help dislocated workers retrain, or was it content to lock British Columbians into the welfare cycle?

VICTORIA VOCATIONAL COLLEGE

C. Serwa: My question is to the Premier. Your government continues to pay lip service to caring for little people. In the case of Victoria Vocational College, $225,000 would keep programs going for those with mental handicaps and learning disabilities, programs that enable them to take their rightful place with access into the workplace. Has the Premier decided to overturn the hasty and imprudent decision of his Minister of Advanced Education and provide the necessary funding for Victoria Vocational College?

[2:30]

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is, indeed, a very unfortunate situation. The federal government funding for this program has been pulled out. They have once again tried to off-load more of the costs of these services onto B.C. taxpayers. I would hope that the member opposite for Okanagan West would be more concerned about the $1.6 billion off-loaded by the federal government, rather than being an apologist for the Tory government.

JOB CREATION IN B.C.

Hon. G. Clark: I rise to answer a question taken on notice by the Premier yesterday on my behalf. A similar question was asked today. I've just been advised that during 1991, employment in the provincial component of public administration averaged 33,000 persons, exactly the same level as reported in October of this year. The statistics were referred to by the member. So in spite of the fact that we have about 700 more people working in the community health care sector, the total number of employees of government has not risen at all over one year.

COST OF RENOVATIONS
TO NDP CAUCUS OFFICES

Hon. L. Boone: I rise to respond to a question taken on notice on your behalf, hon. Speaker. On Wednesday, November 18, the member for Surrey-White Rock asked how much was spent refurbishing the government caucus rooms in this building. One year ago this month the people of British Columbia elected a record number of New Democrats to represent them in the Legislature. Hon. Speaker, there was no existing room large enough for all of our caucus to meet together....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! One moment, minister. Would the House come to order so that we could listen to the minister's reply to the question taken on notice.

Hon. L. Boone: Structural changes to create one room from several small offices cost $174,000. We also needed a table for our work, but rather than ordering an ornate, expensive table, we merely put together some Arborite tables with folding legs, and that is what our caucus is making do with.

Orders of the Day

REFERRAL OF NAFTA
TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. G. Clark: I call motion 66, standing in the name of the Minister of Economic Development. For the benefit of the House, I would be prepared to move the motion, read it for the record, and then there may be some debate.

"Be it resolved that the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology be empowered to examine the implications for the economies of British Columbia and Canada of the North American free trade agreement (NAFTA) initialled by Canada, the United States and Mexico on October 7, 1992.

[ Page 4225 ]

"That the committee report to the House as soon as possible or, following any adjournments, or prorogation, at the next following session.

"In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the committee by the House, the committee shall have the following additional powers, namely:

"1. To appoint committee members to one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;

"2. To sit from place to place while the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session, and during any sitting of the House; and

"3. To employ personnel as required to assist the committee."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I rise in support of the motion. Whether or not you agree with the North American free trade agreement, or whether or not it's a good deal for British Columbia, I think there is one thing on which we will all agree: British Columbians have had insufficient time to review the details of the agreement. The members opposite refer to Bill 84. There have been days of debate and months of input and consultation on that subject. On reading the Blues from yesterday, the urgency of this is apparently not obvious to all members of the Legislature, but the intention of the federal government is crystal clear.

The Minister of International Trade has stated that his government intends to introduce legislation early in the new year, long before the federal government faces an election. Brian Mulroney needs a strong message from the people of British Columbia that he should not implement and ratify this agreement prior to public debate on its merits. The federal process now under way doesn't provide either the time or resources for full and vigorous debate on the merits of NAFTA.

While the House of Commons committee charged with reviewing the deal is speeding through hearings on a shoestring budget, they have virtually no money for advertising and have declared an interest in holding five regional hearings. That's all. But the Minister of International Trade is spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on promoting the Mulroney vision and version of prosperity and tracking opponents of the NAFTA deal, so we're not seeing an encouragement of debate on the subject in the federal arena.

This motion to refer NAFTA to the select standing committee will provide British Columbians with a vehicle to debate the merits of NAFTA and to hear evidence from all sectors of society. I urge all members to support the motion.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise to speak to this motion, even though it's being generated and put forward by the federal NDP. I am pleased to see that this government recognizes the importance of trade to our province. Yesterday all members of this House -- particularly on the opposition side -- spent the whole day trying to point that out to members opposite. Members of the Liberal opposition are happy to have the opportunity to discuss with the people of British Columbia the merits of more liberalized trade, and we look forward to participating in this new standing committee on a subject important to British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak against the motion. I believe that British Columbia has a number of pressing problems that fall within the purview of this government. Indeed, this government has more -- or should have more -- issues on its plate than trying to involve itself in the distraction of talking about the NAFTA, which is currently being studied by the federal parliament.

There is indeed, as the member has said, a committee travelling around Canada seeking input from Canadians -- and British Columbians -- on this issue. The minister criticizes the lack of budget that the federal process has, the same minister who was critical of the federal government for not giving enough money to the province.

We hear the Minister of Finance talk about whether it's a spend day or a save day for the opposition, and it seems to me that this government is caught in the same kind of contradiction. I would encourage this government and this minister, if he understands the economic issues in this province, to tackle those that are within the purview of this government and deal with the problems of British Columbia with the resources that this government has at its beck and call. I don't want to see us involved in a distraction that helps this government support Audrey McLaughlin in her re-election or election bid. I guess it would be re-election, considering the difficulty that she's having with her own caucus.

As I've said before, there are provincial issues -- obviously more provincial issues than this government is capable of handling -- and they should not waste their resources. They should concentrate their efforts and the efforts of this minister and his ministry on the very real economic problems in British Columbia. So we will be voting against the motion.

A. Warnke: Just a very brief note. Even if I wanted to be sympathetic, the fact is that raising this motion, as was done yesterday, was flirting a bit with the respect one has to have for the federal system of government. There are matters that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government; there are matters of exclusive jurisdiction to the provincial government. Out of respect for the federal process, it is therefore absolutely necessary to reconsider this matter.

I think the government should seriously consider this. Any provincial issues or policies.... If the provincial government takes this step and essentially interferes with the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, could we not set a precedent? Where would that government be if the national Parliament debated or referred something to a select standing committee that was the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial government? How would they like it if the national Parliament debated something with regard to our educational curriculum, labour legislation or native settlements? The government really ought to consider this.

[ Page 4226 ]

C. Serwa: I'm pleased to rise on this occasion and speak in the strongest terms and object to the motion that the minister has brought forward. It is clearly an intervention in an area that the provincial government doesn't have a real say in. Just as clearly, the matter shows the complete abdication of the government in power -- the socialists -- for concern about the economy of this province, which is something that they should be able to so something about.

As certain as we heard from the students of Langara college who have been shortchanged, and as certain as we heard from the students of Victoria Vocational College who are being shortchanged, the provincial economy is being drained because of a union bias. If this government is concerned about economy, they should be concerned about an economy that they have direct control over. All they're trying to do is distract the focus of British Columbians from the dismal performance of the government of the day.

It's a patent abuse of public funds, of tax dollars, to send a committee to go all over the province. I can write the report that's going to come forward exactly. The report will say what the strategists in Ottawa, hired by Audrey McLaughlin, want them to say. It's sheer hypocrisy on the part of the government and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to keep my comments brief, but for the record, I don't understand how this government has consistently mishandled its own agenda. We first ended up debating the substance of NAFTA in October, and then as recently as yesterday we had the whole issue come before the House. We spent a lot of time on it. This motion should have been before the House before we went to all the trouble of going into debate and spending the time of the House, and then it could have come to the House.

So I hope the government will get this straight: first you take it to the committee, then it comes to the House, and at that point we can have a lot of very constructive debate. We support the idea of taking it to the select standing committee. It should have gone there in the first place, and we hope the government has the common sense to bring it back to this House before we end up wrapping it up. It doesn't make any sense, but it is consistent with the way they've handled their scheduling so far.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Before I recognize the next speaker, the Chair is having difficulty hearing the debate, because there seem to be several other conversations going on in the House at the same time.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think we're making a very clear point to the government that the process that should be followed -- if they choose to delve into the federal jurisdiction, and if they feel it's so important that it be done -- is going to the legislative standing committee, before we waste our time on two days of debate in the House when we should have been debating Bill 84.

We have repeatedly asked this government -- on Bill 71, again on Bill 84 and on other bills, for that matter -- to refer pertinent issues relative to British Columbia politics to legislative standing committees so that they may do public consultation and gather public information in order to ensure that the debate is furthered.

[2:45]

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Labour is interjecting over here, and hurling insults and comments as he normally does, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Address the motion, please, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am debating, and I am addressing the motion to refer this issue to a legislative standing committee.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the Minister of Municipal Affairs would choose, for once in this House, to engage in a debate in some meaningful capacity, I'd be glad to take my seat and have him do so. The reality is that he refuses to do so....

The Speaker: Order, please. I would call the House to order and remind the hon. member to address his comments to the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I am addressing my comments to the Chair. It's....

H. Giesbrecht: Point of order. Hon. Speaker, if the member would read standing order 9, it makes it very clear that a Speaker's ruling is not debatable. He's also not relevant, and I would urge the Speaker to charge him with staying relevant.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair can only remind the House once again that we are debating motion 66. I have asked the other hon. members in the House to come to order, and I have asked the hon. member who has the floor to address the motion and to address the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: It is quite clear that the government has on numerous occasions in this House simply refused to refer issues to legislative standing committees that are of vital importance to this province and which certainly are within the jurisdictions of this government. So I find it somewhat hypocritical, and perhaps somewhat confusing, that the government picks and chooses certain issues. The reality is that we can clearly say that today is the beginning of Audrey McLaughlin's re-election campaign, and this is the first day of the federal election campaign in British Columbia. This motion referring it to a legislative standing committee....

Interjections.

[ Page 4227 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't have a problem with it going to a legislative standing committee. I think that public consultation is something we should have on an ongoing basis. I have some concerns, as does the member for Richmond-Steveston, that we're delving into an area of federal jurisdiction, but if it will help to enlighten the people of this province and members opposite as to the impact of free trade agreements, I have no problem with it. In fact, I think it's fine to do that. But it would be nice to see the same sort of enthusiasm from this government when we try to refer other matters on various areas to standing committees. That is the direction the government should be taking. I hope they take their own advice in future and consult on a broad range of issues that concern the province, not just the issues that will help the federal wing of their party get re-elected.

F. Garden: It amazes me to listen to the opposition at this point in time when they didn't want to go along with the government yesterday in asking the federal government to slow down something they were rushing through. I heard the opposition House Leader give us a lecture on process. Surely anyone in the opposition benches would realize that to send something to committee while action was pending on the federal scene and this House hadn't taken a position on it would have been ludicrous. We can now send our position, as was adopted the other day, to the federal government, and get to work in asking the people of B.C. their opinions on this agreement. It further surprises me that time after time we heard this opposition say that we need to do this and we need to do that, but now they're ridiculing us, the government side, for giving them that exact opportunity. They've got to decide which way the wind is blowing. They can't have it both ways. I would suggest, instead of them playing crass political games with this important subject....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

F. Garden: The previous agreement has thrown hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work. If they don't think that's important to the people of B.C., then their naivety is worse than I thought.

R. Neufeld: I also rise to speak against motion 66. I'm on another committee that's dealing with problems within the forest industry in the province. We've had direction from the government to reduce spending in that committee because we don't have enough money to really do the job we should. That has something to do with the economy in British Columbia. That's what this government can do: deal with the problems we have in British Columbia.

There is a federal government to deal with federal issues. If this ministry wants to get involved -- and they probably should -- they should be involved with the federal government staff to find out what's going on. They have a diary. They have a position that they're taking to kick off Audrey McLaughlin's re-election campaign. I might add that she's down to 14 percent. It's no wonder that they're trying to work for her. We heard the member for Cariboo North talk about crass political gain. I guess it's crass political gain. My goodness, what else could you class it as? This government has problems in British Columbia and should be looking at those problems in British Columbia; they should be letting the federal government deal with their problems.

They continually talk about how terrible the feds are. Every time there's a problem with this government, they shuffle it off on the Social Credit, until finally nobody would listen to that. Now they're going to shuffle it off on the federal government. Next thing you know they'll be telling us it's Nova Scotia's problem. I don't know where they're going. At some time they're going to have to drive the bus and take responsibility.

I speak against motion 66.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Obviously the back bench is getting restless. They have to be. We're going to start another committee that will travel around the province and spend however many dollars. I have no problem whatsoever with public input, but I don't think that at this time we should be agreeing to Motion 66 and with the Minister of Economic Development. He's got a tremendous job to do in British Columbia in trying to get investment into British Columbia. But how can he do that? He has to put it off to the side a little and deal with NAFTA.

The real problem is Bill 84. That's what's wrong in British Columbia. This government has tried to deflect the problems that Bill 84 will create in our economy with things such as NAFTA. When the House was called to order, the first issue of the day was NAFTA. We were called back here to discuss the labour bill, but the first issue on the first day was dealing with NAFTA. I missed yesterday, but obviously yesterday was spent dealing with NAFTA.

This past weekend I was in Fort St. John, and it's very interesting that Mr. Ken Georgetti, a person from the Canadian Labour Congress....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I have to remind the hon. member that we are discussing Motion 66. Please address your comments to the motion, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: Okay, I'm going to. They do involve the motion, because what those people were doing in Fort St. John was a rally opposing NAFTA. It's exactly the same thing that this minister talks about. Obviously Mr. Georgetti has told this minister what to say. I guess the word is coming down from on high that we're going to have a federal election soon, so we'd better get on the bandwagon.

Hon. Speaker, there's no way that we in this party can support forming another committee to travel the province of British Columbia when we're already overloaded with committees. We're spending far too much money on committees, and that's a fact. I just 

[ Page 4228 ]

came from a meeting last week that said we have to slow down because we don't have the money to travel around the province and look at the things that are really happening in British Columbia. This minister should be ashamed that he stands up in this House and wants to spend more money on that. In fact, it's so bad that they can't even keep the accounts up to date to pay for committees' travels in the province of British Columbia. That's a fact, hon. Speaker.

There is no way that we in this party can support this. That's in the federal purview and should be left to the federal government. That minister's staff should work with that government for the betterment of British Columbia -- not run all over British Columbia trying to find out what they can put into a report for a spring election. With that, hon. Speaker, I'd like to take my place.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I would dearly like to support this motion. Inasmuch as I agree with the comments made by the member for Peace River North -- because I think he made some excellent comments -- when I look at our role as legislators, which is to deal with issues of importance to our province, it is clear that the North American free trade agreement could have a tremendous impact on the province of British Columbia. There's no question about that. Therefore a motion that seeks to refer this matter to the standing committee on economic development to look at the implications on the economy of our province would appear to have some merit to me -- except that we have some problems here.

Yesterday we had a debate in the House. What was that all about? Why were we debating NAFTA yesterday and taking a vote on the matter? Were we prejudging the work of a committee? I certainly hope not. We support the notion that select standing committees of this House should be working, and that as legislators we should be reviewing matters of importance to our province. That's crucial to our role here, and we seek to do that. But what I would look for from the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade -- and this is very important to me as a legislator -- when he closes debate on this referral motion is to give his assurance that the government is not prejudging the NAFTA question, and that the government members on a legislative committee reviewing the implications of NAFTA on the economy of British Columbia will have the freedom to examine that question dispassionately with some objectivity, and to come up with conclusions in a report that do not blindly follow party line or party dogma, but do a good job on this matter on behalf of all the citizens of British Columbia. If the minister can do that when he closes debate, surely hon. Speaker, I'd be prepared to support this referral motion.

H. De Jong: I should state at the outset that I'm not supporting the motion on the floor for the simple reason that I don't think the people of British Columbia need another political boondoggle in terms of a committee going around the province to discuss the NAFTA. I think the people have had enough of this nonsense. In fact, they've stated it on a number of occasions already.

If this government -- and the Minister of Economic Development in particular, who has put this motion on the floor -- was indeed interested in working toward meeting the challenges of the NAFTA, and if that was the intent of this motion, I would probably support it. I think we would all support that. But I don't see that in this motion. If that was the intent, why was there a debate yesterday afternoon in this House? What was the purpose of debating it before this resolution? Surely this is just a political ploy, and the reasons have been mentioned by several others.

I believe the Minister of Economic Development, like all members of cabinet on the other side or on the government back benches, knows very well that if we are to meet the challenges of the NAFTA, in which we have no choice, we ought to make changes in our whole system of government as to how to meet this. We don't need more bureaucracy; we don't need more taxes; we don't need more regulations. What we need is a realistic look at how business can achieve their goals and survive in a strong economic community, particularly on the larger scale.

[3:00]

Hon. Speaker, I'm amazed that this government would spend the money on what I can see as a non-event in terms of assisting the people of British Columbia, when I believe the only purpose is to serve their own political ends.

L. Hanson: I, of course, will speak against the motion, and I have some fairly good reasons for speaking against the motion. If this government were legitimate in their concerns about the North American free trade agreement and about the concerns that this province has and will have about its ability to compete in an international market, that committee would be sent around the province to look at the impact of Bill 84 on our ability to compete -- not a motivation that will help their federal counterparts in the election that is obviously coming up.

It's almost as candid as the process they used to develop Bill 84. It's almost as clear that the motivation has nothing to do with NAFTA and its impact on British Columbia.

I've heard mentioned in this House several times that $200,000 or $225,000 are issues that stop something from happening in our education system or something else. Here we have a government suggesting that they are going to send another committee around the province at many hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to determine nothing, but to show support for their federal leader in a campaign that is obviously coming up. This government should look at its motivation. About three years from now the people of British Columbia will look at that motivation. I speak against the motion.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted. I wasn't going to participate in the debate, but I saw the members opposite, so I thought I'd just make a couple of remarks -- 30 seconds at least -- about how impor-

[ Page 4229 ]

tant this issue is to British Columbia and about the reason for parliamentary committees. Surely if we want parliamentary committees to work in this province and if we want all members of the House who are not in cabinet to work on public policy issues, there can be no more important issue than dealing with the North American free trade agreement. There can be no more important issue in British Columbia, in terms of our economic development, than fighting against the Mulroney tactics on the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement.

To see the Liberals and the Socreds united in favour of the North American free trade agreement, as they have been in this House....

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, the minister is straying from the motion and mis-stating facts. Perhaps he hasn't been listening to the debate.

The Speaker: That is not really a point of order, hon. member. However, I would remind the hon. minister to address the motion before us.

Hon. G. Clark: This motion allows members of the House to hear the concerns of the people of British Columbia on the North American free trade agreement. It would allow average people, as well as experts, to appear before their elected representatives and have their voices heard in opposition to the Mulroney strategy of continental free trade.

We have had that debate in this House, and members of the opposition have voted against speaking out against the North American free trade agreement. The people have a right to know where their Members of the Legislative Assembly stand on this crucial issue when it comes to economic development in Canada and British Columbia.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order! The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston will come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: I can conceive of no more important vehicle than having hearings around British Columbia so the public can see where the Social Credit Party stands with the Mulroney government, where the Liberal Party stands with the Mulroney government and where the government stands in terms of fighting the North American free trade agreement. Let the people have a say. Let their members go around and educate people about the perils of this agreement.

I can think of no more important vehicle for members of this House, and I urge all members to support this motion to allow a parliamentary committee -- members of this House -- to go around and lead the fight in this country against a disastrous strategy that Mulroney has embarked upon, which we have seen over the last eight years in this country.

G. Wilson: It is a little bizarre, to say the least, that we would have this motion brought forward now after the debate has taken place in this House and a vote has been taken on that question. It makes those of us in the Liberal opposition really try to understand exactly what this government is doing. Why is this government bringing this before a provincial House now? What is the timing on this? What is the purpose? Clearly we can see two areas where we have to have some concern.

First and foremost, it's very obvious that the national NDP, under the leadership of Audrey McLaughlin, has made NAFTA the principal issue for the attempted re-election of a number of its members. A very serious issue comes to point here. We know that in the spring of next year, or certainly by the fall of next year, there is going to be a federal election. The cynical-minded would say that this is a ploy to use the taxpayers' money and a legislative committee of this House to advance the political agenda of the national NDP by moving around this province in order to try and build some kind of portfolio of issues that they can use in the next federal election.

It is quite clear that the NAFTA is a very important issue. There is no question about that. The members in the Liberal opposition have said quite clearly that we have to have a full review and understanding of the detail of the document so we know what the impact is likely to be. We have also said that it would be foolish for us to sit there on the beach like King Canute thinking that we can stop the tide coming in. We will have continental free trade; we will have greater free trade blocs, because they are a reality globally.

I refer back to the words of this Premier, who said today in question period that it is not this government, not this Premier and not even this opposition who can determine what is happening with respect to the economy of British Columbia; it is the global markets that determine what happens to British Columbia. Those are words right out of the Premier's mouth in question period. And yet today we see this government wanting to use the taxpayers' money for a committee of this Legislative Assembly to start to travel around this province and advance the political agenda of the federal New Democratic Party. We think that is something that needs to be addressed by those members opposite. Are we serious about hearing reviews with respect to the provisions of a NAFTA? And if we are, surely it's more sensible for us to wait until we see what the reform documents are going to be, so that we have something of substance to take to the people of British Columbia.

We heard from the Minister of Finance a few minutes ago when he said he wanted to know where the Liberal opposition was with respect to the Mulroney government. Well, I refer the member opposite back to 50 "Yes" buttons carrying Mr. Mulroney's baggage around this country. That's when we told you where we were with respect to the Mulroney government. There is no question of where the opposition was when the members opposite were packing the baggage of the Prime Minister of this country around the province, pushing forward an agenda. That's when we told you.

However, I realize I digress from the main issue. We will return to that point. The NAFTA is something that will profoundly affect continental economies in North America. However, we must also recognize that the percentage of trade between British Columbia and 

[ Page 4230 ]

Mexico is relatively small by comparison. What we need to be doing, rather than focusing on an agreement that I believe has been precipitated by the United States trying to secure Mexico in an attempt to get a toehold into the North American continent in advance of other trading blocs.... By that I mean a sea of nations who would dearly love to have an alliance on trade with Mexico prior to the North American Free Trade Agreement. The new European bloc would very dearly love to have Mexico as an opportunity to advance a trade alliance to break into the North American market. We have to recognize that the survival of the economy of Canada is dependent upon our ability to effectively manage trade with our largest partner, the United States of America.

Notwithstanding the poor language of the FTA -- and it is a bad deal -- we cannot ignore the fact that the Americans have decided that an agreement with Mexico is to their advantage, because they have to do it in advance of a sea of nations and in advance of the European bloc getting a foothold in the continental economies of North America. As Canadians, we'd better be sure that we're in there and negotiating with our interests at heart. If we don't do that, I'm suggesting that Canadians will lose, and lose big time.

We cannot put our head in the sand like an ostrich would do and say that somehow it's all going to go away.

Similarly, we cannot sit by and allow an opposition, whether it be in North America or outside the North American economy, to precipitate protectionist attitudes when we did not have the opportunity in the last round of constitutional negotiations to free up trade within Canada. Protectionist action in Canada, with the kind of barriers there are to the free movement of goods and services inside this country, is going to provide us with enormous difficulties. We are simply going to find that we will not overcome this without tremendous hardship between those who have -- such as the central economies of Ontario and Quebec, with their large secondary manufacturing and production sectors -- and the primary extractive industries that are predominantly in the west -- and to a certain extent in the north, as we're developing a new economy.

We on this side have no problem moving this to a legislative committee to review what is going on if this is, in fact, an honest attempt to sit down and work out a strategy for the government and the people of B.C. with respect to a sound free trade agreement for North America as an entity, because that is where we must be. But if the members opposite think that they're simply going to use the taxpayers' money to have a committee travel around the province to advance the agenda of the federal New Democratic Party, this opposition will not accompany them. We will not be involved in so obvious a ploy as to take a sagging national party -- under 14 percent of the popular vote -- and try to move it up in order to secure the seats they have.

In closing, let me say this: we have no hesitation in looking at a sensible, honest assessment of the language of the North American free trade agreement in terms of its potential impact on the Canadian and B.C. economies. But we will not get involved in the political shenanigans that we see coming from members opposite when they start to talk about advancing an agenda that tries to promote the interests of a few Members of Parliament who are desperately trying to hold onto their jobs.

The Speaker: On the motion. No one is rising?

Hon. G. Clark: To close debate?

The Speaker: The member has already spoken on the debate.

Hon. G. Clark: No, I'm the mover.

The Speaker: It has been the Chair's interpretation that the motion was moved on behalf of the minister, who then spoke to it. The minister certainly has the right to close debate if he so chooses.

Is the hon. member rising to take part in this debate?

D. Symons: Yes, I am. I really didn't intend to take part in the debate, but I've become somewhat confused as the debate has gone on. If we review the history of the NAFTA discussions in the House, we find that on October 27 the government brought forward the motion that we not sign the document that was previously initialled by the federal government. We were told at that time that this was an urgent matter that had to be discussed right then, October 27.

[3:15]

Then it seems that the government had amnesia for almost four weeks, because it wasn't until yesterday that they suddenly remembered that they had this important issue, and they brought it back to the House. Suddenly they had a quick recovery of memory, and we had to discuss it yesterday. At the end of the day they passed the motion that basically said that we do not endorse this free trade agreement. That seems to me to have finished the debate on it. I cannot for the life of me see why, now they've passed a motion in this House and we've come to an agreement on it....

The Speaker: Order! I regret I must interrupt the member. As members well know, we cannot revive debate that has taken place nor question a decision of the House. The motion before us today is on a referral to a select standing committee. I would ask hon. members not to debate the motion that has already happened.

Hon. member, please continue on the motion.

D. Symons: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, I thought I was leading up to that. I will simply finish off very quickly, because I have come to the end.

Since the motion that I can't refer to has already been passed, I can't imagine the purpose of referring something to committee that the House has taken a stand on. It seems totally ridiculous to me. I can only surmise that there must be something more than meets the eye in this motion being brought before the House at this time.

[ Page 4231 ]

C. Serwa: Point of order. Clearly, after listening to your words, hon. Speaker, the motion is in fact out of order after yesterday's debate. I move that the motion is out of order.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, speak only to the point of order, not the debate on the issue.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's clear the vote that was taken yesterday called upon the federal government not to ratify the agreement. This one refers it to committee for hearings and debate.

An Hon. Member: But it's too late. The government has made a decison.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it isn't.

The Speaker: The Chair does determine that the motion is in order, and it has been duly called for debate today. In having the motion that was passed by the House yesterday before me, the Chair does not see any reason why we can't continue to debate this motion. However, as the Chair has previously mentioned, we have allowed considerable leeway, which has led to some confusion as to what we are debating. We are solely debating motion 66, which is before hon. members. I ask speakers who may still wish to debate to concentrate on that narrow range.

K. Jones: I would like to address the fact that this motion that has been brought forward is actually in contradiction to an action that has already been made by the government. For this motion to come forward with the decision of the government yesterday, it contradicts it. It means that the decision yesterday is not....

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I appreciate the hon. member's comments, but the Chair has made a ruling in that regard. Having both motions in front of me, this motion before us today is clearly in order. If the member wishes to address the motion, I will recognize him.

W. Hurd: It's a pleasure to rise in my place to debate the motion before us, which is to refer the NAFTA to a select standing committee. It is somehow appropriate that this motion should come from the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, one of the most rapidly shrinking ministries of government.

K. Jones: It doesn't include trade anymore.

W. Hurd: An excellent point from the hon. member: it doesn't even include international trade anymore.

I would be less troubled by this motion if I hadn't noticed the alluring sight of the Premier of the province and the leader of the federal NDP Party with their hands aloft at the NDP convention saying: "Repeat after me: no to NAFTA." If that's the approach the NDP members of this committee are going to take on the road with this select standing committee, I suspect we may see more federal New Democrats showing up than members of the general public.

It's interesting to contrast the Chicken Little attitude of this government on international trade with that taken by the province of Quebec, which has actually devoted millions of dollars in resources to study the implications and benefits of free trade and to look at the NAFTA to help companies deal with the new reality.

We have a motion before us that seeks to refer this to a select standing committee. I think there's a potential opportunity, if the committee is prepared to do its work honestly and openly, for there to be an excellent dialogue. But in the past we've found that some committee members from the government side of the House have brought agendas to those committees. Given the falling political fortunes of the federal NDP, we're concerned that this might be an opportunity for one of those agendas to be played out. Based on the results of the last convention, we had a great deal of difficulty on this side of the House determining where the federal New Democratic Party stopped and the provincial one started. The tax-and-spend policies are the same, and we assume that the party cards are the same. But when it comes to NAFTA, we sometimes wonder which leader is actually speaking for the people of British Columbia, whether it's the Premier of the province or Audrey McLaughlin, the leader of the federal New Democratic Party.

It's rather interesting to talk about the paranoia that has marked the government's attitude towards NAFTA from the very beginning. We had the spectacle of the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade returning to this province with a doomsday scenario earlier on in the session. We had a motion recently not to sign the agreement, and now we're referring it to a select standing committee. There appears to be an agenda being played out here, which correlates, in our view, with the agenda of the federal New Democratic Party.

I would remind the government that it is not their responsibility to prop up the fortunes of a party which is sinking faster than the Canadian dollar right now. It's not their responsibility to help out their federal counterparts. It's up to them to represent the interests of the province of British Columbia and to make a realistic effort to assess what advantages and disadvantages there are to NAFTA.

It's typical of the kind of agenda being played out here that the government of the day is accepting advice on NAFTA from a very narrow band of interest groups in the province. If the purpose of this committee is to expand that consultative process beyond the B.C. Federation of Labour, then I think it's to be applauded. But if it's part of a narrow agenda that this government has to prop up the fortunes of the federal New Democratic Party, then I can tell you that the opposition participation on this committee will end rather abruptly and quickly.

I hope the motives of the hon. minister are genuine and that he's not bringing forth this motion to try and secure what portion of his evaporating ministry is left, because I assume that the committee will report to him. 

[ Page 4232 ]

Certainly the idea of a select standing committee has merit, but we hope that the government's real motives are not dictated by the next federal election but rather are for the benefit of the people of the province.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Finally I get a chance to close debate. I look forward to it, because I think we exposed a few of the weaknesses in the opposition's position. I'd like to start out by reminding members of the third party that the Premier is in receipt of a letter from the leader of that party asking for NAFTA to be referred to a select standing committee. So we're happy to oblige. You should go back and check your leader's correspondence.

The member for Surrey-White Rock suggested that my ministry is diminishing in size. In fact, the Premier, in order to give a higher profile to the importance of trade, retained the services of the international trade activities branch, and approximately 34 people were transferred to the Trade Corporation so they can serve the people of B.C. better under the guise of a Crown corporation. That's an efficient deployment of a very small and effective ministry unit, and I've no problem defending that. There are 600 people left to do the work of economic development, trade policy and promotion of small business, so the opposition needn't worry about that.

It's important to remember that when the federal government promised under the FTA that they would bring in adjustment programs for the working people and businesses that were dislocated, they failed that promise. This time around, they're not even promising adjustment programs. So it's absolutely essential that we deal with the adjustment to new trading and new economic realities, and that's what the committee will deal with.

The member for Surrey-White Rock suggested that we listen to only a narrow band of advisers. If he cared to look at the North American free trade advisory committee, he would note that there are two labour representatives and approximately 13 business people on the committee. So business is well represented in advising the government to position itself to be able to deal with and take advantage of the negative consequences of the trade agreement.

It's important that the people be involved. Clearly between 60 and 70 percent of the people have concern about the FTA and the NAFTA because B.C. has not made significant gains. I want this Legislature to know that under the constraints of silence that the federal government bound us to, we put forth a very strong position on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and we will continue to do so.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'd like to close debate and call the question.

[3:30]

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to remind members that the House will be sitting tomorrow, as per the standing orders. With that, hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 84; M. Lord in the chair.

On section 6.

W. Hurd: When we left the debate on this particular section this morning, the opposition had some questions about family-owned businesses and how they might be affected by section 6(1). I would ask the minister to comment not only about employees who might be related to the owner of the business, but also on firms that might be certified where there are employees who actually have part ownership in the business. I'm thinking of cooperatives like West Coast Plywood and other such industries, where individual employees actually own shares in the parent company but may be involved in a certification drive at that particular plant. I realize that while discretion will be given to the Labour Relations Board in dealing with their ability to be involved in certifications, I'm sure that kind of firm, which is growing in numbers in the province, would be comforted to hear some words from the minister to the effect that during a certification drive, they will not be perceived to be unduly influencing the formation of a union or the employees' choice of union by virtue of the fact that they possess shares or are part owners in the company.

[ Page 4233 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: For some reason the hon. member seems to understand that unfair labour practices are only an issue when someone makes an application before the board. If individuals in a particular enterprise want to engage in a particular structure of representation, they are free to do that. It's only if you get an application that you have to inquire. The hon. members seem to think that there's a prohibition of certain activities or certain people being involved in enterprise. That's not the case. The legislative provision before the House kicks in only if there is an application. The hon. member has to understand that that's the starting point. You can structure your affairs whatever way you want; it's only subsequent if someone complains that there's an investigation under section 6.

W. Hurd: Section 6(1) states: "An employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer shall not participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or contribute financial or other support to it." Clearly the relationship of any individual employee to the employer of a business will be subjected to scrutiny before the Labour Relations Board, particularly when they engage in arguments during the certification process that may result in the other employees deciding that they want to be decertified or don't want to proceed with the application. Does the minister have any concern in relation to this section, where the right of free speech or the right of an employee who is a family member and might have ownership in the business may have a Labour Relations Board ruling reflect badly on their participation in the certification process?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I have no such concern, hon. member.

W. Hurd: The opposition has a great deal of concern, which is the reason that we would like to move an amendment to section 6(1), which I will read as follows: "An employer or a union or a person acting on behalf of an employer or union shall not participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or contribute financial or other support to it." We propose to add the following: "An express or implied provision of an agreement between an employer and a trade union by which the employer ceases or refrains, or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, buying, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in the products of another employer, or to cease doing business with another person, shall be a violation of this section and is void."

Hon. M. Sihota: I rise on a point of order to make a submission, and I want to make it strongly because this provision is out of order. First of all, it has nothing to do with what the hon. member was just talking about. That aside, this morning the Chair ruled that secondary boycott provisions were not within the scope of debate on this section. Now this change endeavours to inject into this section a debate with regard to secondary boycotts, which the Chair had ruled earlier was not within the scope of this section.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: You can call it secondary boycotts or you can call it top-down organizing. The intent of the Chair's decision was clear.

The second point....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the members would give me an opportunity to continue....

The Chair: Could we have order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. M. Sihota: The second point is that it has no relevance to the section before the House right now when read as a whole and therefore falls outside the scope of relevance.

The third point is this, hon. Chair. There is an effort here on the part of the opposition to indirectly achieve that which can't be achieved directly. If I may elaborate on that point, the panel report made a recommendation that said that sections 4.1 and 9.1 -- i.e., the prohibition on secondary boycotts and non-affiliation....

Interjections.

The Chair: We're hearing only one point of order at a time, please. So could we complete the point of order that we're speaking about right now.

[3:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate that this is a long point of order, and it is because I want the Chair to be mindful of all the considerations here. It is an effort to indirectly bring into the debate that which is not directly in it. May I elaborate on that point and explain my position, hon. Chair?

There is a prohibition currently under sections 4.1 and 9.1 against secondary boycotts and non-affiliation clauses. The panel recommended to lift the prohibition. We have chosen to lift it, which means that you don't require a provision to revoke the existing legislation. Consequently there's no opportunity in committee stage to debate the very issue that they're now seeking to debate here. The opportunity existed and was presented during second reading debate in principle. As the hon. Chair knows, there was an abundance of debate at that time on that issue. The absence of any explicit provisions dealing with the issue makes it impossible to deal with it at this level. The hon. members are now simply trying to inject a way of doing that.

Hon. Chair, I make my submission strongly to you on three grounds: 

1. This morning the Chair ruled that secondary boycott provisions and top-down organizing were not within the scope of this debate. 

[ Page 4234 ]

2. The amendment is not relevant to the section read as a whole. 

3. It is an effort to do indirectly what the opposition knows it cannot do directly.

On the basis of any one of those three arguments -- and I would argue on the basis of all three of them -- I would urge the Chair to rule this amendment out of order.

C. Tanner: Madam Chairman, on the point of order, the minister is incorrect when he said that the Chair ruled this morning against this particular point. The Chair said that it was up to the House to debate it. If the Chair will refer to the ruling this morning, you'll find exactly those words. Secondly, there is nowhere in this legislation where we are able to address, in committee stage, the second-party boycott. This is why this amendment is being made now, hon. Chair. But I would ask the Chair, before we even debate the second and third points that the minister makes, to refer to the ruling this morning. It is not as the minister says.

J. Tyabji: On the point of order that the minister has made, I have to agree with the member for Saanich North and the Islands. The three points that he made are not relevant to calling this out of order. In fact, there's a world of difference between secondary boycotting and top-down organizing, as this minister should know. Our amendment deals specifically with section 6(1) and has nothing to do with the other points that the minister was making.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. members, for your contribution. The Chair has decided to rule this amendment out of order, and that is according to standing order 84, I believe. It is our view that the amendment would render the clause unintelligible.

G. Wilson: I assume then that we are going to move back to discussion on section 6.

Hon. Chair, in looking at section 6, unfair labour practices, we have on a number of instances tried to bring to the minister's attention.... The drafting of that particular amendment which the Chair has just ruled out of order is entirely consistent with the position that we have taken. What we are attempting to do is: (1) to clarify in some detail the language in this particular section with respect to the intent of the legislation; and (2) to clarify exactly what the practical application of this section is likely to mean in terms of many of the items being put forward.

We suggest that there are some good points in this section. We're not saying that all of it is necessarily unacceptable. However, we do recognize -- and we reiterate -- that section 6 as it is drafted in its current context provides for ambiguity, especially with respect to the provisions on section 68, which we have talked about before and will talk about again now. I would suggest that the minister should clarify section 6(1), "An employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer shall not participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or contribute financial or other support to it," whether or not the minister recognizes or accepts within that language the proposition of top-down organization. If that is part of what is being attempted in here, we would argue that there is a need -- certainly the member for Surrey-White Rock initiated some discussion on it -- to have further clarification with respect to the role of the employee where there is a participation factor of the employee in ownership of the business itself. I wonder if the minister might want to explain to us exactly what his understanding is of that particular section of the clause, with both the top-down organizing concept and -- going back again to the point that was raised -- the question of the participation factor of the employee.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I know that the Leader of the Opposition was not here for the bulk of the debate this morning, and all I can say to him is that if he referred to Hansard of this morning he would see that this issue was extensively debated and the issue touched upon at that time. I would, out of all respect, encourage him to apprise himself of what was in Hansard this morning so that he has an understanding of my position with regard to that issue. Second, he should understand that this provision kicks in only if there's a complaint of an unfair labour practice. And third, it has to be read in conjunction with section 14 in terms of the powers that flow there. If he were to look at 6 in conjunction with 14, I'm sure that he would find his concerns appropriately addressed.

G. Wilson: Indeed I will spend much of my evening going back through Hansard. As the minister correctly points out, it's difficult to be here for the entire debate. However, I think the issue raised is one that is not inconsistent with the position that we've brought up before, and I wonder, with respect to the amendments that were put forward before, which the Chair would rule out of order.... We would therefore submit that if we are to look at the language of an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer, it would not be inconsistent for us to recognize the three parties that this agreement deals with: the employer, the union and individuals who may be acting on behalf of an employer. If the minister agrees, it would be sensible for us to amend this language to also include an employer, a union or a person acting on behalf, so that it is very clear in the language what the minister is attempting to do.

In order to move that, we would therefore move an amendment that reads as follows: "An employer or a union, or a person acting on behalf of an employer or union, shall not participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or contribute financial or other support to it."

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, two points. The first is that you made a decision, saying that the amendments proposed earlier would render the section unintelligible. I'll make the same argument here. I don't 

[ Page 4235 ]

have before me the amendment that the hon. member has put forward. I wish he'd give us a copy so that one could speak to it. In any event, as I recollect it, he is suggesting an employer or a union. If I understand him to inject the word "union" in there, it would mean that a union could not do exactly what a union does, which is work to create a union on a worksite. It would render the section unintelligible to say that a union shall not participate in the formation of a union.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Shall not interfere with the formation of a union. But a union does exactly that: a union makes a decision to be involved in the formation or selection or administration of a union. So it would have that unintelligible effect.

The second point, hon. Chair, is that it's really an attempt to achieve that which you just indicated was not allowed in your previous ruling. They've just taken the opening wording of the motion that was ruled out of order and injected it back into the debate. As I understand it, they still do not have a copy of the motion that's been tabled.

While I'm on my feet, on the point of order....

The Chair: Minister, we're not on a point of order.

Hon. M. Sihota: This would, if I may say, prevent a union from participating in the formation, selection or administration of a trade union. Well, that's ludicrous.

W. Hurd: Surely the minister is aware of situations where one or two or perhaps even three unions are interested in certifying the workplace. Is he at all concerned about the vagueness of this clause enabling rival unions to engage in the kind of interference that might be perceived as somehow unduly influencing employers on that particular selection decision as it pertains to which union they choose to be members of?

The Chair: The Chair has determined that this amendment is in order and so will allow debate to proceed.

K. Jones: I think if the minister had spent any time in the labour movement, instead of just being an organizing type, he would have known that it's the workers who make the decision on whether there should be unionization, and that it's when a union chooses to try to manipulate the workers to try to get control of that workforce that the problems come in. If the minister had spent some time in the workforce, he would have realized just what it's like to be a worker and be manipulated. Perhaps the minister needs to spend a little time in the workforce and not so much time in the upper echelons.

[4:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On section 6.

C. Tanner: The minister, who has listened patiently -- I'll give him that -- to our points on this section, admitted this morning that nowhere in this legislation does the secondary boycott appear, yet he's making the case that we should have debated the principle of it in second reading. We can't do both things. Either he should be prepared to debate it now in one clause or another, or he should allow the public to know about the ability of unions to do exactly what he wants them to do. He can't have it both ways. If the minister doesn't want us to debate it in 6, where does he want us to debate it?

Hon. M. Sihota: If it will help the hon. member, the answer to that question is that it was debated in second reading, where I made a number of comments with regard to providing assurances to employers.

C. Tanner: The minister has been here a lot longer than I have, and he knows full well that we debate the principle of the bill in second reading, not the detail. We're debating the detail now. This is an important, fundamental detail to his bill. Where does it appear in the bill? Where does he want us to talk about it?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that given the decision made by government to lift the prohibition, there is no need to have a specific clause in the bill with regard to lifting that prohibition.

C. Tanner: There are four or five fundamentals to this bill. This is one of them. The minister surely has an obligation to let union members, employees and employers know that this is a fundamental aspect of this bill. He should have it in the bill so we can find out 

[ Page 4236 ]

where the debate is supposed to ensue. Tell us where we're supposed to debate it.

Hon. M. Sihota: Second reading.

J. Tyabji: We spent some time this morning on 6(4), and I'd like to revisit that briefly. It seemed that the minister was just teetering on the brink of giving us some assurance that he would not let his own commitment to labour unrest allow provisions of section 68(3) interfere with the economic viability of a business. The question that the minister didn't answer was: which weighs more heavily in the balance, his commitment to anti-replacement worker legislation, or his commitment to allow the economic viability of a business to continue?

Hon. M. Sihota: I thought I answered that question this morning, but if it helps to refresh the member's memory, let me make it abundantly clear: we, on this side of the House, wish to encourage enterprise in British Columbia. We think that given this province's unique geographic situation, it is poised to achieve remarkable economic success in the future, particularly as we deal with the Asia-Pacific market and so on. We're very interested -- I know that the hon. minister responsible for regional economic development would agree with me -- in ensuring that there is vibrant economic development and activity in this province. It's very important for this government that that occur.

At the same time, it's very important for this government to ensure that there is no violence on the picket lines in British Columbia. Accordingly, we've drafted section 68, which we're not at yet but which the member would like to debate now. If she would like to debate it now, my advice to her is to pass all the other sections so we can get to section 68.

J. Tyabji: My comment to the minister is: nice try. But you still haven't answered the question. The question is: what weighs more heavily, economic viability of a business or anti-replacement worker legislation as it is defined in the definition section, the special purposes section and subsections 6(3) and 6(4)(b)? It's a simple question. I can ask it again if I don't get an answer from the minister. I hope the minister doesn't pass the buck, as he did this morning, to the Labour Relations Board. I think that would be very unfortunate. The people of the province want this minister's interpretation. What are your priorities?

F. Garden: Point of order, hon. Chair. I've heard this question three times now, and I've heard it answered twice. It's repetitious, frivolous and tedious in this debate.

The Chair: It is also the opinion of the Chair that this area was thoroughly canvassed this morning, so if the member could refrain from repetitious and tedious questioning, we would certainly appreciate it.

J. Tyabji: In light of the comments of the minister, I would like to move an amendment to section 6(4)(b), which currently reads, "...make a change in the operation of the employer's business reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of that business," so that it says: "...make a change in the operation of the employer's business reasonably necessary for the economic viability of that business." As I understand it, that's where the minister's intentions are. I thought I would help him out in the manner of a constructive opposition by moving this amendment.

On the amendment.

J. Tyabji: We have stood here in this House for the last week and a half submitting constructive amendment after constructive amendment to this minister. We have canvassed him. I will defer to the hon. member from the back bench.... He's right. He did hear the same questions several times from me. What he didn't mention was that there was no answer provided. So I continued to ask the same question.

I think I heard the minister say this morning -- when he almost answered the question, when he came very close, when he walked right to the edge and almost answered it -- that he agreed to allow: "...a change in the operation of the employer's business reasonably necessary for the economic viability of that business." The way the bill reads now does allow for, as this minister is so committed to, the anti-replacement worker legislation, because it says, "...except as expressly provided," which we will get to later. We know this minister is heavily committed to subsection 6(3), because it allows for that. It now puts the two words in writing that we believe this minister intended to put in place when he said "proper conduct." Those two words are "economic viability."

[4:15]

We tried to get the minister to say those words. We tried to pull them out of his mouth repeatedly -- "economic viability." I know that on that side of the House those are kind of taboo words. But we think that the minister intended to allow businesses in the province, because he has stated repeatedly that his government is committed to a vibrant economy.

Although we're not sure that we see a lot of evidence of that in this bill, let's take it for granted that this minister and the Minister of Economic Development are committed to a vibrant economy in the province. If that is the case, then notwithstanding the fact that subsection (4)(b) allows for anti-replacement worker legislation and for the ruling of the Labour Relations Board, we now would like the minister to accept this very constructive amendment that would make it "economic viability" rather than "proper conduct," because we're not sure what proper conduct means. As our leader said, does proper conduct mean they file their tax return on time? Is that what the minister meant?

We believe that based on the minister's comments this morning, what he means by proper conduct is economic viability. If this minister is going to vote against this amendment, then we feel it is highly incumbent on him to stand up and say how proper conduct does not mean economic viability. If it does 

[ Page 4237 ]

mean economic viability, let's put that in the bill. If it doesn't, let's get it on record in this House that by proper conduct, he does not mean economic viability. It is critical during times of labour unrest to make sure that you are committed to the long-term economic viability of a business.

Hon. M. Sihota: The economic viability and well-being of this province depend entirely on the extent to which labour and management can pull together and cooperate to make sure that we can continue to compete effectively in an increasingly competitive world with a remarkable level of globalization and trade ongoing. In order to do that, it's important that governments set the necessary preconditions to encourage labour and management to work together.

In drafting this section, we asked business and labour to go into a corner and work out some of their differences with regard to some of these issues, including the issues captured by section 6 of this legislation. They worked together. They consulted and talked to one another. After a remarkable process of some ten months, they produced a consensus on 98 percent of the provisions found in this legislation. One of those was the provision that's before this House right now: section 6. That section is a product of a remarkable consensus on the part of business and labour. We asked the parties to work out their differences, and they arrived at a conclusion with regard to section 6.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for Okanagan East on what point of order?

J. Tyabji: On the point of order that we are debating an amendment with regard to economic viability, and I haven't yet heard the minister address that. It's on relevancy.

The Chair: It's the opinion of the Chair that the minister is approaching the amendment that has been put forward.

Hon. M. Sihota: We achieved a remarkable level of consensus with regard to this section, and in so doing, we achieved a psychological change -- i.e., we got business and labour working together cooperatively in bringing about that fundamental attitudinal change which is so necessary for serving the economic viability of the province.

The opposition has now put an amendment before this House. With regard to that amendment, it is not the product of consensus, consultation and ten months of deliberation; it does not have the acquiescence of both labour and business; it is not part of an overall package of reforms; and it has not been created through a skillful process of involving labour, business and management. It is no more than an amendment thought up by the Liberal opposition over the lunch hour and then brought before this House.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order! I ask the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to please come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: I would far prefer to proceed with a section which has the acquiescence of business and labour and which was the product of a broad consultative process involving British Columbians from all walks of life and in all communities, and which is part of the 98 percent of the provisions that are agreed to. I would much prefer to proceed with legislation based on that than legislation dreamt up by the Liberal researcher downstairs in this Legislature without the benefit of any input from business or labour.

G. Wilson: I assume that the minister was indeed speaking to the amendment. The Chair ruled that he was; I always admire clairvoyance.

Let me say that if we were to follow the logic of the minister with respect to this amendment and suggest that only that which has been brought together through the so-called consultative process that we have seen.... We would then assume that there would be no need for any amendment, indeed no need for any debate, indeed no need for any Legislature at all. Let's all just pack up and go home and let the minister, in consultation with his friends, put together a labour bill that serves the interests of those people in good business.

It would seem to me that this amendment is sensible and that it deals with the economic viability of a business. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the economic viability of the province in the larger sense. It has nothing to do with international trade, which the minister talked about. It has everything to do with an employer's business and the employer's right to be able to reasonably protect the economic viability of that business.

What we're hearing from the minister is that there should be no language in this bill that specifies the employer's right -- notwithstanding the language in section 3 -- and that would allow the employer a reasonable opportunity to protect the economic viability of that business with respect to the provisions about unfair labour practice. That's a perfectly sensible amendment to make.

It would strike me that this amendment also addresses something that is clearly a contention that exists within a lot of small businesses, which, quite frankly, were not necessarily involved in the negotiations that the minister has so eloquently referred to many times. Under this bill, small businesses, many of which are in a non-union position right now, could very easily and in some likelihood become union organizations if the workers desire to do that. In that event, there are people who were not represented in the deals and the consultation that you were talking about. They are people in the province of British Columbia whose livelihood depends upon their investment and their ability to prosper in B.C. through the development of small and medium-sized businesses. Those are the people who elected us and who expect us to look after their interests and concerns.

It would also be interesting to note what kind of deals were cut last Friday when business met with the 

[ Page 4238 ]

Premier of this province, who came out, despite his previous comments that there would be no more backroom deals with business, saying that he is now going to instruct this minister -- despite all of the consultation, despite all of the work in consensus-building, despite everything that was put into Bill 84 -- that he has to make amendments.

Well, let's put one amendment in front of him right now, which looks after the economic viability of an employer's business. It does not negatively impact on the intent of this bill; all it does is clarify language, which I think works to the interests of both the employer and the employee.

Hon. M. Sihota: In dealing with the amendment, the hon. Leader of the Opposition misunderstood what I was saying. I was simply trying to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he ought to be congratulating this government for achieving such a high level of consensus between business and labour, who found 160 sections that they could agree with, out of 164. Ninety-eight percent of the provisions now found in this legislation were agreed to between business and labour. He ought to congratulate the government for talking to business and labour, for encouraging them to work together to find solutions to the remaining 2 percent. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, he ought to be congratulating the Premier of this province.

J. Tyabji: A point of order with regard to relevancy. I have yet to hear economic viability and the amendment come out of the minister's mouth.

The Chair: The member's point is well taken. Hon. minister, could you please address the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: In addressing the amendment, let me say that I don't understand why the Leader of the Opposition finds it so hard to congratulate the Premier for trying to bring business and labour together in order to bring about this fundamental change in attitude and for making reference in the legislation to explicit provisions, which have existed in this province for some time now, to ensure that a change in the operation of an employer's business reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of that business can continue despite the provisions in subsection (3). That means clearly that this government recognizes that there's a right of employers to reasonably continue the conduct of their business in order to maintain their enterprise, despite subsection (3), so long as that right is determined in concert with subsection (3).

K. Jones: On a point of order, the minister has continued to be repetitive in his comments, which are totally irrelevant and away from the topic of the amendment. He has at no time referred to the terms of the amendment. Is economic viability something he chokes on?

The Chair: It is the view of the Chair that members on both sides of the House have strayed from the relevancy of the amendments. I would ask all members to rein in their comments and speak specifically to the amendment so that we can expedite this debate.

G. Wilson: In the interests of advancing the debate to some level of seriousness, let me just say to the minister opposite that we in the Liberal opposition do congratulate the NDP for being able to finally bring together the semblance of a bill that will, once we put in place the necessary amendments, be acceptable to the people of British Columbia. If it makes the minister feel better to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he did a good job on this, despite the fact that he was away most of the time in eastern Canada doing a worse job on something else, I will say congratulations on this one. I realize that in politics the plaudits and the gratuities that come forward are often few and far between.

Having said that, there is a basis for a bill here that I think is worthwhile pursuing, and that's why we're seeking to make some sensible amendments. Hon. Chair, the language that is set here now does not negatively impact this bill or section 6(4)(b), but rather it seeks to clarify it. If the minister doesn't wish to pursue this -- and it's clear that he does not -- in his interpretation of the existing language as written in the section on unfair labour practices, does he believes that the proper conduct means economic viability? It's the sort of question that you could answer yes or no to. It's not one that you need to get into a long debate on. Does proper conduct mean economic viability? Or does proper conduct refer specifically to the functional operation of a business with an unfair labour practice vis-�-vis management-labour relations as may be impacted by a collective agreement? There's a fundamental difference between those two points.

[4:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: The section allows an employer to make an application before the Labour Relations Board, arguing subsection (4)(b), to state that a certain activity is reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of that business. In the course of that argument he can certainly raise issues of the viability of his business if he -- or she -- wishes. I'm sure the hon. member knows that there's extensive jurisprudence with regard to these types of cases. Those types of arguments have been raised in the context of sections 6(4) and 6(3). I think it existed as section 3(3)(h) of the previous legislation.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

G. Wilson: I am well aware of some, though not all, of the jurisprudence in this area. I would say that the use of economic viability as an argument for the maintenance of certain practices in a company has been raised with limited success. An employee can argue that where businesses have essentially allowed modifications to their operation in order to protect their own interests or investment, that works to the disadvantage of the union, which would perceive that the unfair labour practice has to prohibit or prevent the employer from taking those actions to simply seek direct benefits. 

[ Page 4239 ]

I think the minister would agree that it's something we have to be somewhat concerned about.

The minister is also aware that we couldn't bring an amendment in on the process of negotiation of secondary boycotts. Under this amendment and with respect to economic viability, is the minister aware that the BCGEU has already tabled demands for secondary boycott clauses in the BCIT contract that demand that the unions have the right to refuse to work with non-union workers or with products that have been produced in non-union conditions? We're trying to amend this to make clarifications. Perhaps the minister can tell us if he's aware of those demands that have been tabled. Perhaps he might talk about that in relation to 6(4)(b), which we have tried to make amendments to.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the question's out of order in all respects. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, who can barely contain the smile on his face, knows that he's trying to ask a question that he's not allowed to ask under this section. He's smiling away now, knowing full well that I'm right. The question is out of order. I'm not aware of everything the BCGEU alleges, if that's the question.

G. Wilson: Perhaps asking the minister whether or not he was aware that the BCGEU had tabled demands for secondary boycott clauses in the BCIT contract which demand that the unions have the right to refuse to work with any non-union workers or with products that have been produced in non-union conditions is out of order. I haven't heard the Chair rule on that. I'd still be anxious to know whether the minister is aware of those BCGEU demands. It's our understanding that they have been tabled. In fact, it's the beginning of something that we might want to look at as part of it.

Maybe the minister can come back and answer the first part of my question before I put the second part of my question, which is that the BCGEU has already tabled demands for secondary boycott clauses with BCIT demanding that unions have the right to refuse to work with any non-union workers or with products that have been produced in non-union conditions. That's the second part, which the minister has said is out of order. So perhaps the minister can come back to the first part of the question, which dealt more specifically with the question of economic viability being a reasonable argument that he would accept when conditions have been filed with respect to unfair labour practices. Would the minister tell us for the record that economic viability and proper conduct are essentially the same concepts? If that's so, let's just change that wording, and we can move on to other sections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I would refer the hon. member to my earlier answer in terms of arguments an employer can make. He can refer to his own comments in terms of arguments a union can make, and he can also reflect on his own comments with respect to the role of the Labour Relations Board in trying to resolve those contentions.

J. Tyabji: We still have not heard from the minister why he is stalling on this decision. Could the minister please tell the House why he is reluctant to include the words "economic viability" in this bill -- just as in the previous part of this debate he took "competitive market economy" from the bill? Now we are trying to help him instil some measure of economic responsibility here by changing "proper conduct" to "economic viability." If he has a problem with it, would he please share it with the House. Then we would be able to progress more quickly on the bill. I'd like to encourage the minister to stop stalling, because we really would like to have this move along at a slightly faster pace. If he could help us get some of these amendments through a bit sooner, we could all go home before Christmas.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure that the opposition, after a year of experience, has learned that it sets the pace of debate in this House, not the government. If they haven't figured out that one, they're even more ineffective than I thought they were.

With regard to Christmas let me say, as a member from Victoria, that there is nothing we would like more than this House to be sitting here over Christmas, assisting economic development. You can do all your shopping here in the greater Victoria area, stay in our hotels and dine in our restaurants. It would be just wonderful for our economy here in Victoria.

With regard to the section, I have already said that it is of a set scope, as it allows....

C. Tanner: On a very serious point of order, if the member is going to promote the business area of Victoria, he should do the whole capital region.

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

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure you'd appreciate it if I said everywhere from Sidney to Port Renfrew.

In any event, an employer can raise whatever issue he or she wishes.

G. Wilson: I hope that the minister's back bench is aware that the minister has just invited all of them to be spending the Christmas holidays here in Victoria. There will certainly be many more of those people here in Victoria than there will be members of the opposition.

On the amendment, it is important that we try to move through this bill with some degree of seriousness on some of these areas. With respect to the proper conduct provision, would the minister simply not agree that the words could be amended to provide for a more definitive example of the economic viability of a company if the amendment were adopted? If the minister would simply agree with that, it would not in any way change the intent of the bill. It simply clarifies the language. We could get through this rather simple amendment and on to the more contentious ones that are likely to take us a long time.

[ Page 4240 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member had just listened to what I said earlier on, he'd quickly come to agree that it is unnecessary to bring forward this provision.

A. Warnke: Maybe it's a disappointment to some members of this House that it's not milk and cookies time.

I want to explore a couple of questions with the minister for the purposes of clarification, and they're certainly relevant to the amendment that we have before us. Simply put, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, my colleague, has asked specifically whether in fact "proper conduct" means "economic viability." The answer was somewhat evasive. If not that, I'd like to pose to the minister the question whether "proper conduct" includes "economic viability."

Hon. M. Sihota: Far be it from me to be evasive.

I think it's possible under this section for someone to make arguments with respect to economic viability if they wish.

L. Hanson: I actually rise to speak against the amendment as it is presented. Mr. Chairman, it would be very helpful if these sorts of amendments were circulated to the members so that we would be able to understand what the actual wording is. My understanding of the wording is that we are going to remove from section 6(4)(b) the words "proper conduct" and insert "economic viability." I could support the motion if it in fact left the words "proper conduct" and added "economic viability." But, to me, taking out the words "proper conduct" leaves another question in my mind that isn't addressed by this amendment. Therefore I cannot support it.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour continually falls back on the crutch of this public consultation concept. If the public consultation that this minister holds out as his badge of honour -- "What a wonderful thing we have done!" -- were true, I would think that we would be finished with the debate. We would not be having amendments and so on. But it just is not true. And that's the concern we have when these amendments are raised.

On this specific amendment as it is worded, as it is presented, I must oppose it.

J. Tyabji: Just to get this on the record, it is the opinion of the official opposition that you cannot have economic viability without proper conduct, which is why it was worded that way.

[4:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 6 approved on the following division:

Section 7 approved on the following division:

[ Page 4241 ]

On section 8.

J. Tyabji: With regard to section 8, the Liberal opposition would like to canvass some response from the minister about the definition of "person" and some of the parameters that the minister would draw around that word.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, before I go any further, let me congratulate you for doing an outstanding job. I don't think any other Chair has sat through the approval of two sections in this code to date, so you've done an outstanding job in making sure the debate proceeds rapidly. In fact, I'm sure that those residents in the Western Communities and Sooke who are watching tonight on TV will be most impressed with your remarkable skills.

"Person" includes an employee, an employer, an employers' organization, a trade union, and a council of trade unions, but it does not include a person in respect of whom collective bargaining is regulated under the Canada Labour Code.

J. Tyabji: With that in mind, we have some concerns, and it could be that with a bit of definition from the minister on record, those concerns will be allayed. But because of the way that this currently reads, could the minister share with us whether or not he feels that he could see a situation where an employee could be persuaded? Where it says "opinion reasonably held," I think that is a bit vague. An employee could be approached by a person -- as the minister has defined it -- who is making statements, which that person could later claim were reasonably held opinions, to influence the employee one way or the other with regard to organizing into a union, into a collective agreement.

The point is that the way this is worded, you have "opinion reasonably held." So we have "a person," and we have an "opinion reasonably held" -- which is not defined and is very vague -- with regard to an employer, who can approach an employee on any matter. Could the minister see that there could be some form of persuasion which could borderline on harassment, or whatever? You can define it. That person could then say: "That was my 'opinion reasonably held'." That would be a way of defending the statements that were made to that employee, with the intent of pushing that employee either to certify or decertify or to join a certification or a decertification movement. Does that make it clear?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm trying to discern the hon. member's concern here. If someone expresses an opinion they believe to be reasonably held but which turns out to be false, they can always argue that their opinion was reasonably held at that time. I guess that would cause the board to take that into account in its adjudication. Of course, it must always read this section in concert with section 9.

J. Tyabji: Just as we read section 8 in conjunction with section 9, we also read section 8 in conjunction with section 2, the purposes of the code. Since we know that one of the purposes of the code is "to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining," and since we are going to allow a person -- as defined just a few minutes ago by that minister -- to approach an employee with any statement which that person can then say was his opinion reasonably held, based on section 2, which says that they're out there to promote collective bargaining, certification and all the things that have to do with unions -- and the next section too, since the minister has brought up section 9, which is with regard to coercion and intimidation.... I'm talking about the part that says "opinion reasonably held," which is not defined -- at least not to my comfort or the comfort of the members of the official opposition. "Opinion reasonably held" is something that, given the purposes section, we have a little problem with. I'd like to have the minister on record giving us a better definition of how he sees section 8, in relation to section 2, coming into play in the future -- not past jurisprudence, not the previous act; this act, this section 8 and this section 2. Because we've expanded the definition to "person," rather than an employer or trade union, and because we're allowing it to be "opinion reasonably held," could the communication be a form of persuasion, and could that persuasion be based on an opinion reasonably held, which is very vaguely defined and could give the person a lot of latitude? Can this minister understand what I'm getting at? This is a little loose, and for the purposes of what we're doing in the House here it would be very helpful for the minister to stand up and say on the record that it is not his intention to allow any persuasion on an opinion reasonably held in relation to section 2.

[5:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: There were at least five "coulds" in that question, and I will tell the hon. member this. I expect that section 8 will be read in concert with section 2, as will all other sections of the act, and with section 9. On a particular fact pattern, the Labour Relations Board will determine whether or not persuasion amounted to coercion or intimidation, and whether or not it fell within the ambit of the words "reasonably held."

I am not going to get into the business, in this Legislature, of defining the words "reasonably held." We could probably think of all sorts of hypothetical situations. The hon. member knows full well that this type of language has existed in other statutes.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, the hon. member objects to me referring to jurisprudence. She has to 

[ Page 4242 ]

understand that the way our system works is that legislatures pass laws, and courts and tribunals interpret those provisions in keeping with the real facts that come before them. On those real facts, they will decide whether or not sections 8, 9 or 2 have been offended. In so doing, in their interpretation they will consider similar language that has existed in the past together with the new purposes section, which may put a different spin on their interpretation.

L. Hanson: I think it has been well documented throughout this whole bill that there are a number of changes from the previous labour bill that restrict the rights of the individual, restrict the rights of the employer in some circumstances, and probably create a situation where an employee or an individual person is trying to make a decision on the basis of knowledge -- an educated decision is the best description -- as to whether they should sign a membership card with a particular union and with the intention of eventually reaching a certification process or at least a number equal to 55 percent of the employees. The minister stated earlier in debate on second reading that the employees had the opportunity of withdrawing their union card from the union, providing it was done prior to the application for certification. While the wording in section 8 is common wording and was included in the old bill, with the removal of the other protections that the individual had I think it is appropriate that we add to that. I am now officially moving the amendment that stands in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 8, by the addition thereto of the following: "or of fact or reasonably held opinion with respect to the union, or reasonable questions to be put to a union seeking to represent the employee."]

On the amendment.

L. Hanson: I'm sure the minister recognizes what this amendment would do and I think the minister in fairness would agree that there are some things an individual may need to know or should be made aware of before that all-important decision to sign the membership card. I think the minister could even name the union which I might be talking about now -- I don't think they exist anymore, because there's been an amalgamation. But that was a union that had great difficulty in reaching settlements in their bargaining process. As a matter of fact, I think as many resulted in business closures as in finalized agreements.

There have been cases where union policy may be in opposition to a particular individual's belief: things such as pro-life versus pro-choice. There are some circumstances where unions may divert some of the dues that they get for purposes other than collective bargaining. There are circumstances where some of the internal practices of a union may be difficult for a member to live with. There may be a record of labour disruption and wildcat strikes by a particular union.

The way this right to communicate is now worded, it says that nothing in this code deprives a person of the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business. Fair statement. But when you look at the other changes in the act and leave this wording as it is, it makes it very difficult for a member to make an educated decision to sign the union card and make a commitment to eventual certification.

That is our reason for bringing forward this motion. I may have some other questions. I'd like the minister to respond.

Hon. M. Sihota: I would remind the hon. member that we have already passed section 4 of the legislation, which is very clear. It says that every employee is free to be a member of a trade union and to participate in its lawful activities. During the course of exercising that freedom, an individual has the ability to ask questions of the union with regard to its policies, constitutional structure, format and so on. So that exists there.

The issue of the right to communicate, as the hon. member knows full well, is in this code to deal with communication issues which arise during a certification drive, as we all know. I think it is obvious that that provision was obviously one about which there was a lot of discussion. There has been a lot of discussion historically in terms of labour law jurisprudence.

L. Hanson: I know that section is in the new bill and I was well aware of it when I proposed this motion. But the fact is that many people who are approached to sign a union card with the intent of certification are people with little experience in the labour relations world. I would suspect that if the minister were in those circumstances and was approached to sign a membership card with a view to certification, he would ask all kinds of questions, because he's a knowledgeable individual about labour relations and the various....

J. Tyabji: He would just sign it.

L. Hanson: I hear the comment from the ranks that he would just sign it, but I suspect that he would look very carefully at the union, its record, the management of the union, its bylaws and all of those other things.

The fact is that an employee -- a young person, maybe an inexperienced person in terms of unionization and the way unions are run -- would have very little background to rely on and to draw questions from that might be important to help them make the decision on whether they should or should not be able to sign a membership card. That's the reason we want to put it in.

Would the minister disagree that a lot of people who are unionized are average working people who have no experience in the world of labour relations and who should be entitled to have, if not coercion and intimidation, information which they can accept or reject? Wouldn't he agree that if it came from the employer under this act the way it is written now, it would not be allowed -- it would be considered an unfair labour practice, and therefore there would be some penalty applied to the employer?

Hon. M. Sihota: I have a greater belief in the intelligence of individuals to ask questions. It's a little bit like joining a political party. If everybody who was 

[ Page 4243 ]

presented with a Social Credit membership card took the time to read some of the policies of the Young Socreds, for example -- as I saw at that convention you had in Abbotsford -- or apprise themselves of some of the provisions that you have in your policy manual, I'm not too sure that your membership would be anywhere near as robust as it is. I must say that it is certainly larger than that of the Liberal Party, and I must say I give your party credit. You are able to attract far more delegates to your conventions than that rather ineffective opposition party we have.

But I must say....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'm speechless because I'm watching the coalition crumble in front of my eyes as they argue with one another.

Let me continue, nonetheless. The point is that we just have greater faith in individuals. They'll make the appropriate inquiries. You can't guard against every young person out there who may be naive. You would like to think that in society as a whole that protection is unnecessary and, indeed, allowed....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm trying to conclude my comments, but the Liberal opposition is stung and offended by my soft comment about their inability to recruit members. It is unfortunate.

The Chair: Hon. minister, perhaps we can get to the amendment.

L. Hanson: I appreciate the minister giving such a compliment to the Social Credit Party, because I can do nothing but agree with it. But I would like to point out to the minister that in the constitution of the Social Credit Party there is no restriction on anyone speaking on any issue that they may wish. They can even say that the NDP is a reasonable party. There is no prohibition against that. Though I suspect that anyone who might consider joining the Social Credit Party would never say that, there's no prohibition against free speech under any circumstances.

The minister is suggesting that this narrow interpretation of section 8, or this narrow right to communicate in section 8, is not there for any reason other than to allow employees to gather information about the employer's business, or at least to communicate that. But I think that there is an awful lot of other information that individuals should have, or that should be made available to them, before they make the decision to sign the card. We now have a situation where just signing the card means automatic certification if you are able to get 55 percent of the employees to sign. You also have a situation where the employees are not able to communicate their true desire in a secret manner so that no one else knows -- that comes to another section of this bill. It just seems reasonable, and I ask the minister: what member of the public suggested that information should be withheld from the prospective union member as a result of this act? I didn't read anything about that in the report, but maybe the minister can tell us where it says in the report that the right to communicate should be narrowed in those various sections. It is the democratic purpose of this legislation to give individuals the right not only to make a decision on their own but to have information so that they can reasonably make that decision.

[5:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: Nothing in this code prohibits or denies an individual from receiving any information with regard to a trade union, be it its constitution, its bylaws, its policies, its dues structure, its election system, and so on. There's no prohibition, and so individuals are free to ask what they wish to. There is no restriction or barrier.

L. Hanson: I'd like clarification of that. Did the minister just say that there is no restriction on the employer communicating to the employees information that may be negative to the union's drive to have them sign the card, even though it is the truth or a reasonably held opinion?

Hon. M. Sihota: I said that any employees wishing to join a trade union or being approached by a trade union in a certification drive can ask whatever questions they want of the union -- the employees, that is.

With regard to the employer, the hon. member knows full well that there are restrictions with respect to the rights of employers and their free speech in these types of matters during the certification process. I know that the hon. member understands why that is the case and why that is such a philosophically divisive issue -- and it really is. Personally, in terms of all the issues that I come across in labour relations matters, this is the one where I think opinions are at their hottest at both ends of the spectrum. But there are constraints on the ability of employers to communicate a fact or opinion. They are restricted to expressing facts or opinions held with respect to the employer's business; they must be reasonably held; and they must be read in concert with section 9 and the other sections of the code that deal with matters of communication.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to say that we support the amendment that has been put forward by the third party. It basically addresses some of the concerns that I was trying to get the minister to address without the amendment, and it does give us some measure of clarification. We would still like the minister to come out and make a statement with regard to how he feels. If he is not going to support this amendment, why not? If it is the case that he won't support the amendment, will he at least say, on record, that it is his intention that section 8 read in a manner as to make understandable the wording of the amendment?

W. Hurd: Speaking in support of the amendment, the minister will be concerned about some of the issues raised by the non-union construction sector in this 

[ Page 4244 ]

province. They have expressed concerns that under the new provisions of this bill, those working on a non-union site for a non-union employer who are in possession of valid union cards may be in a position to certify that non-union business, under a later section in the act, without reference to a vote. In addressing their concerns about section 8, nothing in this code deprives a person of the freedom to communicate with an employee. For those individuals on a non-union construction site who may not be in possession of union cards, wouldn't their right to communicate to any of their fellow employees be deprived if they do not know that the other workers in the site were in possession of union cards and could therefore reach the 55 percent certification without provision for a vote?

Hon. M. Sihota: If you're suggesting that on a 55 percent sign-up provision 45 percent of the individuals somehow don't have the freedom to express an opinion.... Let me make this clear. Is that what you're suggesting? Are you suggesting that somehow if 55 percent go one way, the minority loses something? Is that essentially your point?

W. Hurd: The question relates to the fact that there may be employees in the workplace who already possess union cards and may be able to proceed with certification under a later provision of this bill. Section 8 says: "Nothing in this code deprives a person of the freedom to communicate...." Wouldn't the fact that cards were already signed and in circulation in the workplace and the fact that they can proceed with an application for certification deprive them of the freedom to communicate because they might not know how many people on the worksite are in possession of cards? They may not be in communication with the union or the individual employees in the workplace who are in possession of these union cards but who are employed by a non-union contractor in a non-union construction project.

Hon. M. Sihota: If I understand the hon. member right, maybe he doesn't realize this, but the current section 45 of the legislation allows for a construction project certification without a vote. In the situation you referred to, under the current legislation you can have that. That is one that can occur under the existing legislation. I'm not too sure what you're taking issue with.

Are you taking issue with section 45 of Bill 19, which provides these provisions? Or are you just taking issue with that view? Are you taking issue with the view that once you have 55 percent in hand and proceed with the certification, somehow it's wrong for the union to represent all the workers? The hon. member should understand they have an obligation to represent all the workers. It may be that they only receive the blessing of a percentage of them, but they have an obligation to represent them all. Indeed, that's something that they're obliged to do -- and, indeed, do.

W. Hurd: The minister will recognize the principle that under section 8 the deprivation of a person's ability or freedom to communicate can result in a number of scenarios. Not being in possession of the information, because of the existence of cards in the workplace, surely provides a classic example of where a person would be deprived of the freedom to communicate, because they wouldn't have the specific knowledge of the fact that in a non-union construction contract there is the potential for 55 percent of the employees to have signed union cards by virtue of having worked for a union employer in the past. In fact, if application was made to the Labour Relations Board for certification, they would not have been involved in that decision from the outset. They would simply find that an application had been made, and therefore their freedom to communicate would have been seriously affected by the fact that there is a provision later in this bill for an automatic 55 percent certification. I think that was the issue that was partly raised by the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon. Saying that nothing in the code deprives a person of the freedom to communicate.... If cards are in fact going to be existing in a workplace, that's a classic case of deprivation of freedom to communicate.

J. Weisgerber: The purpose of the amendment that we put forward is to try and ensure that during a certification drive there is as much reasonably held information available as possible. We understand clearly -- and we accept -- the notions contained in section 9: there should be an absence of intimidation or coercion. Having accepted that, we then believe that the best decision will be made with as much information as possible being available, to be accepted or rejected by those who are the subject of a certification drive.

I would reinforce the statements made by the member for Okanagan-Vernon. If the expectations of many in the small business community are correct, and if the effect of Bill 84 is to see certification drives in many small businesses, in businesses that employ many people in the workplace for their first time, industries that until now have not been either organized or the subject of union certification drives, there could well be many small businesses approached for the purpose of certification, where there are five or six employees -- young people, perhaps, for example, working in a fast-food restaurant -- where they are very early in their work career, where nobody in the organization has any experience. We believe that, without intimidation or coercion, the employer should have broader ability to communicate facts that he believes to be true, not only about his business but about those who are seeking to certify.

It may well be that in the employer's opinion the union making the drive wouldn't best serve the employees in that particular industry. He might want to suggest to them: "If you're really serious about involving yourself in certification, there are other unions that are more closely aligned with the industry in which you work and in which I operate." I don't think that's coercion or intimidation.

I would agree with the minister's statement earlier that this is one of the fundamental differences between the NDP and the Socreds, because we believe that there 

[ Page 4245 ]

should be information freely available, and that it shouldn't be restricted to the very narrow definition of the employer's business. We believe that the certification process involves both parties -- employees and employers. We believe that broader discussions would not and should not affect the freedom of the individual at the end of the day to make the choice.

As the member for Okanagan-Vernon said, we are concerned now with the loss of the secret ballot and the vote on certification, so that the only chance an employee may have to consider the decision is when signing the certification card. That may be the only conversation. It may be the only process that the employee who is subject to a drive will have to consider their decision. It seems to me to work in everybody's interest for information to be available.

If the minister agrees with that, then surely he would agree with the amendment that's put forward. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the minister and his colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment, because it is not threatening. It simply seeks to make available more information on a broader range of subjects. I'm sure everyone would agree that that's not only desirable, but that it should be included in this legislation.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was listening with interest to the member for Okanagan-Vernon earlier on, when he said he thought that some members of the Social Credit Party might even have said that the New Democratic Party holds some good policies and has some reasonable positions. I thought he was thinking about our position on this issue. But in light of the comments of the leader, I guess not. The leader is right: there is a sharp and very focused philosophical difference of opinion on this issue. I think we on both sides of the House know that. It has been sharply focused in all sorts of cases that have been held by boards, and there has been a tug of war back and forth.

In fact, the hon. member should know, if he doesn't, that during the course of the public hearings, we received an abundance of representations from trade unions suggesting that employers be prohibited altogether from making any representations with respect to any issues, including the business or the trade union. We certainly received submissions that dealt with the point that you raised and which indicated that the scope of abuse would be great if there are opportunities to make comments with regard to the policies of trade unions. The opportunity there for misrepresentation would be great. We considered all of those arguments.

Notwithstanding the representation from trade unions that freedom of speech be totally prohibited on the part of employers, a decision was made to proceed with these sections in the form that they exist, and a decision was made not to proceed with the type of proposal put forward at this time by the third party in the form of its amendment, for all of the philosophical reasons which I know we all understand in this chamber.

[5:30]

J. Weisgerber: I take the minister at his word. I'm sure that the committee had a number of representations from trade unions encouraging that there be a ban on any kind of communication between an employer and employee. It's to the minister's credit that he didn't take that advice. It's unfortunate, however, that he was willing to compromise and accept a narrower interpretation of that freedom than he should have. I would suspect that not one worker, either organized or otherwise, came forward and made that kind of request. Indeed, it is simply a contest between an organizer and an employer. The employees don't feel strongly. Certainly they don't feel that there shouldn't be information.

It's interesting to consider that this government brought forward a freedom-of-information act less than six months ago -- a government which at that time, in contradiction to their statements now, was all in favour of greater freedom of information. We heard all kinds of warm and fuzzy statements made about the importance of there being freedom of information. This NDP government was so committed to it that they were bringing in legislation that was going to ensure there would be freedom of information. A few short months later they bring in legislation that restricts the freedom of the employer to provide information. That's why we've brought this amendment forward and why we think it's important.

I would again recognize that there is a deep philosophical difference on this issue. It is a matter of philosophical policy, I'm sure -- at least between our two parties on this issue. One stands opposed to any communication with an employer and the employees; and we believe that, free from intimidation or coercion, an employer should have an opportunity to put forward reasonably held opinions and facts. We believe that the result of that will be to enable employees to make the best possible and best informed decision. I know I will remain committed philosophically to the stance that we've taken.

G. Wilson: I'd like to get clarification on a question where the minister's answer was simply not clear. In light of the amendment that's before us on section 8, I wonder if the minister might look at that, recognizing that at some point we're going to have to be debating the intent of section 23 with respect to the certification process. Can the minister tell us, in light of what is in the unamended section 8, without the amendment as it would read, where is the freedom of right to communicate to an employee in terms of that certification process, if we were to use a construction site as an example, where people already hold cards?

The Chair: Hon. member, on the amendment.

G. Wilson: This is on the amendment, with due respect, hon. Chair.

If there are members on a construction site who already have cards, application can essentially take place directly on the certification process. My question on the amendment to that fact is: where is there an opportunity for there to be propositions for statements 

[ Page 4246 ]

of fact or opinion to be reasonably held and for discussion and communication with employees in that process? It's quite possible, under this section unamended, that you could have up to 45 percent of your workforce on a construction site non-union that could be unionized without even knowledge of the process underway because those members who are already on site have cards. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not he sees this to be an issue. I would think that he may not, but if he doesn't, then tell us how, without this kind of amendment, there is going to be some protection with respect to open and direct communication on the process on site prior to certification taking place.

Hon. M. Sihota: I know the hon. member was outside of the House, so he may not know that we dealt with this issue already. The member for Surrey-White Rock raised the issue, and I'm confident he was fully persuaded by my arguments.

G. Wilson: That was a really nice try, but unfortunately that just doesn't wash. First of all, I was not out of the House when the question was answered, and I did hear the minister's response. It was unacceptable in the first instance, and obviously he's asking me to accept an unacceptable response, which I can't do.

I wonder if the minister would make specific reference to the issue that I put forth, because it's a very important point. In light of section 23, consistent to section 8 and the amendment we're looking at here, where is the free right for communication in that process if there is not an opportunity, as the amendment would argue, for reasonable questions to be put to the union seeking to represent an employee? That's a very important consideration in this process. Without that in there, can the minister tell us where the protection is for those employees who may already be on site without cards, given 55 percent may be on site with cards, and automatic certification could take place?

Hon. M. Sihota: I know that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was once a member of a trade union and in fact took a leadership position in the trade union. Perhaps when he returns to college after the next election, he will continue to be involved in the trade union.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't hear that, and I'm probably lucky that I didn't. But let me....

J. Dalton: Your relatives went there.

Hon. M. Sihota: They got quality education, hon. member. The former instructor from Langara did a great job with some of my relatives. I don't know what happened now. Maybe I got to them; I don't know.

If I may answer the question from the hon. member, you are raising a theoretical bogeyman, quite frankly. It is hard to conceive of a workplace situation where 55 percent of the employees are quietly signed up, and where they don't intermingle and talk to each other about what's going on and share opinions with regard to a trade union or trade union activity on the worksite.

The world is not so sinister that the union can just go right in and know exactly which 55 percent they have to appeal to, pick all the right people with precision, persuade them to be silent about what's going on, get them to sign the cards and get them to not revoke the card -- because there are provisions here that deal with revocation -- and to not talk to the people who they work with, have coffee with, have lunch with, walk to the parking lot with, socialize with and talk with about what's going on.

Hon. member, I think life experience has taught us that in cases where we have seen applications before the Labour Relations Board, employees generally are well aware of what's happening on the worksite.

G. Wilson: If the hon. minister wants to talk about life experience, even though I don't have many more years than he has, I do have a few.

I would also say that the fact that I have been actively involved with union activity in the province of British Columbia gives some credence to what I'm saying. We're not talking about the sinister activity of some union; we're talking about a factual certification process where members already on site could hold cards from various organizations. Therefore in that process there can be almost automatic certification. Without this amendment, where are the rights of those people who may wish to have adequate communication with those who are seeking to represent the employees as a union? If the minister could specifically talk to that point, he might help us understand why this is such an objectionable amendment, because it seems like a perfectly reasonable one to those on this side of the House.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me put it this way: I don't think there's a roving herd of unionized members going from one site to another with cards disguised in their pockets, lurking there in the dark in some sort of midnight covert operation, showing up at a worksite to say: "Aha! Let's certify; 55 percent of us are here right now." And off they would go with a certification, and the other 45 percent would wake up in the morning and wonder what happened to them and why suddenly the union was out there. Hon. member, that's just not the way the world works.

G. Wilson: Finally the minister and the Leader of the Opposition have something to agree on. That's true; that's not the way the world works, and that's not the way I'm suggesting it does. However, there are significant numbers of displaced workers looking for employment due to the economic policies of this government who already hold cards. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume that you could, in fact, see a movement of people on site where certification can take place automatically. All we're arguing is that if that's the case, then surely there has to be a provision to inform, protect and provide reasonable communication to those 

[ Page 4247 ]

people who may not be involved in the process before those people find themselves automatically certified.

Hon. M. Sihota: If this is the situation that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is referring to.... Let's say you have a carpenter who has membership in a carpenters' union....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I wasn't going to sing the song. This is getting a little weird.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right. I think it was Johnny Cash, and I'm no Johnny Cash, believe you me.

In any event, that carpenter sort of walked over to some other job site because he didn't want to be a part of the union. He's a disaffected member of a union. He doesn't want to have anything to do with unions, walks over to another job site, and -- as the hon. member would suggest -- just because he or she has a carpenter's card, that then gives the requisite number to trigger the 55 percent. I take it that that's the kind of situation you're contemplating. Well, if a person is disaffected, they probably would not maintain their card. They may not be paying their dues. So I just can't see the probabilities of that kind of a situation arising. The predator union -- as you would suggest -- would be there just to seize upon that moment in time that the individual was there to bring about certification. I just don't see that there's a high probability of those kinds of situations arising, quite frankly.

If I may continue, to use an example, if you took a displaced IWA member who went to work at K Mart, which was non-unionized, and if all of those laid-off, displaced IWA workers went over to K Mart and started working there, it would be difficult for the IWA, for the reasons that the hon. member just outlined. So when you talk about workers displaced because of the economic situation, I just can't see that situation arising either.

[5:45]

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can sketch out an easier scenario for the minister to appreciate. We know on this side of the House that he conducted a house-to-house search for a union contractor to build his own home. Let's assume, for example, that it is a non-union site and the Labour minister was interested in seeing his home certified as a union workplace. If 55 percent of the people on that work site building his luxury home, wherever it is in the lower part of Vancouver Island, decided that they were going to certify it at the behest of the Labour minister, the non-union employees on his site, who might be doing a decent job -- we hope they are -- would be denied the opportunity to even communicate before the minister's personal residence was certified.

I think that might be an easier example for him to understand. We know on this side of the House that he was acutely aware of the political risks involved in hiring a non-union contractor to build his personal residence. But he must confess that the persons on his worksite who aren't in possession of union cards could in fact find themselves denied their right, under section 8 of the code we're debating, to be able to communicate with any other person on the worksite, and of the freedom to either join or not join the union. I don't think the minister has really fairly addressed the question, and perhaps he can assure us that in the event that construction on his house proceeds, it won't be unionized in the event this bill goes through.

Hon. M. Sihota: It wasn't until I heard the hon. member make his comments that I fully appreciated what I meant earlier by a roving herd. But with that said.... Oh, that's terrible. Okay, it didn't work.

Look, if your point here is that you want to suggest that theoretically there could be a case where 45 percent of the employees could not know what happened, I guess that's possible. Okay? Practically, I don't think so.

W. Hurd: If the minister were to accept this friendly amendment, he would ensure that in fact it could never happen, theory aside. So I think he's made an excellent case for supporting the amendment: to eliminate the theoretical possibility that employees in a non-union construction site could find themselves the victims of a top-down attempt to organize the workplace by virtue of the fact that the appropriate requisite number of cards were circulating around.

Given the rate of decline of the unionized workforce in the construction sector, I think there's a very real danger that the scenario described by the Leader of the Opposition could in fact take place. There could be an attempt to redress the balance, by virtue of the fact that 55 percent of the employees on any worksite may have union cards based on what they were doing prior to arriving at that worksite. So I think the amendment is an excellent one. I have not heard a compelling reason for the minister to reject it, so we'll look forward to him being a reasonable person and supporting this very constructive amendment.

L. Hanson: The debate is very interesting. Maybe I could pose a question that the minister could answer. I would remind the minister that we've already heard his reason, which is that it's not needed. The Queen's Printer can handle it. We have lots of pulp and paper in British Columbia, so there's no difficulty that way. Maybe the minister can give us a good reason for it not being in the act and not just his simple reason that it's not needed. We have addressed the amendment and talked about the various reasons it might be needed. Can the minister tell us what his opposition to this amendment would be if the whole purpose of the act is not to organize every worker in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Sihota: The purpose of the section is to deal with an employer's right to communicate certain facts with regard to a business. It is designed to achieve some kind of balance on respecting the right of an employer to communicate issues while recognizing the historic restriction on employers from communicating 

[ Page 4248 ]

facts or opinions. That is predicated on the theory that unionization is a decision that employees are free to make on their own as opposed to a decision to be made in conjunction with an employer. It is based on the view that there are few, if any, employers that are going to come up and tell employees during a certification effort that they ought to join a union. It is based, to paraphrase Paul Weiler, on the view that an employer has as much right to tell the employees how they should certify as the employees have to tell the employer who the vice-president of the corporation should be.

There is a clear division of issues that it has historically been argued ought to be left entirely within the scope of an employee's set of decisions -- and others within an employer's -- and that freedom of speech ought to be constrained. That's why it's not surprising that you would get, during the course of the submissions that we received, employees to the trade unions. I'm told that as well there were a lot of representations from people who were not closely connected with business agents. That's why it's not surprising to hear employees, through their trade unions, making the argument that there should be a total prohibition on freedom of speech. And inversely, it's not surprising to hear employers make the argument that they should have an abundance of rights because of the nature of the power relationship -- if I can put it that way -- that exists between employers and employees.

I'm not going to read all the jurisprudence I've got here -- I could give you all sorts of nice quotes -- but these issues have dominated debate with regard to these types of situations. So we're trying to sort of reconcile through this provision what many have called an irreconcilable set of differences, and to go further would undo the kind of balance that we, candidly, philosophically think ought to be here -- which is different than the kind of balance, to put it in your context, that you would, candidly, philosophically put forward -- as you have. That explains the reason why we're having this exchange, and I think it addresses in a fairly candid way the question that you ask.

L. Hanson: I do, and I thank the minister for that, because I think it does illustrate some differences between our beliefs.

The difficulty I have with the situation is that the minister doesn't relate to the need to communicate. He doesn't relate to the prohibition against communicating, in some cases, by the employer to the employee, or to the fact that he has taken away that second consideration for the employee to rethink their position as far as: do I want to become certified, and do I want to become a member of a union? That's the second part. The wording that is in the act now is the wording that was in Bill 19. I have no argument with that; I recognize that.

There was a second look at it. One of our former Premiers of British Columbia, even though he shared our political beliefs, said that there was no harm in taking a second look. In this act the minister has taken away the right of the individual to have that second look. The fact that the first decision is made and the minister has suggested that a condition of that first decision is that he or she can rescind it before certification is made, that is unlikely to happen once it is signed.

If there was more information and if there was the ability for the employer to communicate with the employee -- such as happened with the certification application for a vote and then the vote was held -- and there was an opportunity for that individual to go out and gather information.... Quite often young people who are not familiar with labour relations, the workplace or the circumstances that apply to organized labour and their members would have thoughts about asking questions of various people.

If I understood the minister correctly, he said earlier that it would be okay if the employee went to the employer and said: "What do you think about that?" The employer would be free to respond, although I really wonder at his interpretation of what the Labour Relations Board may make of that. But it's such a fundamental right to have the information in order to make an educated, experienced decision, and to have all the facts in front of you before you make that decision. The minister said earlier that people had made a presentation to his touring committee to the effect that they wanted a restriction, a total boycott on the employers' right to speak. Individual employees made that. I know that all of the submissions have been made available in the library, and I can assure the minister that I'm going to see if I can find any individuals who made that sort of presentation to that committee. I suspect that most of the submissions that were made were made on behalf of organized labour and the management of organized labour, because I can't believe that any employers' organization or any member of the public would come forward with a request for that kind of prohibition.

I'd like to have a little more time, if that's possible. So I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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