Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1992

Volume 7, Number 12

[ Page 4573 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to table documents: a copy of a letter to a court, a copy of a letter of apology and a statement concerning both.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee on Bill 84, hon. Speaker.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 84; E. Barnes in the chair.

On section 68.

G. Farrell-Collins: When we adjourned rather late last evening, we were in the middle of discussing section 68 and its impact. We brought forward a number of amendments. A number were ruled out of order, and one was voted against by the government.

Yesterday we were trying to canvass to some extent the impact of this bill and what sort of problems it may or may not cause in the business community. I understand that the member for Delta South talked to the minister at some length on the situation that may arise in the case of a nanny being replaced. I understand that went on for some time.

Perhaps we could look at a couple of other scenarios. I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. Certainly a scenario that's not new to this House and which has been brought up a number of times, including when I tried to propose an amendment to subsection (1), is the idea of volunteers contributing in the event of a sudden work stoppage. There are a number of scenarios, but two in particular. One would be an education institution if there was a sudden work stoppage or some sort of job action that would cause a disruption and leave students unattended in classrooms, and whether it was okay under this bill for a parent to come and help out either by supervising those children until such time as their own parents could come and pick them up, or by making phone calls to ensure that parents were advised children were there and that they should pick them up, or to at least advise parents that the children were on their way home. That was one instance.

The other instance is a scenario in the event of work stoppages in, for example, a hospital or extended-care facility, where family members might wish to come to the facility to take care of their family or friends in order to ensure that they receive the attention that's required. Could the minister advise us if either of those practices would be allowed under section 68?

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for those questions. With regard to the teachers' situation, we did canvass this extensively, I believe, during second reading debate. But let me say again that the record has been that teachers do not violate their responsibilities as teachers. There is the combination of the 72-hour strike notice, the code of ethics that is mandated to govern teachers and the provisions which allow management under this section to be able to provide services for students, and all three of them come to the assistance of students. Accordingly, we don't anticipate there'd be a problem in that area, because of those three measures.

Secondly, with regard to hospitals, family members who are concerned about hospitals obviously are also aware of the fact that there are essential service provisions in the legislation, which I'm sure we'll deal with later, that would provide for staff to be available to deal with the needs of patients in hospitals. The purpose of the legislation, and particularly this section, is to reduce the length of disputes, as well as the violence and so on. With that in place we would hope that disputes would not linger, as perhaps they have in the past.

[10:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: The education instance that the minister talked about has occurred. We discussed that earlier in the debate. In 1990 in the south Okanagan, there was an instance where teachers, despite the fact that students were in the classroom and despite all the provisions the minister mentioned, refused to leave the staff room to go into the classrooms to teach or, more importantly, supervise. So it does happen.

The minister talks about the code of ethics of teachers. I recall that some weeks ago in the debate I read from the teachers' code of ethics. Number 8 of the code required the teachers to obey and not cause any difficulty or dissension when job action was entered upon. Once the directive came from the union, the teachers from B.C. Fed must comply. That's also in their code of ethics, so there's a little bit of a problem there. I think the instance of what took place in the Okanagan is a good example.

I don't think the provision is clear enough. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano stated that in the school his children are in, there are 600 elementary students and a principal and vice-principal; everyone else is a teacher. I fail to see how two people could possibly make phone calls to parents in order to get those children home safely or supervise all those children at the same time. There's absolutely no way. It's not feasible.

Given that the minister stated earlier that in fact no other managers, principals or vice-principals could be brought in from other schools, no other board staff -- excluded staff -- could come in to supervise, the minister is really putting the school principals and vice-principals in a very difficult position. Further to that and what's more important, it's putting the students and their parents in a very difficult position. To merely state that there is 72 hours' strike notice and that this type of event will never occur is false, because in fact it has occurred; the minister is aware of that.

[ Page 4574 ]

Are there not some provisions that could be made in this bill, some guidelines set out by the minister today in discussion as to what those parameters are or perhaps some regulations that would allow for those types of events?

The other is the jurisdiction of the hospitals. Again, the minister says there are levels of essential service that are prescribed ahead of time. I recall being in the hospital. Very often the food isn't all that great, and family members wish to bring other food in to the ill person. They like to be there to help out, to make sure the person is comfortable, to fluff pillows and to do whatever. The minister is stating that those types of things will not be allowed to happen, and I think that is extremely unfortunate. Is there no way in this code, in direction given by the minister or in regulations that we can mitigate some of those more serious and perhaps unforeseen instances -- not to circumvent the intent of the section, but to allow for those types of eventualities?

Hon. M. Sihota: On the teacher situation first, I agree that it would not be possible or logical to have two people -- a principal and a vice-principal -- look after 600 students. That's obvious, I think, to all. The reason that we have a 72-hour strike notice provision is to allow for an orderly shutdown of a school in the event of a strike. The 72-hour notice provision allows that to happen, and we have witnessed over and over again, ever since the previous administration decided to give teachers the right to strike, that when these situations occur, it has been an orderly shutdown of schools. Parents and everybody else react to both the inconveniences and the necessities caused by a strike. For that reason and for all the other reasons I just amplified, I don't think that's a realistic situation that will arise.

With regard to hospitals, essential service levels are there. There's nothing that prevents me or you from going into a hospital, if we have a loved one or a relative there, to fluff their pillow or bring them a banana, some chocolates or whatever else they need. I mean, I don't think anybody's going to interpret that as work ordinarily done by a person who is performing the work of an employee in the bargaining unit. There is obviously some recognition of the fact that people do come in and visit patients. To the extent that that's realistically happening, I don't think you're going to see an application brought under section 68.

G. Farrell-Collins: Two points: first of all, the reality is -- and the minister should know; we stated it just minutes before and I assume he was listening -- that in fact the orderly shutdown of schools, despite the provisions in this labour code, does not always occur. They do not always occur, as evidenced by the stoppage, the work action, that took place in south Okanagan in 1990. There's one example, and I'm sure that with digging there would be some others.

The minister, I think, should be aware that there are provisions, there are cases, where despite agreements that are entered into, those agreements are not always followed through on in the heat of the battle, so to speak. So I guess what I'm asking for from the minister is some guidance to this House that would extend throughout the sector and throughout the public that's involved in labour relations. So in events when those agreements are not entered into, when there's not an orderly shutdown of a school, for example, if volunteers were brought in to deal with that in an orderly manner, an application under section 68 would not be appropriate, and would not be dealt with in a reasonable manner; it would in fact be thrown out.

At the very least, those are the types of indications, I think, that we need from the minister on section 68 in order to ensure that it doesn't become an onerous piece of legislation that in fact causes problems throughout the public sector at least, and certainly the private sector also.

The second instance that the minister talks about with the difficulties that may arise in a health care situation, in an extended-care facility, a hospital or something does give me great concern, because I wonder what the thin line is as far as who is going to be able to do what, and who is not going to be able to do what. Those are difficult questions.

I think there has to be a clear signal given by the minister that if a family member goes into that hospital or that extended care facility to care for the person who is there, in whatever way they feel is appropriate -- aside from administering medication, which of course should be done by a professional.... They should be allowed to do that, and there has to be a clear signal that there is no intent in this code to stop them from doing that. At the very least, we do need a clear signal from the minister today in this House stating that is not the intention of Bill 84 or section 68. I don't think that's too much to ask on behalf of British Columbians. I think all British Columbians would agree and realize that those are two types of jobs -- family member support -- that must be allowed to continue despite the labour relations climate in this province.

Hon. M. Sihota: On the example of teachers, there are a number of issues. First of all, if there is not an orderly shutdown in compliance with the 72 hours' notice provision and they violate that provision, then there are remedies available with the Labour Relations Board.

Secondly, in addition to that...

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Just hear me out, hon. member. ...there are powers available to school trustees and the Ministry of Education if teachers do not comply with the terms of their employment. Those are well known to the parties involved, and they can easily be acted upon.

Thirdly, with regard to the example mentioned by the hon. member from south Okanagan, he may wish to check the record -- and I think it would be appropriate if we all did -- to determine whether that was a lockout or a strike, because there may be a different texture applied to it.

He then has to determine whether the nature of the job action was legal or illegal. If it was illegal....

[ Page 4575 ]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, there is a major difference, because the remedies available can move with dispatch with regard to the illegality of actions.

On the example of hospitals, if family members do that which they normally do when they go in and visit a family member or someone in hospital, then there is no difficulty. To some nominal extent, I guess it could always be argued that they perform the work of an employee in the bargaining unit. But the extent to which they intrude upon that will, of course, be something that will be determined by the Labour Relations Board. I have no difficulty with someone crossing the picket line to visit a family member. If they do what they normally do when they go and visit someone, I don't think there's any reason to be concerned. I've been known to walk in when my mother was in hospital and do all sorts of things on the floor that most other members do to relatives who are in hospital. I'm not going to get into every specific job function to say whether this works. I don't think anyone would prevent family members from doing that which they normally do if there is no strike.

G. Farrell-Collins: I suppose that's some assurance from the minister, and I imagine it's all we will get. I would reiterate the position, if I may, that as long as family members are in hospital or in an extended care facility and family members are doing things they would normally do if they came to visit and merely caring for the family member in a compassionate way, there would be no intent for this section to cause them any problem or put them in any sort of difficult position.

With regard to the issue in the south Okanagan, my understanding of that action is that the teachers were in the staff room having a study session and refused to leave to deal with the students. Perhaps the minister could enlighten us a little bit on what recourse would be available to the principal and vice-principal on an immediate basis if that were legal or illegal.

Hon. M. Sihota: If there was an abrupt, unanticipated action by teachers.... If your point is that that would put principals, vice-principals and other support staff in an awkward situation -- a virtually impossible situation -- that may well be true. I'll grant you that point. Remember that we've tried to guard against that in the legislation for all the reasons that I just amplified on.

In legislation you can't prevent an unanticipated action by any employee group. We've tried to anticipate actions, so that we can develop remedial plans. That's why we have provisions like the 72-hour strike notice, for example, in the legislation, so as to take away some of the elements of surprise or some of the exposure to risk for those on the job site.

If there is action taken that is inconsistent with either the code of ethics of any professionals or their responsibilities as employees, there are remedies available in the long run with respect to the school board and the trustees, which they are well aware of, that can result in some level of discipline or other action against the employees involved. It's up to them as to whether they wish to take those actions.

What we're trying to do in this code -- as, indeed, has been the practice in the past -- is endeavour to provide some structure in the system so that everybody can deal with the consequences of an action. No one likes a strike where there is public inconvenience, be it transit or ferries -- which we have either seen or may see -- or teachers or hospitals. But the way in which we've established our legal regimes in this country, and certainly in this province, is that generally we have been able to structure things without exposing those who may be affected to risk of harm, particularly in hospitals and schools. That's been the history of labour relations practice in this province.

I don't see anything here in this section which would prevent that from occurring, given the fact that we have passed all the other sections that run up to this one. This, then, is the section that comes in once there's a dispute with proper notice and the proper arrangements made.

[10:30]

G. Farrell-Collins: One final question on this particular theme dealing with educational institutions. My understanding, if I'm hearing the minister correctly, is that if there were a sudden, unexpected job action, the principals and vice-principals would be bound by their professional obligation to the students to deal with them in a quick and expedient manner, and that it's not the intent of this section to forbid them from doing that; as long as they were dealing in the spirit of section 68, and were merely trying to avert a problem that they perceived in the safety or security of the students because of an unintended or unexpected job action, they would not be in violation of section 68.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, I suppose they could always refuse to do the work. That's something that I can't control, and neither can you or anybody else. The situation may be such that the "managers" also have a lot of sympathy for the employees at the site, with that exception. Otherwise, they are managers on site, they have responsibilities, and one would expect them to work within the context of their responsibilities.

G. Farrell-Collins: Very quickly, I think perhaps you missed the intent just slightly on that question. In the event of an unexpected work stoppage or work action of some sort -- I'm not concerned about whether or not there's sympathy.... I'm asking about the situation where the management -- the principals and vice-principals or a superintendent -- because of unexpected or unanticipated job action, have concern about the safety of the students as far as supervision goes. Would they be entitled to take whatever action was necessary to secure the safety of the students as far as supervision went, as long as they could do that without violating the spirit of section 68? They're not trying to break the strike, they're not trying to cross the picket line, they're just trying to deal with a temporary

[ Page 4576 ]

situation caused by an unexpected or unanticipated series of job actions.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not trying to rewrite the law here. In an unanticipated -- let's say it's legal -- situation, you would expect management on site to attend to their professional responsibilities.

G. Farrell-Collins: Would that professional duty to respond to those professional responsibilities include making use, on a temporary basis, for an hour or two hours, of four or five parents who would come in and help out and make the phone calls to ensure that the students were supervised in the transition from classroom to home -- whatever was necessary to deal with the students? Would that be a reasonable expectation on their part, in order to ensure that their professional duty to those students was in fact delivered upon?

Hon. M. Sihota: To a large measure, those issues have been best left to the employer and the union to sort out. I'm not going to go as far as the hon. member is asking me to do, in terms of commenting on that kind of eventuality. I can see all sorts of situations arising. I think I've gone far enough in terms of my amplification of how we see the section working.

J. Tyabji: I've been following this section's debate with some interest. The comments of the minister that the intent of section 68 is to reduce picket line violence and also to reduce the length of the dispute seem to be the two major arguments that he's putting forward. I'd like to canvass in some more depth some of the things that have come up in the debate, and to preface this by saying that in my mind there are two different ways that we have to approach this -- private sector unions and public sector unions -- if we are dealing with the two major intents of this section. If there are more intents to this section than the reduction of picket line violence and reduction in the length of the dispute, perhaps the minister would like to provide that, and we can address the two sectors of unions in that way.

First, in terms of the public sector union, it seems to me that we recognize.... Also, hon. Chair, I'd like this minister to know that, contrary to the comments he's been making, the Liberal caucus, number one, does respect the integrity of a picket line. If someone has the right to strike, they also have the right to have some integrity on their picket line. Therefore there shouldn't be wholesale busing in of replacement workers. We understand that, and we have stated that repeatedly in second reading and in this part of the debate.

To what extent does the minister recognize the integrity of capital investment, the security of property and the personal safety of the people involved? We have the private sector, for example, where you have capital investment being brought forward and individuals who take risks. Sometimes it's a family business, a small or medium-sized business, or, as we heard yesterday from the member for Delta South, a nanny or caregiver who decides they would like different working conditions and takes whatever job action they feel necessary. There should be some ability for those who make that investment and have to maintain the security of that investment to have some recourse. We don't see that in this part of the bill.

With regard to public sector unions, there should be some security and integrity in terms of the ability of people affected to provide for their personal safety -- for example, if there's a long-term caregiver; someone happens to be bedridden and needs more attention than family members would generally give when they come.... I'm talking about basic things, like changing the bedpan. Is a family member going to be hauled before the Labour Relations Board for doing something as simple as that, because it's not what they normally do when they visit? It has to be done when there is job action being taken in the public sector.

It could be the other extreme, where you have day care operators or a homemaker and there are children involved. We heard the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove talk about the public sector where children are involved -- in schools. The minister is on record as admitting that that kind of job action could happen. We could have a scenario where children's safety is at issue. Even if the opposition says that there must be some integrity at the picket line, we still want a commitment from the minister that there's also a recognition of the security and safety of the individuals. We don't see that in the bill.

It is the very strong view of the Liberal opposition that in any labour dispute there are three elements to the equation. The first is public safety and security; the second is the employees; and the third -- obviously a very critical part -- is the employers. We don't hear a recognition from the minister in this section that the first of those considerations has been provided for: the safety, integrity and security of the public.

Are there more justifications for this section than the reduction of picket line violence and the reduction of the length of the dispute? That's the first question I'd like answered. This can be done as briefly as possible, and then we can canvass it in more detail later. Secondly, does this minister have a commitment through this section for the security of individuals, not only in terms of safety but in terms of personal investment?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to thank the hon. member for those questions. Let me deal with the issues that she raises.

With regard to individuals being able to safely cross a picket line, an individual who is management or an employee is allowed under this section to do so. Then they clearly have the right to security of person. If that security of person is threatened, they have the right to remedies to provide for that security of person. In order to protect capital and investment, under these provisions the government has allowed management to cross in order to maintain the operation. In terms of the safety of the public, the essential services provisions, which are not before the House now but will be when we get into further debate on this section, have been enhanced to protect the safety of the public.

[ Page 4577 ]

C. Serwa: It will take time.

Hon. M. Sihota: I heard the hon. member opposite suggest that this will take time. It is true that it will take time for the individual requiring assistance to cross a line, but that can be done with dispatch. It's no different than the situation now, where one may have to make an application. So the time parameters have not changed in any material way.

J. Tyabji: I have a very brief supplemental to the first question, and then we'll go further into his answers. Does the minister agree that the two primary goals of this section are to reduce picket line violence and the length of disputes, or are there further justifications for it?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are a lot of others that I can get into, but I'm not going to give a half-hour speech. It is good labour relations practice to have this provision in there. It does force the parties to work out their differences together, and it recognizes that there is security of employment for those who are working. They will not be undermined by another. Those are three examples of other considerations that went into the section. Other considerations were that an individual wishing to cross should be allowed to do so and follow their own conscience, and managers who do not wish to work should be respected for the same reason.

J. Tyabji: If the minister, as he stated, could give us a half an hour of justification for this section, we would welcome it. We would welcome as much input as possible, because we really would like to understand why there is such a hard line on this.

When I was talking about the security of person.... The minister brought up a number of things in his answers to the first set of questions I gave him. When I'm talking about the security of the person, I'm not talking about the security of the manager who crosses the picket line. That is one aspect of it, but we've dealt with that in earlier sections of the bill dealing with things like no unfair labour practices and no undue coercion or violence. I think it was section 9. When I talk about security of person, particularly in public sector unions, I'm not talking about the employer or the employee; I'm talking about the first person in the equation.

An Hon. Member: The person in the hospital.

J. Tyabji: That's right. Not just the person in the hospital but the child in the day care or in the school system. It's the individual who is affected. The opposition feels very strongly that if we do not provide for the public in this bill.... For his own protection the minister should realize that this bill does not provide for the public, and ultimately the public is going to call him to task on this. The public is contacting us with all the examples. The public is phoning the member for Delta South and saying: "My life demands that my children's security relies on this manner of care." Obviously I'm in the same kind of situation. I found the minister's answers last night alarming in the extreme, because I don't feel that the public have been provided for.

We had the minister admit that a nanny, as a unit of one, could go on strike. The children could not be taken to a relative's home without a picket line being set up, because the relative's home would be an allied location. We also had the minister admit that in the event of the nanny being on strike, one could not call a relative into one's own home to take care of one's children. That means that this minister's bill is not adequately providing for the public. When I'm talking about security of person, I'm not talking about the security of the parent crossing the nanny's picket line to pick up his or her children from a relative's home; I'm talking about the children who are going to be left out of this bill. That's one aspect of it.

[10:45]

That happens to be one in the private sector, but there are also provisions in the public sector unions where you have children in the schools, children in day care and elderly people in homes. That's the security of the person that I believe hasn't been provided for in the bill.

I can tell the minister that the anxiety of the public is not because there is some inherent hostility to unions. The anxiety in the Liberal opposition is not because of an inherent dislike of unions. In fact, many of our members have walked picket lines; many of us are married to people who walk picket lines or who are members of unions. It is not a viable argument for this minister to stand up in the House and say that the reason the Liberals don't like this bill is that we don't like unions. That's not the case.

The problem is that the minister will, for his own protection, have to introduce amendments that provide for public safety. We haven't heard that from the minister. If the future of unions in this province is of concern to him, I hope he hears the comment that section 68 will lead to such a backlash and such a suspicion of collective bargaining and organized labour that the very goals that section 2 of this bill is trying to achieve will be virtually impossible because of section 68.

What I'd like the minister to answer is: since he has not provided for the security of the individual in this bill, from our perspective, how is he going to answer to the public when there are the kinds of labour disputes we outlined? I really encourage the minister not to stand up and say that those are hypothetical situations. They happen to be hypothetical situations that the minister has agreed could happen. Last night he tried to dismiss that they would happen, but he admitted that they could. He admitted that the scenario the member for Delta South painted could happen.

We know from section 2 of this bill that the purpose of the bill is to encourage collective bargaining. Therefore, in section 68, we will be dealing with more and more unions, the likes of which we have never seen before. Because we will be dealing with that and because we have the encouragement of that, how is the

[ Page 4578 ]

minister to respond to the public's anxiety over the lack of security for the individual in section 68?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me say that I am responsible and accountable to the public through this House. I would expect hon. members, if they feel that the government has not responded in a fashion such as to attend to the public interest, to raise issues in the House to hold the government accountable.

J. Tyabji: We are.

Hon. M. Sihota: Then I'm sure you'll do that in the future...

J. Tyabji: We're doing it now.

Hon. M. Sihota: ...a lot better than you have done in the past.

Second, let me say that with regard to the safety of an individual, that's why in, say, a hospital we have essential services provisions. With respect to the safety of a child in a school, that's why we have the orderly provisions with regard to the 72-hour strike notice. That's how we attend to those concerns.

With respect to the nanny, we canvassed that extensively last night, and I laid out how the legislation would work in that type of situation.

With respect to anxiety, it is true that there is always anxiety. I agree with the hon. member; I don't think the anxiety comes about over the fact that people may wish to join a trade union. But anxiety always arises when there's the prospect of a labour dispute and the prospect of a disruption which will have an effect on all of our lifestyles. I dropped my daughter off at school this morning before I came here. If there was a teachers' strike, obviously I would have to make other arrangements for her, much as the hon. member would have to for her children when they go to school. People get anxious when there is a labour disruption. So anxiety comes as a part of the labour relations process.

What we're trying to do through this legislation, and particularly with this section, is reduce the possible length of a strike and encourage the parties to resolve their issues as quickly as possible so as to reduce (a) the potential for that anxiety, by not having a strike, and (b) the time length of that anxiety.

J. Tyabji: If the minister is recognizing essential services as the root of the security for individuals who will be affected by a labour disruption, would he be willing to extend the essential services ruling to the private sector if it turns out that the public's safety is in jeopardy because of potential labour disruption? If not, then my question again is: how is the safety of the public provided for through the private sector use of section 68?

Hon. M. Sihota: I would encourage the hon. member to ask me that question when we get to section 72. We're dealing with section 68 now.

J. Tyabji: I am asking the minister how he has provided for the safety of the public at large through the provisions of section 68, which currently do not provide for safety. His response was that the way he will do it is with regard to essential services. I will definitely ask him that again under section 72, and I hope that he will then refer back to section 68.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: He says that he will.

The next thing is that the minister made remarks about accountability and the fact that he is accountable in the House, and that if we have concerns, we should raise them in the House. I am raising them. One concern I would like to bring forward -- which will be canvassed later on by the leader of the official opposition -- is that we know the very concerns we are bringing forward to this minister have been brought forward to his own Premier and to him directly, by people in the business community and the public sector and by union members. When we're talking about accountability, if this minister is trying to suggest that we can try in any manner to be more persuasive than we have been, he's wrong. He doesn't understand the way the House functions. The only way that we can possibly keep him accountable is by asking him these questions.

Just as the Business Council of B.C. and the Coalition of B.C. Businesses have asked him, just as public sector unions have asked him in numerous meetings, just as unions from across the province have asked him and just as private individuals have asked him by writing to him, I am asking him now: how has he provided for the safety of the public in section 68? My feeling is that he hasn't, and that's why he's trying to put it off to some nebulous date in the future.

I'd like to get back to the other question I asked with regard to the private sector. Where in section 68 does it allow for the security of investment? This minister has been talking about security of employment being an issue with unions. I understand that, because obviously unions are looking out for the interests of the employees. But this minister has repeatedly referred to the fact that when you have a labour disruption, you get high emotions on either side, and you will often get people on either side digging their heels in, whether it's the employer, with regard to resolving the dispute, or the union, with regard to this.

If that is the case, doesn't the minister admit that the very thing he's trying to ensure in section 68, security of employment, is going to be compromised by the fact that there will not be any replacement workers? The minister has talked about the suffering of the people who have capital investment as being one of the things that ends a labour dispute early. The minister is going to admit that it won't be the unions that understand the financial impact of the strike on the employer more than the employer does, and that the employer could be willing to end the strike but the unions are holding out. The very security of employment that he's trying to protect will be compromised, whether that's as result of them not being able to meet the demands or coming back with fewer jobs. That's the other thing.

[ Page 4579 ]

As far as good labour relations go, how can there be good labour relations if there are going to be some capital investment losses to the employer as the strike goes on and if the employer can't even bring in members of his or her own family to keep things going? The minister has admitted prior to this that his bill does not allow for technical people to cross the line to make sure that the capital investment is secured, but only management, as defined at that time by the Labour Relations Board. Again you're looking at retroactive decision-making, which, as the member for Okanagan West pointed out, isn't good enough.

So we've got an issue of safety, an issue of security of capital investment and an issue of lower security of employment, and the minister is talking about good labour relations. Well, this isn't going to help, because it's so tight that it's going to lead to so much resentment by the people who will feel that they have no avenue to secure their own capital investment. The very things that the minister says he is trying to achieve in section 68 will be harder to achieve, because it's going to lead to people digging their heels in and not being able to secure their own capital investment.

We know, hon. Chair, that right now in Ontario there's a family that has been hauled before the Labour Relations Board because, during a labour dispute, some brothers and sisters came in to help out. That wasn't acceptable because of the legislation that was brought in there. This minister should know that this is what we'll be facing in B.C., and that it is going to lead to so much dissension in the public and so much hostility toward labour unions that section 2 will be virtually unenforceable. So would the minister please answer the questions on security?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, hon. Chair, let me say that with regard to Ontario, the hon. member should know that the Ontario legislation is effective January 1. So any situation in Ontario that she refers to would not be under the legislation that parallels this one. So you're wrong on that point.

Secondly, on the issue of security of capital -- because I've dealt with public safety and so on -- the reason we have the 72-hour-strike-notice provisions and some of the other provisions that we've already passed in this House is to do just that: to recognize that there need to be methods in place to protect the security of the investment. We've gone further in this section by allowing managers to cross the picket line and to further protect the security of that capital investment. So the balance is there, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: I don't understand how the minister can say with a straight face that the balance is there. It's obviously not there.

The final point I'd like to make before I yield to the member for Langley is that the minister was talking about anxiety in the public, which is there. We know it's there, and he knows it's there. He was talking about there being some anxiety over potential labour disruption. That's not the case, hon. Chair. The anxiety in the public is with regard to this bill. We've seen it come up not only in the definitions section and the purposes section, but also in the co-management provisions, which we tried to get him to amend -- which he wouldn't amend -- and the replacement worker provisions. This is going to radically change the direction in which the province is going. We've heard it from the business community, who called for and believed they had a deal with regard to amendments. We heard them say that this is the most slanted legislation that has ever been introduced on labour relations in the province. So my last comment to the minister is that the anxiety is over his legislation, not over potential labour disruptions.

I'm going to try to get him the details on the case in Ontario as soon as possible, because I'm sure that it is particularly relevant to section 68 of Bill 84 that's before the House now.

L. Stephens: Mr. Chairman, my perspective on this bill and this particular section is that of a small business person, which is what my background is, and business in general. The demands of business are that the bottom line is your cash flow, and whether you have it or not. The effect of this section, in my view, is to hold a sword over the heads of business, because picketing workers are allowed to find other work and to maintain their cash flow, and businesses are not.

I would like the minister to please explain the balance and the fairness of section 68.

Hon. M. Sihota: For the sake of the rules that prevent repetition, I'll say that I've indicated on several occasions where the balances are. I just did so a few minutes ago for the member for Okanagan West.

L. Stephens: Well, Mr. Minister, I would suggest that they're not satisfactory. There's very clearly an imbalance in this particular section. I would suggest that most businesses out there are very much aware of that, and we're going to be looking with great interest to see how this particular section is interpreted and dealt with, as will the rest of the province.

[11:00]

Sections 68(1)(b) and (c) would prevent public sector employers from maintaining essential services, such as laundries or food services. Would transferring the managers from other operations require the Labour Relations Board to designate more employees to maintain these services? Was this the intent?

Hon. M. Sihota: To designate additional employees under 68(1)?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The intent is fairly clear. It simply says that an employer shall not use a person who ordinarily works at another of the employer's places of operation. That's to make sure, with respect to 68(1)(b), that you cannot bring someone across a picket line who works in another one of your operations on a different site. That was the intention there.

[ Page 4580 ]

L. Stephens: Would this also apply to municipalities that have a number of sites? They are the same employer, but they do have a number of sites around the municipality. Would it mean that a manager would not be allowed to go from one site to another to maintain services?

Hon. M. Sihota: The Labour Relations Board would have to make that determination. It would also have to determine how it would define place of operations.

L. Stephens: You're saying that it's the Labour Relations Board that would make the determination on issues such as this. I see the minister is nodding yes.

Subsection (1)(d) would prevent employers from hiring security guards. In the case of pulp mills or mines, for instance, it's the union employees who provide this service. Even under the 72-hour clause this bill says that it's only the managers who would be allowed to perform this service as well. Is that correct?

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Security that's hired in pulp mills, mines and so on.

Hon. M. Sihota: Subsection (1)(d) would prevent the utilization of services of an employee who is provided by a contractor or subcontractor.

L. Stephens: Does the minister agree that violence on the picket line is unlawful conduct? Who is responsible for maintaining lawful conduct?

Hon. M. Sihota: The appropriate authorities, be it the Labour Relations Board, police or other services available to maintain lawful conduct.

L. Stephens: I'd like the minister to explain why section 68(2) requires the consent of a manager to perform bargaining unit work.

Hon. M. Sihota: A manager should have the right, on the basis of their conscience, to refuse to do work if they wish.

L. Stephens: Can you give me some indication as to why they may refuse?

Hon. M. Sihota: That would be a determination made by a manager.

L. Hanson: This section of the bill is one of the sections that the three wise men could not reach a consensus on. So obviously the minister and the government of the day must take full responsibility for bringing this section into the act. I can understand that the party in power at the moment has a philosophy that would make this very attractive to them. I also understand the philosophy that they are intending by this piece of legislation. It is really the crux of the whole thing, this section particularly, to take all the weapons away from the management side and place them all squarely in the hands of the organized labour side. By the banning of replacement workers, they have done that.

What I'd like to know from the minister is: why, when they have taken away the right to have replacement workers...? What was the reasoning behind the ban on transferring in management from other locations that are already part of the organization? I think this affects large corporations mainly, and probably government services to some extent. Can the minister tell us why? It seems like overkill if you've banned the use of replacement workers, and now, even over and above that, you're banning the transfer from another location of any exempt worker in another section. You also narrow the definition of exempt workers. Why would you add that to the burden of the banning of replacement workers? You've taken that one weapon away, and you've really, by that clause, taken away any small ability they have to continue with operations at a very low level.

Hon. M. Sihota: The section's intent is undermined if you can start bringing in people from other localities that are not part of that location to continue to do the work. I'll just give you an example. You talk about very low levels. Lafarge was the example in Vancouver. The parties did not need to bring in very many managers in order to continue the production of the plant. This had the effect of extending that strike way beyond what it normally should have been. I think the parties in retrospect would agree with that analysis of it. It took some resources to be able to get that dispute resolved. We're just saying that the potential for bringing in replacement workers should be restricted totally, so as to put the pressure on the parties to conclude negotiations.

L. Hanson: Maybe the minister could explain the circumstances that required the addition to this replacement worker banning. You're suggesting that without the direct permission of the exempt employee, they should not also be requested to do the work of a striking worker, even though they are an exempt employee. What is the thinking behind that? Has that been a serious problem? To my knowledge of the labour relations field, there have been complaints, but not of any substance. It almost seems, again, that we're killing a fly with a sledgehammer.

Hon. M. Sihota: It was a conscience issue, basically. They should have the right to refuse if on a matter of conscience they do not wish to do it -- much the same way we've also said in this legislation that an employee, for matters of conscience, may wish to cross the picket line. It's a recognition of a conscience variable. It exists, I think, in Ontario as well, and was part of Mr. Baigent's recommendations.

L. Hanson: That seems to be the opposite position that the minister is taking when it comes to religious

[ Page 4581 ]

exemption -- that was in another clause -- and it also seems to be the opposite of the earlier clause which narrowed the exempt workers. If you add all of these together, I don't think there's any question that the intention in section 68 is that in the case of work disruption, the operation, or whatever it might be, has to be closed. There just will not be any operation. I asked the minister yesterday if that was the intention of this section. When I look back at Hansard, I don't think that he really answered. Maybe he would give me an answer now. Is it the intention of this section to close an operation completely if there is legal labour disruption?

Hon. M. Sihota: The intention of the section is to prevent violence, to prevent replacement workers being brought into a dispute and to try to force the parties to resolve their issues -- knowing full well that they can't bring in other people to do that work.

L. Hanson: Then would the minister not admit that by this section the ability of the employer to withstand a strike is not anywhere near the ability of the employees to exert pressure on the employer? The field has been seriously tilted. I know the argument that went on for some days with Bill 19 was that we had tilted the field with that bill. This seems to me to be such a bad tilt that most employers in British Columbia are going to fall right off the field if there is labour disruption. When you read all the different parts to this section, it's very difficult to understand that there is any intention other than the closing of an employer in the case of a strike.

I would also like to point out for the record and for the committee that this is a section brought in by this government, not a section that you can use the shield of the committee to suggest that it was through their consensus it was brought in. So not only are the results of this going to be very drastic for the existing employers in British Columbia but the attitude of any future employers in British Columbia will have to rest squarely with this government.

Hon. M. Sihota: Just to make a point here. There are obviously some fears and concerns being expressed. It's quite legitimate to express concerns about which way the field is being tilted. It's interesting to note that this type of experience has been witnessed in a few other jurisdictions in Canada, including the province of Quebec where, in 1987 in particular, a number of changes were made to the legislation with regard to these kinds of provisions, and they're not materially different from what we have. There were fears at the time that the law would have some of the effect that the hon. member is referring to.

On September 7, 1992, the Globe and Mail, for example, did a review of the Quebec legislation, and I quote: "...fears that" -- the law -- "would hamstring employers and scare away investment proved unfounded." They go on to quote what Mr. Baigent had to say in reflecting on that experience:

"The underlying assumption in the Quebec experience is worth emphasizing at the outset. In a mature collective bargaining relationship the parties recognize that the use of replacement workers does not solve collective bargaining issues; it simply exacerbates them.

"The rationale for prohibiting the use of replacement workers during a work stoppage is straightforward. Labour legislation is designed to encourage collective bargaining. When collective bargaining reaches an impasse, the theory behind the legislation is that the economic hardships suffered by both sides will force compromise.

"When an employer continues to work during a strike or lockout, the dynamic of collective bargaining is frustrated and the employer's incentive to negotiate is removed. Beyond that, work stoppages are lengthened and picket-line violence is often inevitable as employees witness replacement workers filling 'their' jobs and removing pressure from their employer to settle the dispute. A prohibition against the use of replacement workers is consistent with a social policy that encourages collective bargaining; the use of strikebreakers is inconsistent with such a policy."

[11:15]

Without going into the whole philosophy of it, which Mr. Baigent begins to touch upon, the point is that a lot of the concerns that were articulated in that province, which are shared by the members of the opposition, did not occur there and, we suspect, will not occur here.

L. Hanson: I suspected that that might be the minister's reply. I would remind the minister that he should look at the two bills on the whole instead of the section in isolation, because the two bills are quite different. There are a number of other things in the Quebec legislation that soften the effect of banning replacement workers.

The issue that I was talking about earlier was not banning replacement workers; it was that there couldn't be a transfer in of exempt people, and permission was required for exempt management to do a particular job. I expect that the results of banning replacement workers would be somewhat modified if those other two sections were not in the clauses of the section.

The minister suggested that the ability to exert economic pressure on the parties in dispute is a very vital part of encouraging a settlement. The fact is that with this section, the exertion of economic pressure is all on one side. There isn't any on the other side. As I've mentioned before, employees who are on strike are quite at liberty to supplement their incomes however they see fit, but this section and some other clauses take away any ability of the employer to withstand the economic pressure of the lack of operation. There is absolutely no way, with the different definitions and clauses that have been changed in here, that any employer will be able to continue even a very low level of operation. So it isn't the question of the replacement workers, which I heartily disagree with; it is the other two clauses that are the finishing touches. In the well-known phrase, it's the straw that is going to break the camel's back.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Chair, I noticed with interest that the minister said that not bringing in replacement

[ Page 4582 ]

workers will cause economic strain on the parties, thus agreements will be reached quicker. Does the minister agree that these agreements, which will be reached at a faster rate than when replacement workers were allowed, will always be in the public interest? Those agreements that will be reached because of pressures of the day may not reflect the essence of the year-round employment of people. Will those pressures that are exerted on management, especially in small businesses, always be beneficial to the public at large? You could end up, specifically in small businesses.... That's what this bill is specifically targeted at: to unionize all small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia.

I'm not saying I have anything against unions. Unions have their place, but there are places in our economy where unions should not be. But applying that pressure on small businesses in the private sector where they're going to have to raise the rates for their services or the goods that they sell.... Is that always going to be in the public interest, when they're under pressure to agree quickly, which they will be under through section 68? Quite often it's monetary more than anything else. To take it to the public sector, does he agree that every contract that is reached very quickly is going to be to the benefit of the public?

Hon. M. Sihota: I would hope the determinations that are made will be in the public interest. I'm sure that we will all be watching with interest to see how the world unfolds. The hon. member's crystal ball is no clearer than mine.

R. Neufeld: You can speak about your crystal ball; I'll speak about my crystal ball. I have a little different viewpoint on it.

I'll take you back to 1990 when there were an awful lot of disputes in the education sector. Specifically, there was a strike in one of the school districts in my constituency, and I believe it was the longest strike in British Columbia's history. During that strike some of the rural schools stayed open and continued to serve the children, who were able to continue their schooling. The ones who were not able to were the high-school students; they invariably lost one year of schooling because of the length of the strike. A lot of parents and support people came in -- and teachers in a lot of cases -- to try to continue on with the educational system. In the end, the wage settlement was comparable to what the school district could afford to pay. So they were able to carry on 1991-1992 with a fairly good education system.

But if we look around at the rest of the province -- not all the rest of the province, but some of the areas of the province -- where the economic factor became the driving force, some school districts bowed to settlements that they couldn't afford. What we have now in those districts are teachers being laid off and children not being able to receive the education that they should, because the economic part of it happened to be foremost on the board's and the teachers' minds in settling those disputes quickly and getting back into school. Those who did that in their school districts carried on and got their schooling, but they found the next year that lo and behold, there was too much given and they had to lay off some teachers and cancel some classes and instruction. Does the minister confirm that this is in the public interest?

Hon. M. Sihota: Your party deemed it to be in the public interest to give teachers the right to strike, and there were consequently a series of very tough negotiations. In your area there was a two-month strike. You're right. It's the longest strike that has happened on the education side, and it proved difficult for all those involved. It was ultimately resolved, and I guess it's in the public interest that they be resolved and people get on.

It is true that during those negotiations the parties have to work within fiscal realities -- and they are realities. We are seeing it now in the education field, and I'm sure we'll see it in the future. There are realities within which those people must then address their collective bargaining issues. One would hope that the impact of realities on both sides become evident to both sides as quickly as possible to bring an end to a dispute. It didn't happen in that situation, but it happened in a lot of others where disputes ended quickly. I think you would agree and I would agree that the Fort St. John situation was an exception to what had been the rule with regard to teachers' negotiations during that time period, because if my memory serves me right, most of them settled within a reasonable amount of time. And to that extent I would suspect that the public interest was served.

R. Neufeld: I want to take this a little bit further. They did have a fairly lengthy strike, and what they finally agreed to in monetary terms, which happened to be the crux of the strike in most school districts, was what the district could finally afford. This is what I'm trying to say to the minister. In Fort St. John that's what happened. In 1991 and 1992 that district has not had to cut a lot of services or teachers. I am saying that in other districts where they settled quickly, because of economic and other pressures that went along with it, they have now cut out services to students in British Columbia. I want to confirm that the minister feels this is correct. With section 68, the economic pressure will make for quick agreements -- and the minister has confirmed that -- but they will not always be in the public interest. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, that's not correct, hon. member. The parties negotiate something that the parties negotiate. You and I may not like the outcome. I can think of some collective bargaining determinations I wasn't happy with; I can think of others I thought were great. You and I may have different reads on what is acceptable, but we have a process. Experience has shown us that the collective bargaining process has served the public well over the years that we've had it. His party, the Liberal Party and our party support it.

[ Page 4583 ]

R. Neufeld: I'll move to one other sector of the public service to talk about it a little bit. I will remind the minister, by putting it on record again, that this was a section that there was no consensus on. This is a section driven totally by the NDP's philosophy and not the general consensus the minister talks about that he received in most of the other sections of his new bill. It's obvious to me in my crystal ball that there will be some fallouts from this section that will fall directly on the NDP's shoulders.

Under the labour legislation that is in place now, British Columbia prospered fairly well. We've seen an awful lot of discontent in the last year, and I don't know whether this bill is going to make it any better or not.

[11:30]

I think my colleague talked about the hydro situation yesterday. In an awful lot of our communities, if there's a power outage, for whatever reason -- a line goes down, there's a windstorm or whatever -- people are flown in from larger centres. I know that specifically happens in two communities in my constituency. Fort Nelson does not have enough linemen on duty to look after the lines in the case of a storm, so they're flown in. They also use people in the community who are electricians and have their lineman training and can do that type of work in an emergency situation. But if it was about January 28 of next year, an average night in Fort Nelson when it's about 25 below, and there was a strike within the civil service -- Hydro was on strike and something happened to the hydro service in Fort Nelson -- what would happen to that firm? There's one specific firm in Fort Nelson that could supply that service. They're also unionized. What would be the repercussions on that firm if they went out and worked on those lines to restore service to that community?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yesterday your seatmate asked me a question, and I think he used the B.C. Tel example. I said: "That's a federal example. Think of a provincial example." A good provincial example would have been Hydro, in the context of his question.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, he used the example of gas at the time. I gave him an example where arrangements have been made to deal with situations in the case of a disaster or catastrophe, or others that don't quite add up to a disaster or catastrophe.

As the minister responsible for Hydro, I obviously had to ask myself some questions very similar to what you've been asking with regard to this section. I also had an obligation to take my Labour hat off and put my minister-responsible-for-Hydro hat on and talk to Hydro staff about the implications of this section and others in the act. In that capacity, I can say I'm satisfied that this section will not provide us any significant hardship.

R. Neufeld: To take that a little bit further, what would happen in reality in those situations, with this section, would be that they would have to apply for the authority to do the work. But at 2 o'clock in the morning, when it's cold, nobody's going to be able to contact anyone in the lower mainland to make that decision -- they probably shouldn't even try.

What would happen, I would assume, is that those people would go in and do the work and get it done, rather than let a community freeze up. It may be hard for members who have not lived under those conditions to understand what I'm talking about. Even Prince George, which a lot of people think is northern British Columbia, is only the centre of B.C., and it doesn't get nearly as cold there as it does further north and over the mountains. I think those people would go in and do the job and get hydro restored, and take the consequences later. In fact, I would almost bet that the employees -- and I know quite a few of them personally -- would go in and get hydro going again to the community and to the mills that provide the employment. If you can imagine a community of 5,000 people with all its waterlines frozen in homes and everything like that.... It would be a real catastrophy.

So you would take the consequences later, but could the minister tell me -- look into his crystal ball -- how he thinks those people would be treated later on? What would really happen to them? With the narrowing of the management that can go in and do the work, it doesn't allow too many people from management to come in and work on it. So what would really happen to those people after the fact in this scenario? Maybe he could just give me a brief outline of what he thinks would take place, putting his Hydro hat on.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals today, any more than I have in the past.

R. Neufeld: That's interesting, because when we go through the whole bill, specifically section 68, there must have been an awful lot of hypothetical thinking going on on that side of the floor concerning what would and wouldn't happen. To suddenly say that he's not going to answer a question because it's hypothetical, I find remarkable. He talked earlier about looking into a crystal ball, and now he doesn't want to answer what could take place in those situations. I can only assume that what would happen would be the worst-case scenario. The minister obviously doesn't want to talk about it. I can't understand why he wouldn't want to. He's been quite amiable throughout discussions on the whole bill, but when we get to section 68, which happens to be the philosophy of this party and not the consensus of the three wise men, this section of the bill tips fairly heavily toward the union side.

As my hon. friend said earlier, we could easily see many businesses close their doors or move south. Yesterday the Minister of Economic Development talked about some 26 or 28 businesses that are expanding into the lower 48. I wonder why. And lo and behold, there's a study out that part of the reason some of these people are leaving is because of Bill 84 and all of the other things that have transpired since this government took charge. I can only assume that the worst would happen to those people in that situation.

[ Page 4584 ]

We're talking about only a small part of B.C. Some 5,000 people live in that community, and that's why I say it's a small part of British Columbia. Maybe we should touch on some of the other things that happened in that small community in northern B.C. that the minister or a lot of the NDP members may not be aware of: the supply of natural gas.

Again, I don't know whether the minister is aware that one of the largest natural gas processing plants happens to be in Fort Nelson. An awfully large one happens to be in Fort St. John, and there is one at Pine River. Those are companies and corporations that have excellent labour relations, and have had for years. Westcoast Transmission, in fact, is probably one of the most sought-after companies for employment in British Columbia. They supply something to southern British Columbia that's much in need down here. Now, with the gas line over to the Island and quite a number of pulp mills being supplied by natural gas instead of bunker oil, we could see, with the narrowing of management, with not being able to bring in replacement workers in situations where they're needed, the curtailment of the supply of that natural gas.

In fact, if you go a little further, in the lower mainland they don't even want to store natural gas in case of a problem like that, so it would hit them very hard. Westcoast, being a very good corporate citizen and, like I said, one of the most sought-after corporations in British Columbia to work for because of their excellent labour relations and their salaries, has in the past set up camps outside their sites. So if there is a strike -- because they are heavily unionized by a number of unions -- they could bring in management from Vancouver and possibly from one of their other sites to keep that plant going.

They have a plant in Fort Nelson -- and I'm going to deal specifically with that one -- that is capable of putting out over a billion cubic feet a day, but it puts out over 800 million cubic feet a day during the winter draw. If Westcoast is struck in Fort Nelson for some reason -- and we're talking about economic gain being the driver in why these companies will all of a sudden settle in a hurry -- with not being able to bring management in other than maybe a couple of people, Westcoast will certainly not be able to run that plant. There is absolutely no way. That's a plant that doesn't shut down in 20 minutes and start up in another 20 minutes. If it did, the 800 million cubic feet it produces in home heating every day would be drastically felt in the lower mainland and all industries that are provided with it. Mind you, most people could probably keep warm down here with their fireplaces, but there are a lot of places that they wouldn't be able to.

The plan that Westcoast had for many years now goes astray, because they cannot bring in anyone from anywhere else. They can't bring in management from Vancouver to help run the plant and keep it going. If they settle right away because they can't afford to be struck, and the rate of natural gas takes a dramatic leap that will be reflected in the costs to all business -- small and large, pulp mills, sawmills, anyone that uses it in the lower mainland -- would it be in the public interest to have that happen under this section?

I asked about schools; I asked about Hydro and the public interest. Now I'm asking if he agrees that rate increases to all customers of 10 percent, or whatever it would take, could drive us out of the export market to the U.S. -- by Alberta companies. That could very easily happen, because the market is very volatile and runs very close. There are some pretty small windows of opportunity. There is a province next door to us that is not as heavily unionized as we are. Maybe they would be quite willing to undercut our prices. Does he think that is in the public interest for British Columbia? The revenues we now enjoy in the province -- some $200 million a year for natural gas -- would be severely minimized. Is that in the public interest according to section 68 of this labour bill?

L. Fox: It's very apparent in all the discussions throughout this bill that there's no question.... It's also apparent by those we see in the galleries and introduced in the House during the debate -- we've seen, in my experience in the past year, more union leaders and so on watching the debate in the House than what we've seen before -- that this reflects, as has been said before, a promise made to the unions by the NDP government.

Section 68 carries it that much further. I think that's the biggest hammer within the total package of this legislation. It's the biggest political favour that this government has been able to do for its union friends.

When I look at a letter that has been written to the minister from the vice-president of Northwood Pulp and Timber, there's a specific clause that deals with section 68. This is from a corporation that I believe has been very respectable, believes strongly in its employees and has a history of good labour relations. I just want to read the part that deals specifically with section 68:

[11:45]

"This section is in our view extreme, unnecessary and exceptionally intrusive. Not only is an employer -- the owner of the enterprise -- effectively prevented from operating any aspect of his business while his striking employees are free to seek work elsewhere, he is restricted in deploying his excluded staff from working at the struck plant. This is an unacceptable provision and should be deleted."

Here we have a letter sent to the minister from a corporation that has never used replacement workers, even though that provision has been available to them. They are suggesting that it should be struck. When we look through the whole bill that leads up to section 68, we don't see a dramatic impact of section 68 on corporations or in the industrial sector such as Northwood Pulp and Paper. But what we do see is a dramatic new impact on business. First of all, the right to a secret ballot was removed, thereby not allowing an opportunity for individuals, particularly in the business sector, to state their wishes in a secret ballot with respect to forming a collective unit. Then we made it impossible for the employer to communicate with his employees during this process. The effect of that is that an employer will not be able to build his case about the ability to pay: what he can afford to pay or what his business can bear.

[ Page 4585 ]

Now we have this section. If they're not able to come to an agreement, that business can literally be closed down. Earlier another member spoke about the need for cash flow if a business is going to continue to succeed. This particular provision puts a very large club in the hands of the union employees of an active business that survives based on cash flow. They can literally close it down, because a one-store manager of a store that may have up to 20 employees is not capable of operating that operation himself.

In an example put forward earlier by the minister as to why this type of clause was needed, he gave the Canadian Tire situation as an example. The Canadian Tire situation is very interesting. I think if all those players had an opportunity to redo it, things would be a bit more realistic in terms of time-frame and demands. But at least that Canadian Tire operation had the opportunity to continue to operate because of the provision enabling them to hire replacement workers during that dispute. I submit that had provision not been there, that company may not be in existence today in Prince George, because the dispute was, indeed, lengthy and extremely difficult to resolve. But the fact of the matter is that it was able to be resolved, because business had an equal opportunity to continue to operate, while the union had the opportunity to continue to negotiate. That's where the balancing took place. This section 68 does not allow for that process to happen, and it has the very great possibility of closing down those business sectors. The bank does not wait for its money. You have to meet your commitments, whether you're operating or not.

I also want to make a couple of observations with respect to the public sector. The minister talked earlier about the 72-hour strike notice with respect to school teachers, as though that would trigger the necessary planning to shut down a school system in order to reduce the opportunities for an immediate shutdown, which could cause chaos, particularly within a high school. If all the teachers in a school of 600 students walked out, the principal and vice-principal would have great difficulty trying to close that school down in an orderly fashion.

The fact of the matter is that there is a 72-hour strike notice, but that's only a notice. The strike may not take place for some time after that, and it could happen, and probably would happen, on a moment's notice and without forewarning to the principal or perhaps to the parents. I think it's a very real concern that's been outlined.

I really believe that this is the largest payoff this NDP government has given to the union sector. Without question, it is going to slow down the opening of new opportunities within business, slow down foreign investment in British Columbia and further shift the business community of British Columbia to service British Columbians from this province to both Alberta and Washington. Without question, this is going to damage the economy and the opportunities for business within British Columbia.

H. De Jong: It's interesting to hear the debate this morning, although it appears to be mostly from one side. We don't hear much response from the minister on some very interesting subjects that have been brought forward.

However, to get to the point, section 68 is certainly of great concern to the agriculture community as well. I suppose, being so familiar with that community, that I do want to put forth a couple of scenarios to the minister, and perhaps he will answer on those scenarios.

It's a family farm operated with perhaps one or two employees who have been unionized and, as normally agreed upon, either they have a weekend or two weekends off a month and a family member takes over the duties at those times. The employee from time to time, as we all do, feels unfit for work because of illness. The dedicated employee obviously is very appreciative of a replacement at the place of work, and most employees I have known are very dedicated people. They are there to do the work, and they work with a purpose, so they are very comfortable in that situation.

If a strike were to come along, can the minister tell me whether those same replacement workers, who would have worked during the periods I indicated, would not be allowed to do the work previously done by the striking employee or employees.

Hon. M. Sihota: If they were management, they could, hon. member.

H. De Jong: That's a cop-out answer, if I may say so.

I will put a different scenario to the minister. It's quite common on farms of various types, be it a farm where hay or grain is being harvested, but I'm particularly familiar with the hay situation on the lower mainland, the weather not always being as stable as we may like to see it in the farming community. As it has happened for many, many years already, when the farmer has about 1,000 bales ready in the field to be picked up, he usually has a number of high-school students come out in the evening and help haul his hay in. It's a good type of payment for the students to further their education, and it certainly helps the farmer out a great deal.

If we were in that particular period of time, particularly during that season, the unionized employee could be going on strike. Under normal circumstances this employee may in fact, together with the eight or ten high-school students, be engaged in picking up that hay. Would the farmer be prevented in such situations from hiring those normal temporary employees, you might say, even though there may be a small fragment of replacement work being done, because that one employee may have taken a small part in the picking up of that hay?

Hon. M. Sihota: If there was a strike, there probably would be no opportunity to hire those students.

H. De Jong: I believe that the minister in this case has not had the opportunity to discuss the details of Bill

[ Page 4586 ]

84 with the agricultural community, particularly the section that I talked about yesterday and this section. Because, if in fact the minister had a good understanding of the situation as it applies to farmers generally, be it the picking of a soft fruit, which is only a very short time, or picking up hay while the rain may be coming. Surely the farmer should have the opportunity to rescue that crop rather than have it destroyed by nature on account of perhaps one employee going on strike.

Hon. M. Sihota: 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. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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