Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1992

Volume 7, Number 13

[ Page 4587 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two young Socreds, Mr. Rod Brucks and Randy Dueck, who represent many young Socreds in the Abbotsford constituency. I would ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.

J. Pullinger: I am very pleased today to welcome two friends, and constituents, from Chemainus who are in the members' gallery. These people, I think we can all appreciate, are the kind of people who are committed to their political party and whose hard work over the years is certainly, in part, responsible for me being here. Would the House make them welcome.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to say that in the gallery today is a longtime friend, Brian Dunster. Brian is actually a constituent of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, but we'll forgive him for that. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would ask the House to welcome into our precincts today representatives from the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who will be meeting with members of our caucus.

J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I would like to complete my introduction. I noticed that I forgot to introduce my friends by name. John and Marian Forster are with us today.

Hon. L. Boone tabled a copy of the B.C. Systems Corporation financial information report for the fiscal year 1991-92, as required under section 2 of the Financial Information Act. Copies have been circulated with the Legislative Library.

Oral Questions

HASTINGS PARK SITE

G. Wilson: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, does the minister believe that the public will support the confiscation of public land belonging to the city of Vancouver, with respect to the Minister of Finance's stated position on simply taking over the Hastings Park site?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll take that question on notice and discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance.

G. Wilson: A new question, then, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs tell us what consultation there has been with the city with respect to the cost of the proposed Hastings Park development? And can the minister assure us that, unlike the rest of the downloading we've seen from this government, the municipal taxpayers will not be responsible for the costs that will be incurred on the government's proposed development plans?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I've already taken the general question on notice, but I can assure the opposition leader that we take consultation seriously and that I will discuss this matter with my colleague the Minister of Finance.

G. Wilson: It's quite obvious now why we're in such a state of disrepute in terms of this government and the city of Vancouver with respect to that question.

New question to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General tell us, please, why the plan for the track has proceeded without full consultation and support of the city of Vancouver? And can he tell us what the cost of this development is going to be and how he expects the PNE track to pay for the additional improvements on the Hastings Park site?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No decisions with respect to the track have yet been made.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is with regard to the ongoing investigation on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holdings Society, and I direct my question to the minister responsible for societies.

It's come to the attention of the official opposition that several other societies must be investigated in order to provide a fuller scope for the special prosecutor. Will the minister instruct her deputy to expand the terms of reference for the special prosecutor -- or should the Attorney General, rather, instruct his deputy to expand the terms of reference for the special prosecutor -- to include the Victoria Commonwealth Society, of which the Minister of Health served as a director and from which the Minister of Municipal Affairs has leased office space?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given that the reference in the first part of the question was to "her," when referring to the minister, I wasn't listening to the first part of the question, and I didn't realize it was addressed to me.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll repeat the question for the Attorney General. Given that it has come to the attention of the opposition that there are concerns with other commonwealth societies and other organizations in British Columbia, would the Attorney General ask his deputy to expand the investigation of the special prosecutor?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have no comment on that matter at this time.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then will the Attorney General instruct his deputy to expand the terms of reference for the special prosecutor to include the commonwealth society, of which the current chair of the Industrial Relations Council, the current Minister of Energy and the past and current presidents of the New Democratic Party have also been directors?

[ Page 4588 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, the first question was not answered, the minister mentioned that he had no comment on the second question and the third question appears substantially the same as the first.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I do want to answer that question. Failing to do so would leave unfortunate implications. If this or any other member has any information of criminal wrongdoing, they have a responsibility to take that to the police.

AGRICULTURE POLICIES

H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The minister is fully aware of the lengthy approval process for farm dwelling septic fields. My question is: does the Minister of Agriculture agree with the double-standard policy applied by the Ministry of Health in regard to the item mentioned? Furthermore, does the minister agree with the comment of a senior official of the B.C. land commission that he would like to see the day when farmers and their year-round hired help would be commuting from town to their farms on a daily basis?

Hon. B. Barlee: In reference to the first question, there are discussions going on with the other two ministries involved.

As far as the second question is concerned, I am not aware that the statement has been made, although the member discussed that with me. I will follow that up with the Agricultural Land Commission.

H. De Jong: Supplementary, hon. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, in his speech the other day to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, stated that farmers were the doorkeepers of the agricultural land reserve. I would like to suggest that in most cases they are the owners. Does the minister agree with the policy of his colleague the Minister of Health that when a farmer purchases a parcel of land to be added to his farm for increased production purposes only, the land registry office will not transfer the title for one year or more on the satisfactory completion of a percolation test?

[2:15]

Hon. B. Barlee: This is a requirement of the medical health officer. Again, discussions are ongoing with the ministry concerned.

H. De Jong: If in fact the minister meant what he said the other day about the doorkeepers of the agricultural land reserve -- the farmers being the doorkeepers -- and since the Environment and Land Use Committee was always used as an appeal process for applications for exclusion from the ALR, has the minister decided, because of his statement, to establish an appeal board from among the doorkeepers of the ALR?

Hon. B. Barlee: We on this side of the floor think that ELUC, which was the original appeal system, is really unsatisfactory. I think previous experience indicates that ELUC gave political decisions, specifically from the government before us, and we do not want to repeat that performance. There will be an appeal body. The legislation will probably come down in the spring. I think an appeal body is necessary. I think we are all concerned that the appeal body should not necessarily be political but made up of peers. That will be coming about.

HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL

A. Cowie: I want to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs a question. I want the minister to envisage loads of hazardous waste being deposited at various municipalities. The Ministry of Environment has changed its policy of handling abandoned hazardous material in that it will now expect all costs to be covered by municipalities. Previously, this cost was shared by the ministry and the municipalities. Could the Minister of Municipal Affairs confirm that this downloading has taken place and inform the House of the rationale behind this policy that will have a big impact on municipalities?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I am pleased that my critic has managed to get his second question in in a number of months. I would like to defer the question to my good colleague the Minister of Environment, who, as usual, has this matter in hand.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that there are still household hazardous waste collection days taking place in the province, which is a cooperative effort by the province and municipalities. The member outlines a serious concern that has not been abandoned by the province. We have appointed Dorothy Caddell as the waste reduction commissioner specializing in hazardous waste. We have set up a toxics reduction branch within the ministry, and we are meeting regularly with municipalities in order to mutually develop plans to deal with this issue.

MUNICIPAL TAX RATES

A. Cowie: I'd like to get back to the other tag-team member here. We have a letter from Mayor Campbell of Vancouver which clearly states that there's going to be downloading and the municipalities will have to pick it up with taxation. The Ministry of Finance is constantly bemoaning the downloading from the federal government to the provincial government. How can the Minister of Municipal Affairs justify this downloading to a level that can least justify raising the taxes for it, when it's a provincial matter?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, if the member would table that letter from the mayor of Vancouver, I'd be pleased to take a look at it. I'm always willing to meet with the mayor of Vancouver. Last week the Minister of Environment and I were supposed to meet with the mayor of Vancouver on GVRD funding for sewer and water, and unfortunately the mayor cancelled at the last

[ Page 4589 ]

minute. We're always prepared to meet with the mayor of Vancouver, and we will continue to do so. If the Minister of Environment has anything to add, he may do so, of course.

FUNDING FOR MENTALLY ILL

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Improved policies for the mentally ill were a key platform statement of this government. We need to know, in light of cutting back on hospital beds, what plans the Minister of Health has in place for the mentally ill in the province.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I don't want to take the amount of time it would take to answer that question in full. I think that's a question I can deal with at some other time. This year $52 million has gone into services for the mentally ill. That is a 25 percent increase in funding over the previous year, and it is doing such a wide range of things that it would probably take me 15 or 20 minutes of question period time alone to talk about all of the programs that are being put in place.

L. Reid: The point is not well taken, hon. minister. Today's newspaper coverage says that we are having more homeless people involved in crimes; and you, in fact, have said that budget cuts delay community health continuing care projects. My question is: can the minister tell us how many mentally ill patients have been deinstitutionalized versus the number of spaces available in the community to care for them?

Hon. E. Cull: First of all, let me clarify that the budget savings announced yesterday have not resulted in any cuts to mental health services. Secondly, unlike the former government, we are not proceeding with deinstitutionalization or closing beds at Riverview until we have the community services in place to make sure that those people have a place to go.

The media report that the hon. member is referring to deals with New Westminster. Since 1986 there have been an average of 50 people a year released from Riverview Hospital into that community. In the last number of years we have increased emergency beds and provided emergency after-hours service. There are three additional nurses in that community involved in an aggressive outreach service to reach those patients who have been discharged and who, because of their illness, may not connect up with community services. We've increased the number of supportive housing units, and we have just added a new position to bridge the discharged patients and community services.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

J. Tyabji: My question is to the Attorney General. It follows my colleague's question. Will the Attorney General instruct his deputy to expand the terms of reference for the special prosecutor to include the Rio Society, of which the Finance minister was a director prior to its dissolution?

The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. [Applause.]

D. Mitchell: It's nice to be back in question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

PROPOSED ELECTION ACT CHANGES

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It relates to the proposed changes to the municipal election act. I'd like to ask the minister why the government is afraid of democracy. Why would the NDP government be trying so hard to tamper with democratic rights and freedoms? We've seen it with their attempts to eliminate the closed ballot with respect to union certification, and now we're seeing it again with the proposed changes to the election act. How can this minister justify taxation without representation? How can he justify a proposal to take away the vote from taxpayers, owners of recreational properties or retirement homes, and yet give the vote to persons who may not have a long-term stake in the community -- people with no fixed address, transients and felons?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member shouldn't assume that the government has made up its mind in a day. This is a government of consultation. This is a government that can learn. We have put out all sorts of ideas for consideration by the people of British Columbia. The document is clear.

I know that the member is concerned about his community of Whistler. I have had a very good dialogue with the mayor of Whistler. If you talk to the mayor of Whistler, you'd learn that he and I had a tremendous discussion the other day. I think we're on track and that we'll work out our problems. We will consult, and at the end of the day we will have the best local election legislation in the history of this country.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The bell does signal the end of question period.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to raise a point of order with regard to question period. We had two ministers answering one question, and we'd like that to be considered as something that shouldn't have been done, taking up some time....

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for bringing up that point of order. However, it was at the Chair's discretion that the minister referred the question to the second minister, who then proceeded to answer it.

[ Page 4590 ]

Ministerial Statement

HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Hon. A. Hagen: As members of our assembly know, today is proclaimed throughout the world as Human Rights Day. Almost half a century ago, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and for the past 44 years International Human Rights Day has been recognized as a day to take stock of human relationships on a global scale.

On this day, as on many of our special days throughout the year, we must examine our values, and ask ourselves some very important questions about our attitudes and our beliefs. We have an opportunity today to think about and question how we as a nation, as a province and as individuals relate to one another and treat one another.

Canada has a good record. We have won accolades for much of our work in the field of human rights. We are proud of our recognition and our acceptance of people from all over the world, including people who are homeless, people who are refugees. In many jurisdictions of our land good and strong human rights legislation has been passed, and work on education and community programs is in place.

Yet I know that every member of this House will acknowledge that we have much to correct, we have many harms to undo, we have attitudes and actions that we must face, and we must change. And it's something like this that relates to each and every one of us, because each and every one of us knows people who have had their rights violated. I know we often ask ourselves in the broad context of our society what are we doing and what can we do about it.

We know, too, that while we think and act locally, we are concerned about the global scale and scene in human rights. I know all of us in this House in the past few days have been particularly thinking of a country in great distress, where the most fundamental rights of a people who live in a society with law and order and an opportunity for them to live their lives at all is very much in question. But we know, too, that in our own province there are people who continue to experience discrimination and the loss of human rights and dignity. We as legislators must ask ourselves what we are doing to change attitudes.

[2:30]

As children will lead us, today I had an opportunity to spend half an hour with some of the children of British Columbia at the carving museum of the Royal British Columbia Museum. Every year our Council of Human Rights has a visual and language arts project that encourages children to think about and be creative in speaking about human rights. Today we celebrated the work of those children, who had a very special theme for this year. They were dealing with the history of discrimination against aboriginal people in Canada. As I walked into the carving house, with the smell of cedar and the works around that beautiful building, there was a wide representation from children all over the province who had created works of art and of words from their understanding of the history and experiences of the aboriginal people of our land. If you have a chance to go over and look at that exhibit, I encourage you to do so. It is the work of both individuals and classes.

I told the children that I would carry their message to a broader house. I want them to know that their message -- through us in this Legislature and through the fact that this is broadcast -- is that they are thinking about and acting out issues relating to human rights. The children there represented children of many cultures. They represented children with special needs and challenges. There was excitement and pride in their work and the recognition that they were leading us.

The reason for the theme is that the United Nations is declaring 1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People. The children understood that they were part of a global concept and around people who were original peoples in a land, and their artwork reflected that. I want to say, particularly to the children from Victoria West Elementary School, George Jay Elementary School and a student from Oak Bay Secondary School, that we appreciate that their works have been accorded special recognition because of the stories they tell and the ideas they reflect.

I told them, too, a little bit about us and the work we do. I told them that our government addresses, through legislation and programs, issues of human rights, and that last year this House added to our legislation to broaden the scope of human rights recognition through our education system. As I began my remarks, I said we have much to do; we have a long way to go.

I want to go back to some information from our schools, because last year our ministry surveyed high school students about multiculturalism and race relations in our schools. It's good to have that information, because it helps tell us where we're doing things well and where challenges still exist for us and our young people. The young people told us, on an "agreed" or "agreed strongly" scale, that they very much supported the concept of multiculturalism and race relation programs in our schools. Almost three-quarters of them feel strongly that ethnic diversity contributes positively to our society. In our changing society, that reflects their knowledge of the changing face of their communities. Hon. Speaker, 80 percent said it is very important for schools to help children develop tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others.

However, the children felt that we weren't providing them with the resources, ideas and opportunities they needed to grow in our multicultural and racially diverse society. Half of the students said they felt secondary students have serious problems concerning racial discrimination. Their understanding of those issues is something they feel they have not had developed to the extent that they would like. Only one in six students said that secondary schools were adequately preparing students to deal with racial discrimination. Those last two figures tell us of the work that we must do in strengthening our legislation, in increasing opportunities for people to be educated about the diversity and the richness of our society and in helping people to recognize that one of our most

[ Page 4591 ]

fundamental values in Canada is to recognize and protect human rights.

We live in a time when the universal declaration signed so many years ago by the United Nations is tested daily. We also live in a time when rhetoric is something that we can engage in, but we need to translate that into action and changes in attitudes. For if words could free us, as a province, a nation or a world, from racial discrimination, words perhaps would have done that long ago. It is the practice of a recognition of the rights and dignity of all people that is important for us to engage in today and every day.

This, then, is a day for us to think about that important part of our values, the fundamental respect that we as a people need to have if we are to live together in our province and our world. As I speak today about this important day, one of the most important days to recognize on our calendars, I would ask all of us to move -- consensually, individually, as a Legislature and as a people -- beyond rhetoric, to practise by deed and action that which we support in words.

V. Anderson: December 10, 1948, was a very significant day in the life of all people on the planet on which we live. It wasn't too many years after what we called the Second World War. It was after the failure, in many people's minds, of the League of Nations, which attempted to bring nations together so that they might learn to live with one another, that the declaration of human rights that we celebrate today was put forward. I doubt that those who planned that declaration, on the one hand, understood the extent to which it might change life on the planet on which we live or, on the other hand, how slow and difficult that change might be.

It was a slow -- and still is -- continuous growth to understand the meaning of that declaration. Twenty years later, in 1968, there was the International Year for Human Rights and the conference that went with it. In that conference they wanted to reaffirm that the promotion of the declaration of human rights was to develop and guarantee political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights; and to end all discrimination and denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms on grounds of race, colour, sex, language or religion.

The scope of that declaration is still beyond our understanding or even our imagination. It's something that we need to work toward. Twenty years later, in 1988, the Nobel peace prize was awarded to the United Nations for the peacekeeping forces that were being sent into areas of the world to maintain fragile situations of peace.

Today we meet while the United Nations force has not gone in to keep the peace, but to find peace, particularly so the children, men and women might have the right to food, clothing, shelter and security. We have come a long ways toward recognizing our mutual responsibility and overcoming the political roadblocks that we, and we as governments particularly, put in the way of people's rights and freedoms. No doubt we try to move in the area of legislation as has been mentioned, and it is appropriate that we should continue to improve our legislation in human rights around the world. But legislation, hon. Speaker, in and of itself will not bring the desired effect; rather it is our attitudes and our beliefs which are fundamental -- as has been mentioned by the hon. minister.

The United Nations has declared the year 1993 as the year of the indigenous peoples; this will come home to us in a very real way. I am reminded of a document that was put out many years ago by the Jewish community in the United States, which very clearly expressed in its title something that I have found extremely important. That is that feelings are facts. In our scientific age, we so often think of facts as being important in a scientific, measured way. They were stressing that feelings are more often the facts on which most of us operate, rather than what we generally consider to be facts. So legislation is not enough. It is understanding our own feelings and how we express them, not only in words as has been mentioned, not only in actions as has been suggested, but in the attitudes of the expressions on our faces, the movements of our bodies, and the kinds of ways that we recognize and then relate with others.

I would like to refer to one political statement that perhaps some of the younger members of this House may not recognize as being political. I discovered recently that my own youngsters -- the oldest of whom is 33 years of age -- did not recognize the names of Li'l Abner or Little Orphan Annie, political cartoon characters. Those who remember that time will remember very well that Little Orphan Annie was a conservative political expression, and you could follow the daily politics of the United States through that expression. On the other hand, Li'l Abner was the liberal expression of the day, and you could follow political activities very clearly. These were fundamental daily reference points in our political science classes at university. One comment appeared in the Li'l Abner cartoon in the paper one day when we were first talking about flying saucers and people from outer space. Li'l Abner had been taken up into the flying saucer. They discussed the confusion and inequality that was here on Earth. They said simply: "We do not have that problem in our sphere of living." Li'l Abner said: "How come?" They said: "It's very simple." Li'l Abner was very eager to learn, and he said: "Then please explain it to me." "We have a saying in our community," they said, "that goes like this: love your neighbour as yourself." Li'l Abner paused and said: "Oh, we know that where I live. We just don't practise it."

Human Rights Day is a reminder that it's not the theory or the words but the practice that will bring the Declaration of Human Rights to reality.

[2:45]

C. Serwa: I am responding to several speeches -- both the minister's and the official opposition's. Nevertheless, I thank the minister for her courtesy in giving me a copy of her speech. I sincerely and deeply appreciate that gesture.

The topic of the speech is Human Rights Day, appropriately and very comprehensively addressed by the minister. Canada has a better than good record; Canada has a great record. When one recognizes the

[ Page 4592 ]

nature of Canada, from its early history of indigenous peoples mixing with peoples from all over the world -- originally as fishermen, fur trappers, and traders moving all over this great country of Canada -- recognizing that Canada is probably the world's first truly international country.... Not only do we mix ethnic groups and various religious groups, we mix a whole series of cultures. Canada has been a splendid example to the world with respect to human rights, respecting the rights of other individuals and respecting other individuals for what they are rather than the group they perhaps came from -- valuing them on that basis. Fundamentally, the basis of human rights has to come from respect for ourselves and for those who surround us. I say again that Canada, in my mind, has a great record.

As the minister stated, we have further to go. What are we doing individually about enhancing human rights values? What are we doing as legislators on a daily basis in this assembly to encourage the enhancement of human rights? I think we have to take responsibility for ourselves first, and then we have to assure ourselves that we're picking up on our responsibilities to our fellow human beings, be they fellow community members, British Columbians, Canadians or citizens of the world. This is an obligation that each of us has. If we honour that obligation by picking up our responsibilities, then we continue to progress along the road of mitigating human rights abuses.

A few days ago the Speaker initiated something that we were all given an opportunity to participate in -- the Somali relief fund. I compliment the Speaker for that. That is part of an agenda with respect to some of the basic fundamentals of human rights. Certainly food is concerned in this, as is shelter and security of person. That is part and parcel of this step. Obviously if we retain that commitment, we're going to have to make a greater commitment. We recognize that their part of the problem is sociological -- perhaps part of it is political -- and we'll have to make concerted efforts to mitigate those problems which, again, trample on the human rights of individuals.

The United Nations has declared the year 1993 the year of the indigenous peoples. The hon. minister spoke about the history of discrimination against aboriginal people in Canada. Regrettably, that is true. But also true is a record of relating to and working with aboriginal people that is almost without parallel in any country in the world. So while we have done some things right, on balance we've done a lot of superlative things as well. That doesn't mean we cannot go further along that road. We all agree that we not only can but must go much further along that road. I think the important thing is that we must learn from history. The future is in front of us, but the lessons of history are important -- not to simply dwell on the past, but to learn from it. The formation of the plans and policies of individuals has to be based on what is best for the future.

I question that legislation is the bond that will achieve what we would like to achieve. I think we sometimes have a false sense of confidence in legislation. We have to continue to work on attitudes and value systems. I think that if we focus on those, we can in fact make a difference. I see this journey as not simply being a long way to go; I see it with respect to achieving human rights as a goal -- a journey without end.

The minister has stated that rhetoric is all too often seen as futile, in view of the sorry realities that often come of the rhetoric. This is the day that we reaffirm the principle that all human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights. I join with the hon. minister in encouraging all British Columbians and Canadians to join in the recognition of this special day and to shoulder the responsibilities individually and collectively, thereby assuring that human rights concerns are in fact met.

Presenting Petitions

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I have here before the House an appropriately gift-wrapped petition from the Tenants' Rights Action Coalition, which was made available to me today by representatives of the organization, whom I enjoyed meeting. The petition asks that there be an abolition of security deposits, that rent controls be brought back and that tenants be allowed to deduct the cost of repairs from rent if landlords do not do them themselves. All of these matters are under active consideration by government, but I seek leave to table this petition.

Leave granted.

J. Tyabji: On behalf of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I'd like to table some letters with regard to his questions.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

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

On section 68.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 68, I think the minister would agree that this is one of the most -- if not the most -- contentious sections that we've dealt with. Not only was there a lack of unanimous consent on the provisions put forward by those who were advising the government but it has been the subject of a great deal of discussion by the B.C. Federation of Labour as well as the Business Council of B.C.

As I read through this morning's Hansard I noticed the extent to which there has been discussion on a number of the issues where there is a certain amount of contention. I don't intend to be repetitious and go back and canvass all of that material. However, I think it's

[ Page 4593 ]

important, if we're to have the record of this debate be very clear, that we acknowledge that with respect to this particular section 68 there are a number of provisions with respect to the replacement provisions in the bill that are going to potentially -- and I think realistically -- put employers in a serious position of economic loss.

Let it be clear, before the minister retorts that somehow the Liberal opposition is not in favour of respecting the integrity of a legally constituted picket line, that I refer back to the comments made by the member for Okanagan East today, which suggested that the Liberal caucus is cognizant of the need to respect a legally constituted picket line and is cognizant of the integrity of that line. We also recognize the need to recognize the integrity of the industry and the business that is involved in a work stoppage.

To this extent there are two areas of particular concern which the minister must recognize. This bill changes -- and, I think, dramatically alters -- the provisions that have had longstanding recognition with respect to labour-management relations in the province. One is the ability of multi-site relocation for management -- to bring in managers from other sites to be able to maintain the integrity of investment. The second one is with respect to the protection of capital investment.

I read Hansard to note that both these items were, in fact, asked this morning, and I have read the minister's responses carefully. I note that the minister is firm in his conviction that these two areas don't require further amendment. However, I also note, in a letter that was written to the Premier of British Columbia, that he has agreed with the president of the Business Council of B.C., Mr. Matkin, that amendments are worthwhile. In fact, the president of the Business Council, in a letter written to the Premier on November 30, says that they're encouraged to learn he is prepared to make some amendments to the strike replacement provisions.

I wonder if the minister might advise that if they're not on either of the two matters that I have just raised, exactly what were the amendments the Premier recommended that we make to this section that this minister now believes should not be made? What was the deal made with the Premier and the employers' council that this minister is not prepared to engage in debate about right now?

Hon. M. Sihota: There was no deal made.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the minister's response and recognize that in debating the merits of this bill we must be strictly to the question on the section. I don't mean to be abusive to the Chair in any way. However, I do notice that the statement is, "We are encouraged to hear you are prepared to make some amendments to the strike replacement provisions," and regrets that the government wasn't prepared to repeal section 68 altogether.

It strikes me that there seems to have been some agreement on amendments that were to be made. In my meeting with Mr. Georgetti of the B.C. Federation of Labour -- when our labour committee of caucus met with an expanded membership of the B.C. Federation of Labour -- and in discussions with active members of the Business Council of B.C. as well as members of the coalition of small business, my understanding is that the government was prepared to recognize that multi-site movement of managers was something that would be beneficial to the harmonious labour relations situation, maintenance of the capital investment and the integrity of that investment of a particular site. Can the minister tell us, if he's not prepared to move on that, why there has been such a high expectation, both by the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Business Council of B.C., of that amendment coming forward? We've heard a great deal about consultation and about how the government has taken the advice of those in business and industry and the union membership in the province to amend this bill. When their expectations are clearly there, what is in this bill that the minister thinks can mitigate the concerns that have been so clearly articulated by those two august bodies?

[3:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the expectations were created by the fact that there were general discussions about some of these issues but no commitment to proceed with the changes. The government did commit to encourage the parties to meet with my deputy. I do not believe that happened, so there was no carrying-out of our request that the parties get together and work these issues through with our deputy. Perhaps because these issues were raised during a meeting, much as they're being raised in the House, some may have been left with the expectation that there would be changes.

The government, on its own review, in terms of considering these matters, feels that there is no need for amendment. As I said in my introductory comments on section 68, which I gather the hon. member has not read, the government recognizes that we have a duty to guard against unintended consequences and an obligation to watch how the world unfolds with respect to section 68. Indeed, we have provisions with respect to the advisory panel that we can avail ourselves of. If I may, I'll just let the hon. member know -- because he has strayed way beyond the latitude of debate here -- that those consultations will be encouraged to continue in the months ahead.

The Chair: Just a moment, hon. member. Before you begin, I would like to point out to the committee that the Chair is trying to enforce the rules as they apply to committee.

While I appreciate the need for the Leader of the Opposition to establish the concerns that he has, most of what he has been saying with respect to outside parties anticipating amendments is a subject matter for second reading. The member may wish to present an amendment of his own, which is perfectly in order. But to discuss matters that others outside the committee would like to have happen is bordering on matters that are not under the purview of the committee. I just caution the hon. member. Please proceed.

[ Page 4594 ]

G. Wilson: I am cognizant of the very narrow scope of questioning that is available to us in the committee stage of debate.

With respect to the question -- I come back specifically to section 68 -- to the minister on the issue that has been so contentious, can the minister tell us what language in here gives him the comfort to believe that with respect to the capital investment that has been made, given that companies that may have a need for the services -- technical services in particular -- of certain personnel during a work stoppage to maintain the integrity of their investment because of the specific kind of business it is -- i.e., climate control for warehouses involved in other kinds of industries and safety in terms of fire protection and fire regulation.... What language is there in here specifically?

I would remind the minister that I have gone back through Hansard and read it, and I understand that this was in part canvassed earlier. But there is no specific language in here that recognizes that there is a need for the employer to have some kind of protection with respect to the maintenance of the capital integrity of that investment.

I wonder if the minister might specifically address that, because it is my understanding that there was an agreement on an amendment on this. I recognize that in this committee section I can't broaden the scope of the debate. The more cynically minded would argue that negotiations were carried on through second reading with the hope for amendment, fully aware that we wouldn't be able to go back and discuss what was agreed to in private meetings in this committee section. Of course, I'm not a cynical person, so I would wait for the minister to tell us specifically what language is there.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, first of all, let me say to the hon. leader that these are very serious issues; and I take them seriously. I want him to understand that those kinds of allegations should be expunged from the record. It's wrong, and for anyone to make that suggestion is wrong.

The answer to your question is that there are management provisions in here.

G. Wilson: I was, of course, referring only to the cynically minded who might think that.

The point is that I fundamentally disagree with the minister that management provisions are in here; and if he believes they are, perhaps he could read out what language he thinks is in here that in fact provides the safety of those investments.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are provisions in section 68 which make it abundantly clear that a manager can cross a picket line. So can an employee who wishes, on their own conscience, to cross a picket line.

G. Wilson: An employee, on his own conscience -- given that the reason for 68 is to enhance the integrity of a picket line -- is going to allow anybody on his own conscience to cross the picket line to be branded as a "scab," as we have heard from many members of the government for so long. How are we going to expect that there is any kind of language in here that provides for that kind of protection? It simply doesn't exist. I would like the minister to specifically tell us where that language is.

Hon. M. Sihota: Subsection (1) prohibits an employer from using any of the following categories of persons to perform the work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike: (a) supervisory personnel or employees who are hired after collective bargaining has commenced; (b) supervisory personnel or employees who ordinarily work at another operation or facility of the employer; (c) supervisory personnel or employees who might be transferred to the affected operation after the commencement of collective bargaining; or (d) employees who are provided by a contractor or subcontractor. Hon. member, I think (1)(a) can give you some guidance in regard to that section.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, that has to be the most broadly based interpretation of the language of that section. It's our view, and the view of many of the practitioners out there, that that section would not permit that. So our argument is clear: if indeed there has been agreement between labour and management who have to deal with this language, we don't understand the intransigence of the minister to recognize that the language provided in this does not provide clearly stated acceptance of that practice. Indeed, it puts the obligation on the individual who will be requested to cross the line to essentially run the gamut and face what this minister has repeatedly told us he's trying to avoid in this section, which is violence on the picket line. Could the minister explain how that section is going to mitigate against that?

Hon. M. Sihota: Subsection (1) allows the following categories of persons to continue to work or to perform struck work: management supervisors at a struck location would be able to do bargaining unit work -- hon. member, if that's not clear, I would suggest that you read section 68(1) again -- as would any employee in the bargaining unit, except those persons hired at the date on which collective bargaining is commenced. I know that your Labour critic has explained these matters, because I know he understands it. Hopefully he has explained it to you. But let me say, because you weren't listening, that subsection (1) does allow the following categories of persons to continue to work and to perform struck work: management supervisors at a struck location.

G. Wilson: With respect to my Labour critic, he and I were conferring to make sure that what the minister was saying cannot be there. For example, four-months' notice to bargain can be given prior to the expiry date of an agreement. The strike may not occur for many months after the expiry, so the people hired to replace the manager who quits simply won't be in a position to work. This minister is reading into this that which the language doesn't protect and provide for. Can the minister explain how the comfort zone in the

[ Page 4595 ]

notice to bargain that he says is there for the managers and the employees actually works? If that language is fairly specific and clear, certainly from the reading on this side and from those practitioners who are dealing with this on a day-to-day basis in the province...?

Hon. M. Sihota: This is not "legal interpretation 101." If you take a look at the prohibitions in section 68(1), you will see that it allows bargaining unit work to be done by management supervisors at a struck location and any employee in the bargaining unit, except those persons hired after the date on which collective bargaining commenced.

G. Wilson: Clearly the minister is reflecting back to his course on "labour law 101," or whatever it was he was talking about. We can use a real case example to give the minister some clarification. In the dispute that involved Famous Players and Cineplex Odeon, the collective agreement expired in 1985, but the dispute didn't occur until 1989. The manager hired in the last four years could work during the strike, but under Bill 84 that isn't going to be permissible. Can the minister explain how he thinks protection is here under this section?

Hon. M. Sihota: I've said it on numerous occasions, and I'll say it again. Management supervisors at a struck location, because of the way in which the section is worded, would be able to do bargaining unit work. If the hon. member looks at it this way, it might be a little bit easier. If he takes a look at the section that says who is covered and then asks himself who is not covered, he'll find that those who aren't covered are management supervisors at a struck location.

G. Wilson: That was precisely my point. I'm saying that there are going to be those people at the managerial level who are going to have to be hired in order to keep the integrity of the company alive. What the minister doesn't seem to recognize is that there may be a fairly significant hiatus between the time of notice and the time of strike, and in the case where managers leave for whatever reason, the company is not going to be in a position to bring in new workers. That provision should be here and should be protected under some form of amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, we just don't think that the management turnover is as great as you're suggesting it is.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that at least finally we've gotten the acknowledgement from the minister that this is a very real problem, and that he thinks the managers are simply going to hang in there. Frequently they don't, and in the case I've just cited, where there has been such a significant number of years between the time of the collective agreements expiring and the actual dispute, managers do in fact leave. Managers are going to have to be replaced. It strikes me that that is not uncommon, and it certainly isn't uncommon in a time when there is significant change in our economy and a significant shift and movement among senior management levels of workers in British Columbia.

The minister seems to feel that in the case of the worker, the employee, which we've just canvassed for the last number of days, there has to be proper notice given, there has to be retraining, there has to be new hiring, and there has to be all those kinds of things to protect the employee. The minister says he's going to stand by it because it's right to do it. I remember the debate, and I remember the impassioned response we got. We don't have a particular problem with that as long as it's fairly dealt with and fairly handled in a manner that allows the employer an opportunity to provide that which he is being asked to give. But in the case of the management in this section, those same kinds of rights of being able to maintain the hiring of managers into the site to be able to protect the integrity of the investment is being denied. How does the minister explain that discrepancy between those sections of this bill?

[3:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: We're debating section 68 here, we're not doing discrepancies between other sections, hon. member. So I'm not going to get into that issue, because it'll be outside the parameter of the rules.

G. Wilson: That was a good try. It's sort of like a last resort shoot from the red line, right?

The fact is that it is pertinent to the amendment of section 68, because it's this specific need for amendment that we are actually addressing, and the failure of section 68. Having seen that the minister is prepared to accept that, I think we also need to take a look at section 68(1)(b) and (c), which, in terms of public sector employees, is going to be important when we deal with the broader questions of essential services, which I understand are coming up. But in terms of the actual delivery of work, such as laundry facilities, food services and all those kinds of things, those sections are going to require the Labour Relations Board to designate a significant -- in our judgment -- increase in the number of employees to be able to maintain those services.

That is clearly what is going to result from this. We have to question the minister on whether or not he has thought of that. And if he has thought of that, and recognizes that that is the net result of those sections that I've just outlined, was that the intention when the minister drafted this bill?

Hon. M. Sihota: That's a section 72 matter, and I'll answer the question when we get to section 72, hon. member.

G. Wilson: It isn't section 72. It's a section 68(1)(b) and (c) matter, as I outlined before. I would appreciate it if the minister -- recognizing that he is anxious to jump to section 72, as I think we all are anxious to get through the debate on this to get the work of the House done -- could come back and recognize that section 68(1)(b) and (c) would, in fact, require a designation of

[ Page 4596 ]

many more employees to maintain services. Is that in fact the intention of this bill? Because from the advice that we're getting from legal counsel, it is precisely what is going to occur.

Hon. M. Sihota: The intentions of the anti-scab provision, which is what we're debating here, are as follows: first, to prevent violence on the picket lines of British Columbia; second, to encourage the parties to resolve their disputes quickly; third, to make sure that the parties to the dispute understand that they can't undermine the collective bargaining effort and bring in replacement workers.

G. Wilson: If this is the intention of that and with the extent of the language of section 68, one really wonders why they don't just say what it seems is really intended here, and that is that an employer may not be able to carry on any business during a labour stoppage. That is what is going to effectively happen here.

If I could come back and canvass the other question.... My understanding was that there was agreement for an amendment made by the Premier, which the minister now says wasn't there. I understood it was there. It has to do with a company that has managers at various sites and their right to bring those managers in. There are two questions that I would ask.

I would like the minister to be very specific on this, because once again I realize this has been discussed. I have read the Hansard on it, and I want a very specific response, because it goes to the heart of some discussions that have taken place out of the House. Is it the understanding of the minister that a company that has management at sites outside of the site that is being struck will be able to bring those managers to that site in order to provide for the services of that company? Yes or no. The question is very simple.

Hon. M. Sihota: Managers and supervisors at a struck location will be able to do bargaining unit work. There's your answer.

Let me elaborate on that. What the hon. member doesn't seem to understand is as follows. He talked about multisite managers. He has lost the overview with regard to what brought these sections forward in the way that they're drafted. He has lost sight of the fact that there was section 65, which restricted secondary picketing to one specific site. The restrictions with regard to secondary picketing remain in law and are found in section 65.

In recognition of that fact, we have allowed other plants elsewhere in the province to remain operational during a strike, and we have confined the dispute to that site. We have confined managers from that site to be able to work at that site during a dispute. The other managers who aren't at the struck location as it works through secondary picketing -- perhaps I've oversimplified that part of it a bit to make the point -- will be there doing their work.

We have protected the interests of business with regard to that section. Quite frankly, that point is either not made by the Liberal opposition or not understood by the Liberal opposition. If it's not made, it's because they don't want to acknowledge the fact the government looked after the security of capital investment or whatever in that situation. In this instance we made these adjustments here.

G. Wilson: We recognize the question of the secondary picketing provisions, and we recognize the fact that the other sites will be able to continue operating. However, we also recognize that in the legal entity that may be there with respect to one company with multisite locations, the management of that company may be assigned on a regular basis to various sites in order to do their normal duties.

Given that we know that we can keep the other sites operating and given that the minister's response to my question was that they could not bring management from those other sites to help them keep the operation going, is there anything in this provision of the bill that prevents a union that has a picket up from having companion picketers from other unions that are not onsite come and bolster the picket lines, should they run thin of workforce that are out there running the picket line or if they require additional assistance from brother or sister trade unions to help them keep up the picket line, especially during night-shift hours?

Hon. M. Sihota: Your Labour critic canvassed that issue with respect to section 65. It's not covered by section 68. You know that, and I think he'll tell you that.

Let me also tell you that we have had situations very recently with a plant where managers did come into the site from other sites, ran the operation and produced the product. The net effect was to have that strike extended over a year. When I met with them afterwards, both parties -- and I'm trying to give you an example of a situation that's real life so that perhaps you can understand these sections better -- recognized that it was that practice which extended the length of the strike, and it was that practice which diseased the relationship between the workers and the employer. This provision would prevent that type of situation from happening; i.e., it would prevent the management from other sites coming in to produce the good; it would prevent the kind of diseased relationship that occurred there; and it would prevent a year-long strike, which caused instability to both sides. It would do this by restricting picketing, first of all. Secondly, by bringing in these replacement worker provisions, (a) we provide more stability; (b) we tell the parties that they have to work together; (c) we reduce the length of strikes; and (d) we prevent violence on the picket line. Those are the benefits which accrue from this section.

G. Wilson: I'll acknowledge that there is a clarity in terms of what's provided here, and I'm certainly not trying to just be argumentative on this question. What I am trying to do is canvass the minister with respect to the intention of the language and the fairness by which that language applies to both the employer and the employee. It seems to us in the Liberal opposition that the minister has not clearly defended.... The question of secondary picketing and the maintenance of multiple sites is not enough to recognize that if there is a

[ Page 4597 ]

company that has multi-site management, surely the minister has to recognize that if there is a broader brotherhood and sisterhood within the union movement, which can come to assist in that proposition, the fairness in order to put language in here would be to allow an employer who has management at multiple sites....

One might argue -- and I can understand that there was some discussion with members of the B.C. Federation of Labour and our group -- that that should not extend to those managers outside British Columbia, be they south of the border or in other provinces. We'd be anxious to talk about that if the minister was keen. But surely the minister -- and I trust that he is going to provide me this response -- has to recognize that this was the subject of discussion and there was agreement on amendment to make that proposition available so that multi-site management could be available to companies that were in business, and that this is fully expected by members of both the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Business Council of British Columbia to enhance this section to make it fairer, more equitable and a better proposition for employers to be able to keep the integrity of their investment and their company alive during a protracted labour dispute.

I have not heard anything from the minister other than the fact that it was essentially a tradeoff for not expanding pickets to companion sites. There is nothing in here that addresses that inherent injustice and unfairness of this section of the bill. And I wish the minister would tell us what language he thinks is there that provides the employer that equal balance that he has provided to the unionized employee.

Hon. M. Sihota: I've already answered the question.

G. Wilson: With the greatest of respect to the minister, I don't believe that the question has been answered. Some would argue that it certainly has not been answered to the satisfaction of the opposition. But I would point out again that it hasn't been answered in order to alleviate the expectations that are clearly out there and the understanding that this was one of two provisions under section 68 that is unacceptable to both the B.C. Federation of Labour, as a major component, and the Business Council of British Columbia, as the second major component. When it was clearly suggested that the Premier was prepared to make these amendments, the minister hasn't explained why he isn't prepared to see them go through.

Hon. M. Sihota: I've already told you, hon. member. I've got to tell you that I'm quite annoyed by your suggestion earlier on that there is some cynicism. I've been listening to you very patiently to see whether or not you're prepared to in any way indicate that the allegation was not warranted.

There were discussions, and discussions are continuing, with regard to working through some of the concerns that any party may have with regard to this section. At this point (a) there is no consensus and (b), in the government's opinion, there is no provision here which ought to ring the alarm that you're suggesting ought to be rung. But there are compelling arguments in favour of protecting against violence on the picket line that persuade us to proceed with these sections.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I would just say that in reflecting on what the minister has just said when explaining his response to your question, the Chair is finding it very difficult to find the comments in order with respect to expected amendments by parties outside the committee. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, has the right to move amendments as he wishes, and those would be in order. But as it stands now, the Chair has extended considerable leniency in this line of debate. I'm going to have to ask the leader to consider other means of making his points. Please proceed, hon. member.

[3:30]

G. Wilson: I do recognize the narrow latitude. My question to the Minister of Labour was going to be: if the government doesn't agree, why did the Premier agree? I recognize that would be out of order. I will then yield to the member for Okanagan East.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, am I to understand that there is someone who will answer questions? Or should I keep the debate going until we're in a position to...?

The Chair: You may continue, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: I hope that by the time I'm finished making comments, someone will be in a position to answer them, because we are not prepared to end debate on this section yet.

This morning we spent a bit of time with regard to the difference between how section 68 will affect public sector unions versus private sector unions. We were talking about two things. Specifically with regard to public sector unions, we are looking at security of the individual and personal safety. The leader of the official opposition was speaking a lot on that point and pressing the minister for some assurance that we would see security of the individual and individual safety provided for, despite the provisions of section 68, with regard to public sector unions.

I see that we may be in a position to have some answers to questions, so I will abbreviate my comments.

The member for Langley brought up some questions with regard to site security. As the minister will remember, this morning we talked about individual security and safety particularly with regard to public sector unions and capital security, more to do with private sector unions. But the points that were made by my colleague from Langley are, I think, very worthwhile in pursuing. I would like to hear the minister's comments with regard to where there are provisions in the bill to counter what we see in 68, or if there are provisions in 68 that would prevent the scenario which the member for Langley was referring to.

With regard to 68(1)(d), this seems to indicate that in the event of the employer requiring site security to

[ Page 4598 ]

protect some of the property, just simple property protection, there would be no ability to hire security people to make sure that property is neither damaged nor goes missing or that the capital investment is not being compromised by the labour unrest. I'd like to canvass from the minister if that is indeed the case for (1)(d).

Hon. M. Sihota: In the example that she was giving this morning, in terms of security guards -- I think that was the line you're following on -- two points: (1) it's up to the employer to utilize management if that's the way they want to; and if they think that's the best way to use them, that prerogative is there; and (2) it depends on whether or not the security guard is a member of the.... Well, sorry, the section does say that the services of an employee who is provided by a contractor or subcontractor cannot be used. I think that was the answer given this morning.

J. Tyabji: As the minister will remember, when we were in the definitions section, and we were talking about who is management and who is an employee, we got an answer from the minister that technically speaking everybody but the individual at the top of the pyramid could be considered an employee. So we could be in a difficult situation where, according to section 68, anyone other than the individual at the top will not be eligible to be on the other side of the picket line and so secure the site.

If I'm to understand correctly, the minister is saying basically that there is no provision for site security, unless you happen to have enough management around to both keep the operation running at a level so that it has economic viability and provides site security. Is that correct? And in a pulp and paper mill, let's say, if we only have three people who qualify as management according to this bill, those three people are responsible for making sure that the operations continue at a level that is economically viable, securing the site and continuing negotiations. Is that what I'm to understand?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not just sure if the hon. member has a clear understanding of what happens now, nor a clear understanding of this section. In terms of a clear understanding of what happens now, let's take the pulp example, because she used that. During the course of a pulp strike, management are not used to run the operation. They're used to do security. For example, fire security is an example that comes to mind. So that's the way it works right now, hon. member, if you're familiar at all with that industry. In addition to that, with regard to the section, since you don't seem to understand it, if a security individual is not within the bargaining unit, then they're not captured by this section.

J. Tyabji: I do understand that. For the minister's information, I actually worked at a pulp plant during a labour dispute, so I do understand what you end up with. I do understand what you're left with in terms of trying to keep things running, or trying to secure the site during a labour dispute.

With regard to fire security, if the minister could help me out here. If you have a picket line set out -- and this bill is meant to secure the picket line -- and you ended up with a unionized fire department, which we see as the case, and a fire breaks out on the plant, would we allow the picket line to move aside long enough for the unionized fire workers to make sure that the fire doesn't do too much damage?

Hon. M. Sihota: The experience has been that supervisors are given fire training to do that kind of work. In addition to that, no employee who is on strike is out to lose their job. If you can give me a real-life example where that has occurred, I'm sure I can give you some assurance that in all the instances that I'm familiar with -- there's only one -- the union is quite prepared to assist at that point and deal with that kind of situation.

J. Tyabji: I find it almost unbelievable that the minister is telling me this. The minister is indicating that yes, his legislation, if followed to the letter, would mean that the picket line is secure and the firemen can't get across, but he will rely on the generosity of the employees walking the picket line to move aside. That is my understanding of the bill. Again and again in this bill we see all the onus being left on the employee to abrogate the legislation because their conscience dictates they do so. Will the minister confirm for the House that if the employees walking the picket line follow this legislation, they won't let the firemen through?

Hon. M. Sihota: Take the case of a pulp mill. If there's a fire at a pulp mill, the firefighters who will cross the picket line to attend to the fire will not be doing the work of the members of the bargaining unit.

J. Tyabji: If they're unionized firefighters, they won't cross the picket line.

Hon. M. Sihota: Even if it's a unionized firefighter. A unionized firefighting force finds out there's a fire at a pulp mill which is on strike. If there's a fire, it would seem to me the following would happen: the firefighters, who are unionized, would be allowed to cross under this legislation, because they're not doing the work of a person within the bargaining unit.

K. Jones: Have you included that in the act?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not a matter of including it in the act, because logically thinking through the provisions of the act....

K. Jones: Then make a provision for it.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, if you want to get into the debate, please rise to the occasion. I've seldom seen you do that today.

The Chair: Order, order. Please address the Chair, hon. minister. The member who is speaking from his

[ Page 4599 ]

seat would do us a great service if he would wait until he has a chance to take his place.

Hon. M. Sihota: Logically, any struck employee is not going to sit there and watch their job be destroyed by a fire.

J. Tyabji: The minister has confirmed that the onus is on the employee and not in his legislation.

Another issue that I would like to go back to is with regard to perishable property. When we hit section 68, we still didn't see any commitment from the minister to ensure that perishable property is secure. The minister keeps referring us back to section 60(4) -- I believe it's section 60(4) -- where there's a provision for at least 72 hours' notice if there is perishable property involved. We started to canvass this the other day, but we didn't get a clear indication from the minister where.... Never mind a 72-hour notice, because that's a totally different issue; that's a bit of a red herring, actually. Notwithstanding the 72-hour notice, if there is still perishable property on the other side of the picket line, is there a provision in section 68 to allow activities to secure that property?

Hon. M. Sihota: You're wrong to say that my answer to the first question was the way you categorized it. That's not true. Does the Liberal opposition agree with the principle of anti-scab legislation? Do you or do you not?

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Okay, tell me again.

J. Tyabji: I covered that this morning, and I told the minister in no uncertain terms that we believe that if you have the right to strike, you have to protect the integrity of the picket line. However, if someone has taken the risk and has capital investment, they have to have the right to secure the capital investment.

The minister is saying that I'm not answering his question. If he's asking if we support wholesale busing in of replacement workers, the answer is no. But do we believe that section 68 should stand the way it's written? The answer is again no.

I yield to the Minister of Labour, who obviously has a more specific question.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's very simple. Does the Liberal Party agree with the principle of anti-scab provisions?

G. Wilson: It's interesting how quickly the tables have turned, and the minister is once again assuming his rightful role in opposition by asking what we would do, had we been in government.

In light of the fact that the opposition is now being asked the questions as to what should or shouldn't be in this bill, let us say that we've made it very clear that the principle of legislation protecting the integrity of a picket line is something that we recognize should be there. Any unionized worker who has the right to strike should have the right to maintain the integrity of their line. That's clear. We have never said otherwise.

However, we recognize that if there is to be balance -- and this is where the minister seems to fall down -- in a labour code, the rights that are accorded a unionized worker.... I hope that the material the minister is reading is elaborating on this point. Surely the right of the employer must also be protected in law so that they have an opportunity to protect their capital investment, especially in light of perishability or equipment that needs ongoing maintenance and upgrading, such as fire prevention equipment in areas where fire protection is needed. Let the record not be in any way ambiguous or made more ambiguous by the remarks of the minister on that question.

The point is that we have to recognize that there is no provision in this bill for the protection of capital investment. Outside of the 72-hour strike notice, there is no provision for those people who are involved in a business in which they have investment, to be able to bring in people to protect that capital investment once the strike is in place.

I think the minister has to be honest and tell us that he is saying to the employer that once the line is up, that's it. They lose their capital investment, because there's nothing in here that provides them with the opportunity to bring somebody in to protect it. I think the minister has to be honest with the people of British Columbia -- not only the employers -- because that will likely have a wide-ranging effect with respect to this bill.

[3:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: What the Leader of the Opposition says is interesting. I'll get to his initial point second, but let me say this. He just talked about 72-hour strike notice under 60(4). Give me a break, hon. member. You break all the rules, and then you say, "Stick to the section," so it creates the impression that I didn't deal with the question.

The Chair: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me say this. With regard to perishable products, there are provisions under section 60 that deal with 72-hour strike notice to allow perishable goods to move out.

Second, there are other sections in the bill that allow for an extension beyond 72 hours in order to make sure that perishable goods can be moved out. That's the second option he didn't refer to. You can extend the 72-hour notice.

Third, there's the provision that allows managers to cross the picket line to remove -- and if they wish they can endeavour to remove.... I would not underestimate the ability of management to do that. But after 72 hours and after getting an extension beyond that, if they haven't got it all out, they still have the provision under management....

On November 27 the following press release was issued with regard to the anti-scab provisions in section 68. I think it should help further this debate.

[ Page 4600 ]

"B.C. Federation of Labour's Ken Georgetti welcomed the Liberal leader's statement today that the Liberals oppose the use of strike-breakers in labour disputes. Georgetti said that the Leader of the Opposition made the statement today at a meeting between the Liberal caucus and members of the federation. 'The Liberals requested the meeting on short notice to clarify their position on the new labour code,' Georgetti said. He noted that the federation had requested a meeting on September 17 and had not received a response until yesterday."

That, of course, was right after I introduced my motion of privilege.

"'While workers deeply regret the labour code has been delayed by the Liberals, we welcome their support of the main principles of anti-scab legislation, a ban on the use of strike-breakers,' he said."

There you go, hon. Chair. All I can say is that I'm pleased to see that the Liberal opposition agrees with the principles found in this legislation, and they said as much after their meeting, after November 27. I note that the Leader of the Opposition brought a letter to this House which suggested that certain statements were made on behalf of the Premier, and I thought it would only be to the benefit of all the members, in the debate, if I let others know what the Leader of the Opposition had said with regard to these issues.

G. Wilson: Fairness is exactly what the Liberal opposition is all about -- fairness and a balanced labour code that recognizes certain rights to workers and also recognizes that there must be equal protection of rights to employers. That's precisely what we're debating with respect to section 68 -- an equal and balanced set of rights for the worker and the employer, something that we clearly didn't see in previous legislation and clearly are not seeing in this legislation. That's the reason we take issue when the pendulum swings from the far right to the far left. That's why we're in the centre, so that we can bring that balance.

Mr. Chairman, let me bring this debate back to section 68, where it correctly belongs.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member, that's very much appreciated.

G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope we can keep the minister in check on this question.

But with respect to the protection, my question is directly to the minister. If management has the right, on 72 hours -- and we recognize that there are provisions to be able to withdraw other goods.... What if management requires ongoing technical assistance in terms of skilled labour to maintain perishable goods on site? There is no proposition available, economically or even practically, to get goods off site. Therefore, in a protracted labour dispute there is a need for ongoing assistance from trades people in the maintenance of equipment to keep perishable goods on site. In the minister's mind, is there any provision in this bill which provides management with that option?

Hon. M. Sihota: The question relates to the bill, and that's clearly out of order. If the member agrees with the principle of anti-scab legislation, as he said on November 27, I'm sure that he would then agree with me that this legislation allows management to come in and do any of the technical work that's required of management from the struck location.

G. Wilson: The minister surely is informed enough in the practice of business to recognize that what he's suggesting is totally unrealistic and not possible. The problem that we have with this minister and his approach to this bill -- and what we're trying to get some elaboration on -- is that unless there is a provision for the maintenance and protection of capital investment on site on an ongoing basis, surely the minister has to recognize that not only does he put the investment of the employer in jeopardy, but he also puts the long-term security of the employee in jeopardy.

While we clearly recognize that there must be rights entrenched for the worker, there have to be rights entrenched for the employer. It's to their mutual interest that the provision be there and that we amend this to allow it to be there, so that we can maintain the security of the capital investment and not lose that investment to Alberta or points south -- which is currently what's happening, even at the reading of this bill, before this bill even comes into power. Maybe the minister can comment on that.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are innumerable provisions in this act that protect employers and capital. We're dealing with section 68 now. You know this full well. During second reading debate I pointed out one in passing with regard to section 65. A few minutes ago I pointed out section 60(4) and then section 60. I'm not going to stray beyond the ambit of what's here in debate, but I gave you three simple examples where a whole series of steps are taken prior to a strike to protect the rights of the employer and the capital that's invested. In addition, we have made further provisions in this section to protect capital and to allow management to cross the line in the interests of the employer. We have also made additional provisions in this section to allow employees to cross the line. We have not put in any prohibition against technical assistance for the parties. As people have been known to do during the course of a dispute, they can make arrangements among themselves to attend to a problem.

J. Tyabji: Contrary to legislation.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not contrary to the legislation. Within the context of collective bargaining, manoeuvres are available. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition said on November 27, he agrees with the principle of anti-scab legislation. I have it right here in writing.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: You were quoting Matkin earlier on. What's wrong with me quoting Georgetti?

Knowing that you said on November 27 that you agree with the principle of anti-scab legislation -- and I

[ Page 4601 ]

have it right here in quotation marks -- then it would seem to me that you'd have no difficulty with the answer I've just given to you.

G. Wilson: The moral in all of this is that you should always consider the source and move on.

Nevertheless, if we look at what the minister is saying in terms of the protection of maintenance and ongoing services, I find it ironic in the extreme that the argument being advanced by the minister is that somehow the two parties in a collective agreement can provide protection for capital investment and perishability and so on when that was totally tossed out of consideration when we were debating the section with respect to technical change.

However, I do wish to come back to section 68(1)(b). This is an area of significant contention. It is a very important area that has to be amended. I move to amend section 68(1)(b) to read as follows: "...who ordinarily works as a member of a bargaining unit at another of the employer's places of operation."

Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. I'm going to argue that this amendment is out of order for the same reason that a similar amendment introduced by the Liberal opposition yesterday was out of order. It totally negates the effect of the section that is before the House.

G. Wilson: I recognize that maybe the minister hasn't had a chance to read it yet. I think the minister would agree that this amendment is quite different from the amendment that was brought forward yesterday. All it does is seek to clarify that we do recognize -- as the minister so eloquently points out in the press releases from his cohorts in organized labour -- that rights have to be extended to employees, but the employer also has to have an equal set of rights. If we look at that section, members of bargaining units might be brought in from other, non-supportive unions; however, it would allow an employer to move a manager from one site to another and be able to operate. Those people who are excluded staff would to be able to maintain the integrity of the investment of that operation. So I would argue that it clearly is not out of order. It clarifies that section, and the provision of section 68(1)(b) allows for what has been a very contentious.... It is my clear understanding that this is something that has been agreed to and was fully expected as a result of private meetings between the Premier and members of the employers' council.

Hon. M. Sihota: I bring the Chair's attention to what the hon. member said. He said that it allows the employer to bring in a manager from another site, and that clearly negates the intent of the section.

The Chair: On the same point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Wilson: With respect to the argument that the minister has been advancing, we recognize that he has been arguing all along that in fact the integrity of the maintenance of the workplace is something that should be done by management. What we're saying is that, clearly, where there may be four or five sites in a company, management of that company is something that should be able to move as freely when they are under a work stoppage as when they are not under a work stoppage.

Mr. Chairman, I would agree that if there are other companion unions that are non-supportive, we would recognize that perhaps the minister has a point on that. But on the question of management rights, failure to accept or adopt this amendment is, in my judgment, a clear abrogation of the managers' right to protect their capital investment. And that capital investment surely has to -- and the minister must agree -- extend beyond one site if the company operates in a manner that may have integrated systems of delivery that may be dependent on three or four sites working consistently together in a co-management system. So surely the minister has to recognize that if you've got one site producing that is dependent upon a second site producing, and one goes down, it's going to affect every other one in the system. In those instances management must have the right to be able to move their management across.

The Chair: The Chair has been attempting to study the intent of the hon. member's motion. It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is out of order, in that it negates the purpose of the section it attempts to amend, and the Chair would so rule, hon. member.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member went through with putting forward his argument in any event, which indicates that he wanted to somehow get on the record.

But let me, in response to the hon. member, within the context of what is in order, ask him the following question.

G. Farrell-Collins: You're not asking a question.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, no, but to illustrate the point.

The Chair: Is the hon. minister speaking on the matter on which I've just ruled?

[4:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'm dealing with section 68.

What I'm saying to the hon. member is this. You have to recognize that if you were to take the principle that you have been arguing all afternoon long -- I'm not talking about the amendment now -- you have to ask yourself: does that then mean that the union should have the right to go off and picket other operations? Should people come in from those operations to cross the picket line? The thinking behind the section was that because we wanted to restrict the dispute to the site where it's at, because we didn't want to bring third parties into a dispute, we've come in with very specific legislation, under section 68 and indeed under section 65, to prevent that kind of situation from happening. If you take your argument to its conclusion, what will

[ Page 4602 ]

happen is that if you start allowing others to come through that are not part of the site, you're simply going to invite others to go to those sites and put up picket lines, and that's disruptive.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister doesn't believe that the movement of management from one site to another is going to do anything except protect the investment of the employer. Let me ask the minister this: in a case where you've got one plant operating that is dependent upon a second plant operating, does the minister not recognize that the financial loss to the employer in site A is going to be equally felt in site B, if he or she is not able to maintain and manage the first site?

The second question I would put to the minister is this....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: All right, do one at a time. Answer that one.

Hon. M. Sihota: Does the Leader of the Opposition not agree that on November 27 he said he agreed with the principles of anti-scab legislation?

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, we've already gone through that, and I think the record speaks clearly on that point. I want the minister to answer some questions. He will have ample opportunity in a couple of years, when we are on the government side, to ask these kinds of questions of our legislation. But at this point, he's the Minister of Labour, and I think he should answer that question. Does he not understand that the financial viability of one site may directly impact on the financial viability of companion sites that are operating? Does he not understand that therefore the movement of management from one to the other may maintain and protect the employer's investment? It's a very simple question.

Hon. M. Sihota: Does the Leader of the Opposition not understand that the purpose of the section is to reduce the potential for labour disruption -- first of all, in terms of length of strikes? Does he not understand that the purpose of the legislation is also to reduce the potential for violence? Did he not understand that on November 27, when he made a commitment to the B.C. Federation of Labour to support the principles of anti-scab legislation?

G. Wilson: The answer to that is: we understand all of the above. We are therefore moving with respect to concern for protection of the employer.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have to get down to some specifics here. If the minister isn't prepared to recognize that section 68(1)(b) negatively impacts those who have invested capital, can the minister tell me where in this legislation it prohibits unionized workers from site B, when they're off shift, from taking a shift at the strike site? Is that prohibited anywhere in the bill?

Hon. M. Sihota: Section 68 doesn't deal with that issue, hon. member. You should know that; you've read the section. When you spoke on November 27, agreeing to the principles of anti-scab, I'm sure you must have thought about the very issues you just raised. At that time you publicly committed yourself to supporting anti-scab principles.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, it's frustrating to see that the minister seems to be hanging this whole debate on a press release from his friend Mr. Georgetti. The point is....

The Chair: Order, please.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, in order to get this back to the debate on this section and to talk about the need for some amendment to section 68, let me say to the minister that when he says that this isn't part of this section of the bill, we acknowledge that this bill in its totality -- and I'll come back to section 68, with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman -- inherently builds an unfairness into the ability of an employer to move management. Surely the minister has to recognize that management -- generally speaking; in an operation in the free enterprise sector, anyway -- is less in numbers than the unionized workforce, and that management brought in to maintain the capital investment of a site.... That's got nothing to do with the proposition of maintaining the integrity of a picket line, because we recognize that the wholesale busing of replacement workers may create violence on the picket line. It may be something we want to look at and address in order to have fairness protected for those people who legally have the right to strike. We've said that with honesty to all members we have spoken to. Let me come back to the point. The minister is acknowledging that in a multi-site situation, where one site is on strike, it is perfectly acceptable for the unionized workforce from the other sites to go and bolster the picket line on the struck site, but it isn't acceptable for management to move into that site in order to maintain the protection of the investment. That's inherently wrong, inherently unjust, and in our view needs to be changed in this bill.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has got it all wrong. Indeed, his example makes the point. What we've said is that picketing -- and we're past that section, hon. member -- is to be confined to the site where the dispute is. That's it. We do not want, in this province, pickets spread all over the place and drawing in sites, workers or industries that are not part of the dispute. That was dealt with under section 65, and I'm not going to deal with it anymore. If you want to ask questions about 65, you should have been here in the House to debate it.

With regard to section 68, it does not deal with the location of the picket line; it deals with the question of replacement workers. That's what we're debating here. By bringing in those other elements, you're making it very tough for me to stay within the confines of the rule. I appreciate the latitude that the Chair gave you,

[ Page 4603 ]

but I'm not prepared to abuse it to the extent that is necessary to fully address your point.

On section 68, so there's no unfairness there.... The purpose of the legislation is to contain the dispute to where the dispute is. So the issue is not who the people are there and where they come from, but the fact that it's confined to that site. We made a very conscious provision in this legislation to do that. That's the point. There's a fairness in that point.

You suggest that it's inherently unjust to do what we've done. I've just established for you that it's fair to do what we've done: to say to both parties that, first of all, we're going to contain the dispute to where it should be, and secondly, having contained it there, we're not going to create the opportunity for violence by allowing people from elsewhere to come in and do any work at that site. Why? Because we want you to work out your differences among yourselves now. We know that by bringing in these provisions, the parties will have to move with dispatch to resolve their differences. We believe, as I'm sure you must, that the interests of labour relations are served when the duration of a strike is limited to the shortest time period possible. This provision makes it possible.

On this side of the House, we also believe that every step should be taken to prevent the relationship between employer and employee from becoming poisonous, because if it becomes poisonous it has ongoing ramifications. I'm seeing that every day in the work that I do as the Minister of Labour. I just dealt with a dispute two or three days ago -- I won't mention where it's from -- where both parties acknowledged that the fundamental problem for the strike being so long was because of the diseased relationship. So what we're trying to do here is take out the ability for that disease to set in and poison that relationship. How? By saying that it's not possible for you to bring in outside people to do the work of those who are on strike, because nothing diseases a relationship more than that, and nothing is more apt to trigger violence than that, hon. member.

For those reasons, we've built in the constraints that are sitting here in section 68. Now those constraints have to be considered in the light of the balance of the code, in terms of whether or not it achieves the appropriate balance of respecting the rights -- to use your language -- of capital to make its investment, and of employees to protect the security of their employment. We've done that through all the other sections that we've debated up to section 68.

Again, I'm not going to go through and explain them all to you, but the perishable products, the 72-hour strike notice, the strike vote provision, the first contract -- and I could go on -- are designed to achieve the balance that's required to protect labour and management interests during that portion of a dispute.

During the course of this debate we've tried to make that possible. I am not going to get into issues that fall outside the ambit of section 68, any more than I have now. But I want you to understand how all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle come together -- and they come together well. I don't expect you to ever admit to the fact that they come together well, because, after all, it is your job as Leader of the Opposition to criticize. You have a fixation on criticizing the provisions that are here.

The Chair: Will the hon. minister please address section 68.

Hon. M. Sihota: You came in here today, hon. Leader of the Opposition, with Mr. Matkin's letter. I responded with Mr. Georgetti's press release. We've had a little bit of fun and maybe a little bit of irritation on that -- from your side, of course. But if you sit back and think through the ways that these provisions have been sculpted to fit in to the rest of the statute that we've managed to craft here, you'll see that we achieve that fairness and balance. Admit that, not here in the public glare of this chamber, but in a quiet, sober moment when you're walking down the hall.

G. Wilson: If indeed I do have a fixation with criticizing, it's just because this government gives so much to criticize. Let me come back and say that with respect to the two pieces of correspondence the minister alluded to, the difference is that I admit to what I say and stand by what I say, unlike what we see from the government side, where there is no admission.

Let's come back to this section, because that's what we're here to debate.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chair, the minister is trying to goad me into breaking the rules so that I'll be ruled out of order, and I'm going to restrain myself from doing that.

With respect to section 68(1)(b), we understand clearly that the ability to take a strike and move it from one site to strike a second site is something that is not provided for, and we understand that the government has moved to eliminate that possibility.

That was not my point. My point is twofold, and I'd like the minister to acknowledge that he understands this, because I think that it's fairly clear. First of all, those people who are in the employ of a company and who are managers and therefore exempt, and may be working at a site different from the site that is struck, are surely not outside workers; those are inside workers in the employ of the company. That's the first thing. So it's isn't a question of bringing in outside workers who are not already in the employ of the company.

The second thing -- and I hope that the minister will respond to this, because he missed the point entirely -- is where you say that you don't want replacement workers. What we're saying is that there is nothing in here to prohibit replacement picketers. There's nothing in here to say that you can't bolster a picket line at the site that is struck.

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order. I served notice on the opposition a few minutes ago, and I'm asking the Chair.... We're into a debate about picketing, not about replacement workers. Hon. Chair, I'm

[ Page 4604 ]

appealing through you to the hon. Leader of the Opposition to stick to the issues here. I agree that the Chair has given us a lot of latitude, but we're well into second reading debate at this stage.

J. Tyabji: On this same point of order, I think that throughout this debate we've recognized that there are no sections of this bill that stand alone. The point the opposition is trying to make is that we're looking for balance in section 68. We're looking for provisions, whether they be in section 68 or in other parts of the bill, that relate directly to section 68. That's the point we're making. In speaking to section 68, we cannot speak to it in a vacuum, and that is why we're bringing in the other provisions.

[4:15]

The Chair: Notwithstanding the remarks that the bill is an integral whole and that no section can be seen in isolation, our rules require that we deal with each section strictly on the matter it contains. This means being relevant and not being tedious or repetitious. Until the House decides to change the rules, the Chair must insist that members address their remarks to the sections.

We have completed second reading. I realize it is difficult for members to do so, but the rules are quite clear. I would ask members to keep their remarks within the confines of our standing orders.

G. Wilson: I recognize the limitations you refer to. Hopefully this is the final point, if we can get a clear direction from the minister. Does the minister agree that someone who is already in the employ of a company as an exempt staff member but operates at a different plant is very different from somebody who is not currently working that may be bused in and given employment? Does the minister not recognize that there is a difference between somebody who is already on staff -- on salary, trained, working for a company -- and somebody who could be picked off the street and moved into a position that doesn't already hold employment? Will the minister acknowledge that?

Hon. M. Sihota: I recognize the distinction you're making. I would be lying if I said that I didn't understand the distinction, because I clearly do.

You have to remember there is also a school of thought in labour relations that says a strikebreaker is a strikebreaker is a strikebreaker. Whether they're employed, a professional or management, if they cross the picket line, they're strikebreakers. Those were the public policy considerations that cabinet obviously had to deal with when taking a look at this section.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that the minister recognizes the distinction. Surely the minister would also recognize that when a union strikes, it strikes against the employer, not the site of the employer. Therefore the employer should have the right to use whatever exempt staff are currently in the employ of the company to function as they would have done prior to that strike occurring. That's the distinction we're trying to make. Will the minister at least acknowledge that?

D. Streifel: There comes a time when the relationship between employees and their employer breaks down, erodes or reaches an impasse where job action is required. Sometimes it's a lockout; sometimes it's a strike. In the experiences I've had, more often than not it has been a lockout first, because that seems to be the process that's followed in labour relations in British Columbia. I heard the hon. opposition leader talking about employees going on strike against an employer as opposed to a site. I may remind him to check some of the Alberta jurisprudence and the Gainers strike that happened there.

Interjection.

D. Streifel: I hear down the road off to the right: "What has that got to do with it? That's Alberta." As we heard earlier in the debate on replacement workers or anti-scab workers -- section 68 -- there's virtually no violence left on picket lines. We have heard the opposition -- both the Social Credit and the Liberals -- talk about the postal workers' strike and the violence that occurred there. They pass it off and say: "That existed under federal jurisdiction." Well, hon. Chair, violence is violence on a picket line, and I don't understand how the opposition in this House can so flippantly pass off violence against human beings by other human beings.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. Would the hon. member who is speaking please take his seat.

J. Tyabji: First of all, a point of order to the member that we are on section 68; and secondly, the opposition is taking offence to his misrepresentation of our position on the bill.

The Chair: If the member intended to impugn the integrity of the member, would the member please withdraw.

D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, if I have impugned the integrity of the opposition, I certainly would withdraw.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

D. Streifel: The opposition rises and says, "There's virtually no violence left on picket lines," so what's the problem with dealing with this section? We look at a situation where there are questions of whether there's a strike against an employer or a site. Well, the employer operates on a site. And I'll cite some of the examples that happened in the Gainers strike in Alberta when ex parte injunctions were brought against workers for communicating with the public at large. Another injunction that came down in that long-disputed strike in Alberta forbade workers to walk while they were on

[ Page 4605 ]

the picket line. They were assigned two square feet of property outside the gates of that establishment in Edmonton in January, and it was forbidden for them to move.

That brings me into British Columbia and some of the labour disputes that have been scabbed in British Columbia. We'll go back, say, to 1973 when the Shoppers Drug Mart kicked off and the company brought in strike-breakers. The company that was brought in to break those picket lines was called Rent-A-Guard. As we look at section 68, had we had a situation in British Columbia at that time that forbade replacement workers and scabs, Rent-A-Guard would not have brought in dogs to break that picket line. Indeed, one of the former members of this Legislature, Rosemary Brown, walked those picket lines with those Shoppers workers in 1973. Section 68 would stop that situation.

We now have under section 68 protections for workers in more recent years. We talk about violence on a picket line in British Columbia. There was a strike for a long time on Terminal Avenue in Vancouver at Slade and Stewart. The last picketer on that site died on the picket line with a knife in his ribs.

Interjections.

D. Streifel: The opposition is talking about relevancy. The relevancy comes in anti-scab legislation and the necessity of it, because I don't accept violence from one human being to another under any circumstance.

Very recently in British Columbia a Pharmasave store in Surrey was on strike, and some of the situations that took place on that picket line.... That unit was scabbed. Management was brought in from other areas in the country to work that unit. And in the last winding-down days of that picket line, the picketers were standing out in front of the store just having a little conversation one evening. It was just prior to Christmas, and they were wondering what they were going to be doing at Christmastime. Well, the individuals who had been working behind the picket line, including management they had brought in from other locations and other individuals who had been hired to work behind that picket line -- which would be forbidden under section 68 in this current legislation -- sneaked up behind the picketers and dumped dry-chemical fire extinguishers on them. I say that's violence. That's violence and intimidation against human beings. The picketers in this instance were women. The scabs were not; they were men.

We also had a situation at Williams Lake at Northern Stores, another unit that was scabbed. Banks are constantly scabbed. The one I was most familiar with was Canadian Tire in Prince George, which was a very sad situation. After years of healing, management and staff have a fairly good relationship. We saw an employer spend in the area of $250,000 that needn't have been spent to defend a situation that wasn't defensible. It wouldn't have occurred had we had a clause in the labour legislation of the day that forbade replacement workers, scabs, operating any kind of unit.

I have difficulty buying the argument of the Social Credit opposition that violence is virtually nonexistent on picket lines any longer, or violence is under federal jurisdiction, as the Liberals have said, so it must not matter to us in B.C. I can't accept that argument. I fully support the right of workers to withdraw their labour. They do so in a conscious manner. They know that they will be subject to financial disruption -- their families, their way of life and their commitments to the community. It becomes a fairer system when the employer has to face the same situation. They have to fully consider the extent of their actions when it comes to collective bargaining and labour disputes.

I'm very saddened as the debate drags by on section 68. The Liberal opposition claims they support it, except under certain circumstances. They don't want paid workers across a picket line; they just want volunteers. The Social Credit opposition, off to my extreme right here, feels that there are no circumstances under which workers should be unionized.

C. Serwa: Point of order. The member has misled the House. Not one instance can be quoted where one Socred has ever uttered such a statement. That's sheer fabrication. I respectfully request that the member retract his words.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Would the hon. member for Mission-Kent please withdraw.

D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, thank you for the direction and your kind patience. I respectfully withdraw my comments as to whether or not the Social Credit Party agrees with unionized workers.

The Chair: There are no conditions, hon. member. The withdrawal is simply that.

D. Streifel: Thank you, hon. Chair. I respectfully withdraw my comments.

The first experience I had with replacement workers and violence on picket lines was on a picket line when I was 17 years old. I was protecting my job in a mill that was being scabbed by other workers. I felt at that time that my life in some way had been pillaged. We had undertaken in good faith a collective agreement and a working relationship with an employer that had been eroded and had resulted in such serious erosion of working conditions that as workers, we took a stand. When we took that stand, we found that the employer had made a commitment to remove our jobs completely.

A clause such as section 68 would prevent that and would prevent the disruption to family life and commitment to community. That's why I stand in support of a clause in a labour code that would remove the employers' right under certain circumstances to operate behind picket lines with hired strikebreakers.

[4:30]

The Chair: I'm going to take a moment to clarify the last procedural matter for the benefit of the members, because I think we should keep the record straight. The hon. member for Okanagan West rose on a

[ Page 4606 ]

point of order with respect to remarks made by the hon. member for Mission-Kent; he essentially said that he had inappropriately made a statement. The Chair took that to mean he was offended by an unparliamentary comment, which was quite a difference between what the hon. member was complaining about and what the Chair took his complaint to mean.

It is not customary to ask a member to withdraw on a matter of debate, unless it is an unparliamentary statement. That wasn't the case, so I'm just clarifying for the members. You are free to differ in points of view. That was a matter of debate rather than a matter which the member needed to withdraw. I just want to clarify that. Thank you, hon. members. Please proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: I must say that during the second reading speech by the hon. member for Mission-Kent that we just heard in committee stage, I half expected him to break out into "Solidarity Forever" and start waving around a red flag.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member is now engaging in that song. I don't know if singing in the chamber is in order, hon. Chair, but I'll try to proceed, if I may. I have one brief comment. The member made the exact same points that he made in second reading, and my feeling is that it was second reading debate. We allowed him to go ahead because we always love to get those types of comments on the record. There was one part in his speech that stuck out, and it was that violence is violence, no matter where it's perpetrated -- whether it's a picket line or elsewhere. Perhaps the member would choose to rise and respond to my question. Does he absolutely abhor, in his mind, violence on the picket line, whether it's perpetrated by either side?

Hon. J. Cashore: On a point of order. Hon. Chair, the hon. member knows full well that it's not his role to pose questions to members of the government.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the Minister of Environment could advise the House, since the Minister of Labour is not in attendance, just who exactly in these very sparse NDP benches he would like us to address questions to?

The Chair: Hon. member, those are not valid points of order. Does the member wish to continue?

G. Farrell-Collins: I merely asked the only representative from the NDP caucus in the House, who seems to want to engage in a debate on their own bill, whether or not he stands by his words that violence is violence, therefore must be treated under the Criminal Code regardless of where it occurs, and he abhors violence no matter where it occurs and who causes it.

No answer is a fine answer indeed, because we now know that the member who says violence is violence means violence is violence as long as it's violence perpetrated by management, but violence perpetrated by labour is just fine by him. I notice him singing "Solidarity Forever" as he does it. I think that's a shame, hon. Chair.

I yield to the member from Surrey-White Rock, who I am sure would like to address numerous issues.

W. Hurd: I have been struck by the debate today. When we're dealing with section 68, replacement workers, it is rather interesting to reflect on the remarks made by Mr. Ready of the labour review panel. He had a lot to say about the section that we're debating today in the House, and a lot to say about a strategy which was an alternative to the extremes being talked about by the government members of the House and by the management representative on the panel.

I think it's important to read into the record of debate on this section the recommendations that Mr. Ready came up with in his report to the labour review panel. I think his ideas that have been expressed are eminently logical, and would deal with the problem of replacement workers without prejudicing the right of members of a union who are on strike.

His recommendation was that in the event of a legal strike being enforced and the employer using replacement workers, either party may request that a special mediator be appointed by the Minister of Labour. Upon appointment of the special mediator, the mediator would agree to examine and define the issues in the dispute, including any underlying reasons giving rise to the dispute, assist the parties to resolve the dispute, and if necessary, submit a written report to the Minister of Labour within 15 days of the date of appointment if mutually agreed by the parties.

There's no question that Mr. Ready's recommendations, which are those of an eminent labour mediator, are the ones that should have been considered by the government during the course of its decision-making on this particular section of the bill. What the opposition has been saying from the beginning is that when faced with three scenarios in the labour review panel, this government made a conscious and deliberate choice to come down on the side of labour. They had an option other than the management's and the labour lawyer's recommendation on that panel, and they chose the recommendation from the labour lawyer. I urge members opposite to read the two-page summary of Mr. Ready's recommendation on replacement worker prohibition and the real concern that Mr. Ready expressed about the provision of banning outright by law the replacement worker provisions.

I think it's significant that Mr. Ready made a recommendation giving rise to a significant role that the Minister of Labour could play when a situation in a collective bargaining atmosphere becomes so explosive that, as the member for Mission-Kent has mentioned, there's an explosion of violence on the picket line. Mr. Ready recognized that problem, and during his deliberations and his recommendations to the labour review panel, laid out what I think is an excellent means of defusing that situation without outright banning by law the option that the employer has to keep operating during a strike.

It's significant to note that when we're talking about this balance of collective bargaining between labour

[ Page 4607 ]

and management, when labour withdraws it services and goes out on strike, it is not a corollary that management's option or dual option is to go to a lockout. The option as far as the employer is concerned is to take the strike and continue to operate by whatever means while the strike is in place. That is the lever that the organization has when it comes to going to the bargaining table to negotiate a contract. Mr. Ready, in his wisdom, understood that principle well. He understood that the lockout provision was not an option for the company, because it produced the same result: effectively shutting down the business. He well understood that when it comes to replacement worker provisions, the ability of the company to take a strike and continue to operate was a critical element in helping the two parties arrive at a contract.

There's no question with respect to section 68 of this bill that given the three scenarios laid out by its own review panel, the government made a decision to err -- if that's the correct term -- on the side of labour. Given the representation that has been made to this government on the provisions of section 68, the number of reasonable amendments by both opposition parties and representations by business, it is very troubling to the opposition that not one amendment has been forthcoming on this section of the bill.

It's troubling, because at various times in the past this government has held Mr. Ready up as an example. Mr. Ready has had a long history of involvement as a mediator in labour disputes -- a mediator who, by virtue of his role on the panel, recognized only too well the arguments that are being presented by the opposition in connection with this particular section of the bill.

It's unfortunate that the minister isn't able to hear the suggestion that Mr. Ready concludes with: "The minister shall act upon the report of the special mediator within 15 days of the receipt thereof in a manner the minister deems appropriate, or the minister may order that the parties be bound by the report of the mediator or may refer the dispute to binding arbitration." Mr. Ready gave the parties the option to pursue a labour relations solution to the problem of replacement workers. If the minister were concerned about violence on the picket line, he would have had, under Mr. Ready's recommendations, the ability to step into the dispute and eliminate that violence, at the same time preserving the ability of the company to take a strike, which is one of the most important provisions in arriving at a responsible collective agreement.

You know, we've been sitting here debating section 68 for the better portion of a day and a half. The Minister of Labour has been unable to give the opposition a single shred of an argument as to why they refuse to accept the recommendations of Mr. Ready on replacement workers and chose to take such an extreme position on this issue -- an extreme position even in relation to their own labour review panel. It's troubling that a provision of this bill that will have such a dramatic impact on the ability of business to function in this province was not the subject of a more spirited debate by the Labour minister in this Legislature. We've not been offered a reasonable scenario.

I urge the member for Mission-Kent to go back and look at the report of the labour review panel which this government has held up throughout this debate. I urge him to look at what Mr. Ready says about section 68 of this bill, and I ask him to ponder, from the disputes he's been involved with in the past, whether the provisions that Mr. Ready has been postulating would not have produced a better result for all concerned. I certainly find it deeply troubling that in the day and a half of this debate, the recommendations of Mr. Ready have not been given greater credence by the government. They've refused to accept amendments that were based on some of the principles that Mr. Ready laid out. Quite frankly, the defence that has been offered by the government on this section is nothing short of pitiful. There's no question that it will have an impact.

I was struck by the Labour minister quoting the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning, when he was talking about how well the legal ban on replacement workers has worked elsewhere. I'd like to read another passage into the record in connection with section 68 of this bill. It's an editorial, in which the Globe points out:

"If the Ontario government cares to listen, the sober truth, under the testimony from the business community, is that Ontario will experience slower economic growth in the future, because this bill will discourage business investment in the province. The damage will result from the bill's most controversial proposals: the provisions that ban the hiring of replacement workers during a strike and that effectively bar unionized workers from crossing the union's picket lines during a dispute."

Unfortunately, we have not been able to address these concerns with the minister in the last 15 minutes or so. I'm sure that the hon. member for Mission-Kent, who is thoroughly in support of the extreme position -- even in relation to his government's own labour review panel -- which his government has taken on this particular section, will welcome the opportunity to stand and tell the House, on behalf of the Labour minister, why this government steadfastly refused to accept the option Mr. Ready presented to them on section 68. Instead, they have hobbled the ability of a company in this province to take a strike. They have deliberately tipped the balance in favour of organized labour -- a decision that would even cause Mr. Ready grave concern.

[4:45]

N. Lortie: I'm pleased to rise in support of the minister, who has been held captive in this House for so many weeks, and try to explain what he has tried to explain over and over again about this clause in the bill. The goal of this government is to reduce the effect that labour disputes have on the economy and on the general public in this province. This section forces people to deal with a labour dispute by imposing economic sanctions, not only on the workers but also on the owners and management of the business on strike.

With your proposals, the hon. member who spoke before me would like to see that business is allowed to continue to operate during a labour dispute, whether it be a lockout or a strike. I submit that that would expand and prolong the labour dispute, causing damage to the

[ Page 4608 ]

general public and the provincial economy. The best way to solve a labour dispute is right here in section 68.

When employees, union members, are not getting paid by their company, they are sacrificing their budget and perhaps even their house, and they are having to borrow money. They are making sacrifices because of what they believe is their rightful position in a labour dispute. On the other hand, the business is suffering because it isn't able to generate any money, and it's losing a customer base, which takes a long time to build up. That puts pressure on the business. This section 68 causes these people to be more focused on solving their dispute. There will be more guarantee that they will be negotiating in good faith, because they have a stake in solving that labour dispute as soon as possible. Section 68 shortens the length of the labour dispute considerably.

There is another point that I think may be a small weakness, and that is that even though companies are not operating in their normal business way during a strike or labour dispute under section 68, they still usually pay their management. They pay all the people who are involved in their business who aren't contract members -- people who belong to a union. Even though section 68 will be in effect sooner or later, these management people have no stake in solving this -- especially with a large company. A large company may have other plants and operations in other jurisdictions all over the world, and their plant in British Columbia may be only a small part and well able to afford to finance and pay the executives of their business.

The minister over and over again has tried to tell the members of both opposition parties that this section will shorten labour disputes and help the economy. They haven't listened, and they don't want to listen.

I expect that there are now other members who would like to talk, and I will take my seat.

G. Farrell-Collins: I listened with some interest to the member's comments. First of all, I don't know if he was listening when the member for Surrey-White Rock read from Vince Ready's report, because if he had been he wouldn't have made the statements that he did. I think also that had he read Mr. Ready's provisions in the green report, he would understand and would not have made the comments that he did. Perhaps I can quote to him from that and he will understand the error of his comments.

Mr. Ready took what one would say is more the middle position -- the middle of the three positions of the three members of the panel. There was no unanimity among the three of them on this provision.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unanimity. There was no....

Hon. M. Sihota: Don't use that word.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know that spooks the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. We're on section 68, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: I noticed him twitching a little bit when I said that.

There was no unanimity on this section. In fact, Mr. Ready tended to take the middle position, with John Baigent taking one extreme and Mr. Roper the other option. I'll quote from his provisions just so the member for Delta North understands what it was that Mr. Ready brought forward. The reason I'll do this is that the member stated that the intent of section 68 was to shorten labour disputes and that Mr. Ready's provisions wouldn't do that. In fact, there was no economic sanction that would be brought against employers to make them buckle under and settle the collective agreement. So I'll just quote from him very briefly:

"In the event a legal strike is in force and the employer uses replacement workers, either party may request that a special mediator be appointed by the Minister of Labour. Upon appointment, the special mediator shall meet immediately with the parties to: (a) examine and define the issues in the dispute, including any underlying reasons giving rise to the dispute; (b) assist the parties to resolve the dispute; (c) if necessary, submit a written report to the Minister of Labour within 15 days (or longer, if mutually agreed by the parties) of the date of the appointment."

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Mission-Kent says that this section has nothing to do with section 68. I'm merely responding to the comments by the member for Delta North.

D. Streifel: Point of order. As I understand, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is extensively reading the report, which is not part of section 68. I would draw the attention of the House and the Chair to standing order 61 and relevancy.

The Chair: Would the hon. member please proceed and stick as close as he can to section 68.

G. Farrell-Collins: These are the comments made by the people who wrote the report and wrote the legislation we're now passing. If they're not relevant to the debate, I don't know whose comments are. I think it's critical that we do make mention of them.

Once the mediator has been brought in to do those types of things -- the last one said that they would report to the Minister of Labour within 15 days:

"The special mediator's report shall include a statement of: (i) any underlying issues giving rise to the dispute; (ii) the issues in the dispute; (iii) recommendations of settlement on the terms of a collective agreement or a method by which all outstanding matters may be resolved, or a combination of both of the above."

It then requires the Minister of Labour to act on it within 15 days.

You have a 30-day time frame in which to solve a dispute. You're not going to have huge protracted debates like the one the member for Mission-Kent, who believes in violence, would have us do.

[ Page 4609 ]

D. Streifel: Point of order. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has stated that I believe in violence, hon. Chair. I ask him to withdraw that. He's impugning my reputation and character.

The Chair: Would the hon. member withdraw.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I unconditionally withdraw those comments. I must have been misinformed. Had the member responded to my initial question, I certainly wouldn't have been misinformed. In fact, it would have been very clear what his position was.

The recommendations relevant to section 68 made by Mr. Ready are substantially different from a wide-open use of replacement workers. In fact, there is a very tight provision to solve disputes, as opposed to the hammer that has been given to one side with Mr. Baigent's recommendations. If the member would read and discuss that section of the report with his colleagues, he would be aware that that is the case.

W. Hurd: I welcome the minister's return. With respect to section 68 of the bill, I wonder if the minister would be willing to briefly amplify -- since we certainly have been debating this section at length -- the reasons his government chose to reject the Ready option, as far as section 68 was concerned. It did give the parameters to the Labour minister to take responsibility himself to end violence on the picket line as opposed to an extreme position which, by law, would outlaw the possibility of a company continuing during a strike. I'm sure the people of the province would be interested to hear what rationale the government had for that.

Hon. M. Sihota: The provision we've introduced is not extreme. It's exactly the reason we rejected Mr. Ready's proposal: it actually allowed strikebreakers to cross the picket line.

W. Hurd: I'm somewhat troubled by that response, because it suggests to me that the minister hasn't exactly examined what Mr. Ready had to say about replacement workers. He expressed grave doubt about banning replacement workers outright. He says that his approach would allow an independent and neutral person to examine the exigencies of each dispute, while examining the underlying issues. The threat of imposition of agreement will in some cases act as a deterrent to the use of replacement workers. Those were the words of Mr. Ready.

The threat of imposition by the minister or of the minister getting involved in the dispute would, according to Mr. Ready, have the effect of inducing the parties in the dispute to get back to the bargaining table. He felt that the minister himself had a very positive role to play in eliminating the threat of replacement workers. My question is: why has the minister chosen a narrow, legalistic way to deal with replacement workers, rather than accepting the recommendations of Mr. Ready, which would have placed more ability within the purview of the Ministry of Labour to solve the replacement worker problem?

Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Ready's recommendation read that, in the event that a legal strike is enforced and the employer uses replacement workers.... From there his special mediator provisions are triggered. But his provisions would be triggered only when replacement workers are used. So if our purpose was to prevent violence on the picket line, violence occurs the moment replacement workers start to approach the picket line and then seek to cross it. We thought it was better to prevent that scenario from occurring; hence we rejected the recommendation.

I invite the hon. member to read appendix 5, page 4, and the words -- at least in my copy here -- at the bottom. It starts: "I recommend amendments to be incorporated into legislation, as follows: In the event a legal strike is in force and the employer uses replacement workers...." So he contemplated the use of replacement workers.

[5:00]

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, the minister and member after member of his government have used the argument that this provision is needed -- section 68 -- because of violence on the picket line. Mr. Ready clearly recognized that in the event that replacement workers were hired, the union in this case would have another option besides resorting to violence on the picket line. They would be able to approach the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Relations Board and have this dispute mediated, with particular reference to replacement workers, by the Ministry of Labour.

The suggestion by the minister is that as soon as the companies continue to operate after a strike, the violence would be a spontaneous reaction that would occur in almost every case. It seems to us on this side of the House that the Ready option would have given the government the hammer it needs to prevent violence on the picket line by dealing with the problem of replacement workers within the context of a mediated process in the Ministry of Labour, instead of the option that he's proposing under section 68, which is to simply say to the company: "There is no chance you can operate during a strike, so you guys settle it."

In my view and in the view of the opposition, he abrogated his responsibilities under section 68, as opposed to the option that was presented by Mr. Ready. I have yet to hear, over the past day and a half, a reason from the minister as to why, when he was confronted with the three choices in the labour review panel, he chose the position of Mr. Baigent, which was the most extreme position of the three.

C. Serwa: I've been waiting patiently for the opportunity to speak on section 68. I recognize there is a wide variety of perspectives being represented here. I've listened to the member for Mission-Kent and the member for Delta North, as well as members of the opposition. Frankly, it's obvious to me -- and has to be obvious to the minister -- that section 68 will not achieve what he hopes it will.

[ Page 4610 ]

I think two of the things the minister has suggested that section 68 should do are to reduce the length of time that a strike is in progress and to encourage responsible bargaining. The minister has stated that. I submit that it will do neither. The employer, for example, has one of two choices. It's really a tough set of choices. It's between a rock and a hard place. The employer has the opportunity to go broke quickly or go broke slowly over a period of time, because the equality of the positions is vastly overburdened to the union perspective. If the choice is made on the wish that perhaps in the future there will be an opportunity, the reality is that the free market economy does not have a role to play in this. You have all sorts of inordinate pressures on the part of the owner with respect to payments, deliveries that have to be met and a number of other pressures. He may in fact be forced to submit to demands that the company or corporation, be it small or large business, cannot support.

I'm concerned. I remain concerned and not satisfied that one section, like section 68, can really place significant emphasis and concern. I understand where it came from, and it certainly came. And it doesn't hurt big government, big business or big unions; they will have no trouble with this section. But the reality is that the small corporations, the small companies, the sole proprietorships, will have a great many problems with this. I don't think it's the intent of the government or the minister to force a company to discontinue its operations. But the net result of 68, unfortunately -- and to have one section which covers all potential occurrences in a blanket fashion -- is more than unusual and cruel punishment to small proprietors. That's where I have the difficulty.

I think the minister can clearly see that the choices are not great to the proprietor of a small corporation. In the end, yes, we're concerned about the economy, and yes, we're concerned about jobs. But we have to have some more flexibility than we have at the present time in section 68. I appreciate the minister's concern with respect to picket-line violence. It has occurred. It probably will continue to occur on occasion. The potential exists. I certainly respect the commitment of all people, be they organized or unorganized, employers or ordinary citizens, to be mindful of their responsibility towards citizenship and to obey the rule of law and order. I think that's an obligation on all of us. It seems strange to me that only a matter of few hours ago we were talking about human rights; then we use names like "scabs" and we use legislation like this to deny what I consider are fundamental human rights to members of our own society. So I've many questions with respect to that.

When you look again, given the remedies in the public sector system, not in the wildest stretch of the imagination can I or any other member of this Legislature or of the public conceive that temporary replacement workers will take away the jobs from schoolteachers, members of the BCTF. I don't think the BCTF in the wildest stretch of their imagination can consider such a thing happening.

I have a great deal of concern with section 68. The minister continues to talk about remedies and the process that is available. Well, here we have a situation where 72-hour strike notice can be given -- and this has been fairly well covered -- and then at some later, not identified, point the teaching staff can walk out of the classroom in a primary or elementary environment. You may have 200 or 300 or 400 young children left without any supervision whatsoever -- perhaps a principal or a vice-principal in the school with 300 or 400 phone calls to make, which is an absolute impossibility. I don't think, hon. Chair, that you or I or, in fact, the minister can be satisfied with the inability to a fast and effective response. The minister has indicated that yes, employees can, in fact, cross the picket line, and I'm confident that some of the professionals in the teaching profession would do that. The British Columbia Teachers' Federation has, as a fundamental part of their mandate, the recognition that there should be no strike action in the school system.

But I'm also mindful, as well as yourself, hon. Chair, that union discipline comes to the fore. There are a number of things that can happen, and certainly union discipline will supersede any code of ethics that the minister referred to. The reality is that when the union says "walk," the teachers will, in fact, walk. They will have to. What happens? It's not covered by this legislation, but the union itself is certainly empowered to withdraw their union membership, and thereby deny a conscientious teacher his or her opportunity for continued employment in the vocation or profession that they choose.

There are a number of elements here that don't make any rational sense to any individual, and I think the minister clearly understands that. I regret that the minister seems to be so bound up by the demands of large unions and Mr. Georgetti that he doesn't come up with a reasonable, well-reasoned amendment of his own that will cover these circumstances that develop. There is no question that picket line violence is an issue in the school system. There is absolutely no question that whether they be parents or volunteers or someone hired to tend the children who have to be left in the school system, because perhaps both parents are working or, in a single-parent family, one parent is working, it's unreasonable or unrealistic to put that load on families in difficult situations. And it is totally unreasonable and unrealistic to demand high wages because: "We can leave your children alone in an unsupervised environment, where the children become disoriented." When children, just like adults, become disoriented, all sorts of rather strange things happen.

I certainly wouldn't wish anything like that to happen, but I'm aware that a number of issues can transpire where phone calls cannot be made, there is no opportunity for doing anything else, and it becomes a very difficult situation. I don't see how an honourable minister or a government that expresses concern with issues revolving around violence toward women or children or other abuses can condone a section such as section 68, which enables this to happen. It's worse than a paradox. I'm stymied for words that the hon. minister can sit there and not express fundamental concern. I know he's a parent; I know he loves his children very much. If he is at work and unable to be reached by

[ Page 4611 ]

telephone because nobody can phone him, and his wife is away at work, and his daughter or young son are at school, then you get this first hand. No opportunity for parents to come in, no opportunity for replacement workers to come in, all under section 68. And no necessity, no threat, no jobs are in jeopardy. There is a dispute, there is a strike, and so let it be. But there is no justification for section 68 applying in that particular case.

The minister made reference to a long extended strike at Lafarge. He indicated that because it required few people, section 68 would have shortened that strike. I wonder, for the small, restricted benefits that the minister has quoted, if the minister really appreciates the recognition of small, restricted benefits with respect to the cost to society as a whole. Perhaps the minister would respond to that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't agree.

C. Serwa: I guess the final arbiter will be the public. The minister is not concerned about the safety of children. He doesn't agree with that being a prior requirement. It doesn't supersede union discipline or the demands by Mr. Georgetti and the big unions. That's what the minister said, as he sits comfortably in his chair.

Hon. J. Cashore: On a point of order, I'm sure that the hon. member did not mean to say, as he stated, that the minister is not concerned about the safety of children. I would ask him to withdraw that.

The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a matter that the Chair can ask the member to withdraw. It is part of his debate -- unless you are suggesting that he has made an unparliamentary comment, in which case the member should withdraw it.

C. Serwa: I cannot withdraw the remark. It was not an unparliamentary remark; it was an obvious conclusion from the reluctance of the minister to make accommodation to section 68.

Hon. M. Sihota: A point of order. As I understand it, the hon. member has suggested that I am unconcerned about the safety of children. I think the hon. member knows better, and I would hope that he would withdraw the remark if he meant it to in some way impugn my character.

C. Serwa: In no way did I mean to impugn the character of the hon. minister, but the net result of section 68 appears to indicate a lack of concern by the government, if you wish, with the safety of children. Whether it's intentionally or unintentionally, the reality is that children are being placed at risk. I have grave concerns, and I think the public has grave concerns with that.

The minister indicated that employees have the right to cross picket lines if they so wish. We can look at industry examples, or we can look at the BCTF and teaching examples. I'm confident that some teachers are conscientious enough that they will cross picket lines where the safety of children is a concern, because many of them have a great commitment to them.

[5:15]

The minister included that the consent of the individual is required with respect to management personnel in 68(2). I know that he has explained that they should have the right, but it seems to me that you're creating another major problem. You're creating a situation where all of a sudden the onus is placed on the individual, and all of the union members know and understand that. All of a sudden they can place inordinate pressures on an individual. At the present time there is a respect for the positions on both sides. We can live with that. The individual in the management position does not make the call. He has his orders or instructions to do some work, and I think the union membership can respect that. Each one has to do his own thing.

In this particular situation, all of a sudden everyone is going to say: "Ah, but now you have a choice." I assure you that this is going to cause inordinate pressures on that particular management person to do these types of jobs. Either the individual will have to withdraw from doing them, which places him in jeopardy for his job, or, if he does them, then the people that he or she has to work with on a daily basis have a justifiable reason to say that he or she intentionally prolonged the strike. So I have difficulty with that section as well.

Perhaps that's a scenario that the minister feels could or could not happen. I would really appreciate his response on that.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I've indicated earlier, this section is designed to prevent violence on the picket lines and also to allow individuals who wish to cross a picket line, under their own conscience, to cross it.

C. Serwa: Talk about tedious and repetitious responses! Perhaps rightfully so on the dialogue.... I recognize that the minister is tired, but the response to this situation is not adequate at all.

The reality is that the reasons put forward for supporting section 68 have no substance to them whatsoever. They do not take into account the diverse needs and concerns of the union or the employer. There are clearly a number of examples in large operations such as pulp mills, manufacturing plants or sawmills where there are large numbers of employees and a substantial number of management personnel who can carry on the activities. Perhaps in those cases, section 68 is quite all right. But in the public sector there are many examples, especially in public education, where it's not appropriate in any sense of the word. There are many applications in the private sector, with small employers, where section 68 is clearly not appropriate. All I can say is that section 68 reflects only the wishes of a minority group in society. Government is normally charged with the responsibility of taking into consideration the rights and the welfare of the public interest -- society at large -- not simply one select group.

[ Page 4612 ]

In this particular case, the economy and working relationships are not going to be enhanced. The shield of reducing violence on the picket line is not going to be enhanced. There is no difference whether that violence is instigated by management or by employees; violence is violence. As far as we in Canada are concerned, it's unacceptable behaviour. The regrettable thing is that sometimes violence occurs among a large mob of employees. Kapuskasing, Ontario, is an example, where I believe a police officer was shot and killed. No subsequent criminal charges were laid because of the violence that occurred there.

The reality is that when the situation is there, there will be a tendency for violence to occur, and that's lamentable. I applaud the intent, although I'm confident that the intent is more or less a shield to disguise the purpose of section 68. Section 68 is purely and simply designed to prohibit anyone from utilizing replacement workers, be they paid or unpaid. That's not acceptable to our caucus. We respect the right of people to become union members and bargain collectively. We have no difficulty there. We do have a great deal of difficulty when it is not fair and balanced.

Responsible bargaining requires a balanced and structured environment. Section 68 clearly does not provide that. There have been no examples where it has been required, and there are very few circumstances where it fits. I would earnestly request the minister to look at it and come up with a suitable amendment.

I know that the minister and the Premier made comments that they would look at this particular section, because they recognized that it was controversial. The Premier indicated a number of times, in a number of different places, that they would be looking at amendments and perhaps bringing in amendments of their own. In fact, the hon. Premier was displaying a great deal of common sense and was respectful of public perception and public interest when he made those statements. I lament that the Premier does not seem to have enough stature in cabinet in order to impress upon the Minister of Labour -- and perhaps other members of cabinet -- the need for a more realistic appraisal of section 68.

An Hon. Member: Who is the real Premier?

C. Serwa: I think that there is, frankly, some intimidation that transpires. Perhaps the Premier is not so verbally assertive as the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Finance. But I have no reason to take away from his reasoning ability....

The Chair: On section 68, hon. member.

C. Serwa: Well, hon. Chair, section 68 is really no option. Section 68, as other members have identified, is simply -- not even a cop-out -- caving in to specific union interests. I would respectfully request that the Minister of Labour and his cabinet sincerely consider looking at section 68 and perhaps adapting it in two or three sections, so that a similar section on replacement workers is enabled.

In reality, not even a small company can really continue on with replacement workers; it limps along. There's no intention, by allowing replacement workers, of doing anything but allowing a small company to survive. In this situation, you die quickly or die slowly as a company, and there are no options. Labour has all the cards; they're calling the game. They have complete control over it; it's not fair and balanced.

The Chair: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. [Applause.]

G. Farrell-Collins: I thank my colleague from Mission-Kent for the applause.

While I was listening to the debate, I was reviewing, once again, some of the provisions in Ontario's Bill 40 that were brought in with respect to replacement workers.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I love the intelligent comments, hon. Chair, that come from the NDP back bench.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. Section 68.

G. Farrell-Collins: On section 68, it's important, I suppose, to look at other replacement worker provisions in place around the country in order to put ours in perspective and see what types of amendments would be appropriate to this section.

I also notice the minister, as I glance across, has his B.C. Federation of Labour pin on today. I don't know if that's because it goes with the suit, or what.

The Chair: Hon. member, it's getting very late in the afternoon. I realize we've all been pressed to contain ourselves, but please address the section before us.

G. Farrell-Collins: In looking through some of these provisions, I notice that the intent of many of the amendments that we brought forward appear in the legislation in Ontario. While I don't expect him to answer for what occurred in Ontario, is there not some way of achieving the types of things that he wants? Is there not some way of stopping violence on the picket line? Is there not some way of encouraging the parties to resolve their dispute in a quick fashion, without bringing in some of the onerous provisions that are in section 68?

The very narrow parameters of who can work on a site during a strike.... I'm sure the minister has also reviewed what occurred in Ontario. The Ontario legislation allows for workers to participate at job sites where some of the replacement workers are allowed under that code. I'll give the minister some examples, and then I'll finish my question. I know he wants to get up and respond.

One of them, of course, is to secure custody, and that one, I assume, applies in our bill also. The other one is residential care for persons with behavioural or emotional problems or with a physical, mental or developmental handicap, and I see no provision in our code in

[ Page 4613 ]

this section 68 to allow for that type of thing to occur. One of the other ones is an emergency shelter or crisis intervention services persons ascribed to some of these people -- emergency dispatch communication services, ambulance services, first-aid clinic or station, and there are others. I'm wondering why there's the wisdom in this code -- Bill 40 from Ontario -- to allow a broader interpretation of those who are allowed to act as replacement workers for some very critical reasons of safety and security and care, whereas in our code there are no provisions for that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I guess the government has an obligation to always look for improvements or a better way, and obviously we have to consider what other people do and how it fits in with what we're trying to do and so on. We do have the advisory panel provisions in this legislation. I have taken the view that all these provisions -- not just this one -- should be under constant and dynamic review by the ministry, and if we can develop, in a consensual way with business and labour, or find better provisions that we can all agree on, then as I've always said, we'll make those changes. I have made that offer to business and labour. Unfortunately, they have not been able to arrive at a consensus yet, and I have felt that it's not appropriate for me to override at this point and exercise any further discretion than that which I have done with regard to section 68.

The Premier has made it clear that we encourage the parties to continue to meet with my deputy minister to discuss these issues, and indeed, if a better way is found, we will make changes. We will also take into account the comments made by the Liberal and Social Credit opposition as we assess the legislation as it goes on.

In addition, let me say that yesterday I wore my board of trade pin.

[5:30]

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess I'll have to take the minister's word for that. I choose not to wear any of those pins, because I believe that we in this House have a duty to represent those parties but also the general public and the general good. And that very clearly leads me into my question. I could wear my Nanaimo bingo pin, for the benefit of the member for Nanaimo, but I choose not to.

Hon. Chair, the question....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Nanaimo is visibly upset, I see.

Hon. Chair, the provisions under....

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please!

G. Farrell-Collins: The interjections from the member from Peace River are always timely.

The question to the minister deals.... The reason I discussed that and brought it into the debate is because I think there are times -- and this was just one of them -- when the minister stands up and speaks about the need for consensus between business and labour. Once again I think the minister fails to realize that there are other affected parties, aside from just organized labour and business. There are people out there who are not party to either, but who rely perhaps on the government or non-profit agencies for some services. I think it is the duty of all members of this House to stand up and respect the needs of those people who don't have advocates in any organized fashion. Their advocates are the people who sit in this chamber, and that's it. That is why I think we have a greater duty to respond to their needs.

That comes back to the question which I hope to ask the minister. Why is it that the minister would wait for business and labour to decide, to reach consensus on whether or not someone with a behavioural or emotional problem or with a physical, mental or developmental handicap should have that service continue, despite a strike or lockout? Shouldn't we in this House be standing up and speaking for those people, regardless of whether labour and business can arrive at a consensus?

Hon. M. Sihota: We must, and we do, and we have in this bill in section 72.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps, if the minister doesn't want to address these at any length in this section, he will allow the debate in section 72 to perhaps step back into section 68 for these particular reasons. Otherwise I'd like to canvass these issues in this section for a while, if I may, because they do apply.

I guess we're approaching the solutions in a different way. I know that when we get to section 72, the minister will state that there are provisions for essential services under the welfare, health and safety provisions that are there. But those are things agreed to ahead of time and which may be included in a collective agreement. Those are things that may be ruled upon by the board. But in the event that one party does not respond to the agreements that they've entered into, should the state in some of these cases -- or an employer in other cases -- not be free to engage the services of people in order to see that those provisions do occur?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member's point is that the state has an obligation over and above the competing interests of business and labour to step in and define changes to the code, I would agree. The state, through me as minister responsible, is accountable when it does and is also accountable when it doesn't. If it's deficient in not attending to it appropriately in this section -- including the government, and particularly me as Minister of Labour -- it's accountable.

With regard to protecting the interests of groups whose health or welfare may be in jeopardy as a consequence of these provisions, we have to have some confidence that they are dealt with in the legislation.

[ Page 4614 ]

His point is that they are not adequately dealt with in this section, and I will agree with him that they are not completely dealt with in this section. There are provisions elsewhere that complete the circle of protection for those who require that protection. To some extent this section does so, through allowing the managers to cross and with regard to allowing employees to cross. There are other sections in other areas of the legislation that provide protection to those people, and I'll amplify on those when we get to them.

G. Farrell-Collins: There is perhaps a subtle difference between what the minister is saying and what I'm asking. We will debate the provisions that exist under section 72 when we get there -- and they are relevant, of course. I think the provisions under section 68 are extremely relevant, and the potential amendments to fill loopholes are extremely relevant to section 68.

If we look at the situation where a collective agreement or some ruling of the Labour Relations Board or some provision for essential service is not lived up to by one party in the dispute, is it the minister's intent that replacement workers cannot be brought in to do the work of those people despite the fact that they're in violation of an agreement?

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll tend to section 72 matters when we get there.

In the context of section 68, you're right. There may be a subtle but significant difference between us.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm concerned. If I had the assurance of the minister that when we got to section 72, we could discuss how that applied to section 68, I would be content to do that in section 72. But I know that what will happen is exactly what happened earlier with section 6 and section 23. There was an assurance given when we debated section 6 that we could discuss that one when section 23 came up, and that assurance was then withdrawn. I'm leery to leave certain elements of section 68 until we get to section 72. Perhaps I'm asking the indulgence of the minister to respond to these questions as they relate to section 68. We can deal with section 72 when we get there. I'm not debating the provisions or the levels of essential services. I'm asking what happens if the provisions under section 72 don't work. What provision is in section 68 to allow for an employer or the state or some other body to use replacement workers to fulfil those duties that were agreed to under section 72 but were not delivered?

I guess the minister didn't hear the question. I'll ask it again. What provision is under section 68 for the use of replacement workers in the event that provisions and agreements entered into under section 72 are not delivered by one party? Are there provisions in section 68 to allow for the use of replacement workers in the event that the guarantees and the agreements made under section 72 fail to transpire?

Hon. M. Sihota: You're asking whether or not section 68 can be used to frustrate section 72. That's basically another way to put the question. Do you follow me? That's the way to word the question. You can't use section 68 to frustrate section 72, because section 72 is a mandatory provision. Its orders are filed in court and have the full force and effect of a court order. Therefore, if individuals are mandated under 72 to cross a picket line, they have the authority of a court order. Section 72 provisions are filed in court, and section 68 can't be used to frustrate the intent of 72.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that provision. The question is.... I'll wait until the acting parliamentary secretary is finished badgering the minister, so I don't have to say it twice. There we go.

The question I'm asking is: what happens if the people who are mandated under section 72 to cross the picket line refuse to do so or choose not to deliver that level of essential service on which they have agreed? What provision is there for an employer or the state or another group to employ replacement workers to ensure that those essential services are delivered, despite the failure of one party in the agreement to deliver them?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the workers refuse, they would be in contempt of court.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that. Once they're in contempt of court, then would it be suitable for the employer to find alternative people to do that work, while the other people were in contempt of court?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, but it would be suitable for the employer to seek all the appropriate remedies under contempt of court. It's very serious. I'll tell you something: if there are people in this province who don't respect a contempt-of-court application, they face some very serious consequences. The courts would have the backing of this government in terms of making sure that the contempt-of-court provisions were adhered to.

G. Farrell-Collins: The next question is: what would be the time frame for delivering those services under an injunction by the courts? Would it be within hours? Are we talking days, or are we talking one shift?

Hon. M. Sihota: We're talking about immediate. First of all, let's not forget -- to underline the immediacy -- that the essential services designations, which are mandatory, are filed in court so as to make sure that they already have the force of effective law and that you don't have to go through any technical hoops.

G. Farrell-Collins: There have been instances in the past where unions have ordered employees to defy injunctions. In some cases.... I can't remember; I think it was the head of the union of postal workers who actually went to jail for some period of time

[ Page 4615 ]

because of it. I guess if the mail doesn't get through for a day or two, it's not a big deal. It's an inconvenience, but certainly there's no harm done to anyone, aside from a few late bills or cheques that I'm sure nobody will be upset about. But how do we deal with people who require home care immediately or are in dire straits and need, to use the minister's words, immediate attention? Are they going to be able to access that help and care immediately? Will it take some time for this to work through the process in order to get people to deal with them?

Hon. M. Sihota: The experience has been that once the LRB has filed its order in court, it has the requisite effect.

G. Farrell-Collins: Given our discussions, I would assume that if this type of process occurs and there is a violation of an agreement that relates to essential services or other agreements under section 60(4), that action would be taken, to use the minister's words, immediately. Those workers would be back on the job in an extremely short time frame, and there would be no cause for replacement workers to be used. Could the minister give us some sort of indication that if that didn't occur and someone had to bring in someone to help those requiring home care -- the example I gave that's provided for in the Ontario legislation -- they would very likely not be charged successfully under section 68 by the Labour Relations Board.

Hon. M. Sihota: I can't give you assurances, as you obviously know, how one may be dealt with under section 68, but the Labour Relations Board always has the opportunity to look into the facts of the situation and make whatever comment it wishes.

G. Farrell-Collins: There is another provision under the new code in Ontario that is different from what we have here. I wanted to ask the minister for his comments on why those types of provisions were not included in this bill, or why provisions for amendments under section 68 would not be brought in to allow for that. One of them, of course, deals with essential services slightly parallel to what we have under section 72. But some of the others deal with.... I'll quote two of them in particular. One says: "The destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises." I assume that that means the parallel there in our code that deals with perishable goods. I would assume that that's the parallel. The minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but these types of things would be included as perishable.

[5:45]

The other one, though, which is interesting, is that they have a section which deals with serious environmental damage, and I notice that that is absent from our code. Perhaps the minister could speak to that for just a moment.

Hon. M. Sihota: On the perishable materials, the fact of the matter is that several provisions will assist there. I've outlined them all already: the strike notice provision, the extension of the strike notice provision, and the ability of management to remove perishables.

On the environmental things, it's a good point. It's an interesting point. I'm unaware of a situation, but again I think that accommodation could be made within the collective bargaining system with regard to environmental issues.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just wanted to make it clear, and I didn't get a really clear statement from the minister. In one code it says: "The destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises." I assume that those types of provisions are what's intended to be included in the perishables as it relates to our code. That's the parallel, that one equals the other.

On the question on serious environmental damage, I would think, for example, of the event of an oil spill or something where there's a strike among people who would go and clean it up, etc. In that case workers would be allowed to be brought in to do that. Now it may not just be an oil spill, it could be contaminants of some sort. I can see highway workers or people who deal in emergency responses or with hazardous goods in the event of a highway accident, for example, where a tanker tips over or a train accident occurs, where a hazardous good or a product could be spilled onto a site and needed to be cleaned up fairly quickly, or certainly needed to be contained. Are there provisions in our code to deal with those types of scenarios?

Hon. M. Sihota: On the environmental issue, the fact is that it would be dealt with much as I described the fire situation earlier, I would think. Second, I think it's fair to say that if people are coming across and aren't doing the work of the bargaining unit, there's a capacity for that under this section. Third, I think it's also fair to say that no union is going to sit back and watch damage occur to the environment or to their plant, particularly if it's going to have an effect on their ability to work. One typically expects people to pitch in in those kinds of situations; I would expect that as well.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a small point. It seems that throughout this debate -- certainly in this section and in other sections as well; but particularly in this section -- where it favours the minister or where it favours labour, the minister is very open to letting things sort of ride and assuming that there will be goodwill on behalf of the trade unions and the labourers in complying with many of these provisions, and that there's no need for legislation. Yet where there are situations in some of the other sections which we've already dealt with -- and certainly in this one also -- where one would have to rely upon the goodwill of the employer, the minister seems very uncomfortable with that and brings in legislation.

I've seen that through a number of sections of the bill but particularly in this section, because here we

[ Page 4616 ]

have an example where we're not willing to allow for the goodwill of the employer, by bringing in Mr. Ready's amendments to the code; instead we have to go all the way to the extreme to Mr. Baigent's provisions for the code, because we doubt the goodwill of an employer. Yet in an issue dealing with serious environmental damage, the minister is willing to trust the goodwill of the trade unions. I don't know if that shows the background, or a point of view, or whatever, but it does seem to permeate the bill and come up from time to time.

It is of concern to me and to our caucus. That's why we would like to see perhaps some clearer parameters as to where replacement workers would be allowed and to have those stated very clearly. I did something of an analysis of the Ontario code in advance of this debate, and I found that in many cases they're much more specific as to exactly what they're trying to bring forward. I'd hoped that in our debate on section 68 we would have been able to have brought in some of those amendments such as the ones we brought forward yesterday, to allow for some sort of designation in clearly and concisely worded sections which would ensure that these types of scenarios, which are certainly of concern to the New Democratic legislators in Ontario, would appear in the legislation in British Columbia, so that it would be laid out very clearly where replacement workers were used and not have that shuffled off into some more intangible provisions of essential services or the provisions we have under section 60(4) as far as perishables go.

I would have hoped that because section 68 is a new section, we would have given some very hard and pointed guidance to the Labour Relations Board as to exactly what we expected in those cases that we mentioned, as far as schools go, in the event of sudden and unanticipated job action insofar as home care goes, and in hospitals as far as how volunteers and family members would be included, and others -- and certainly some very clear statements as it related to preservation of private property or corporate property and perishables, in very clearly defined terms. Some of the scenarios that we brought up dealt with the case of cement in the back of a truck, which was allowed to harden -- those types of things. We wouldn't want to end up in situations where the Labour Relations Board was put in a really awkward position trying to determine what it is, because in my mind this section is fairly extreme. This section doesn't allow for much leeway; in fact, it doesn't allow for any leeway, using the minister's own words. Replacement workers simply will not be used anywhere, anytime, no matter what. And any sort of fallback position will be guaranteed by section 72.

I think it's unfortunate that we haven't taken some of the guidance and some of the amendments that were made to the Ontario code in order to highlight and delineate very clearly what those parameters are, where replacement workers are allowed and where they are not allowed, and actually ourselves delve into some of the specific scenarios to ensure that we know the ruling on these issues before we get there.

Hon. Chair, we've tried in the last day and a half or so to deal with section 68 in a constructive way. We understand that this House, despite the opposition, has passed that section in principle, and that we are trying to improve the section, trying to deal with some of the provisions in that section to make it more practical and more workable, so that we don't need to revisit it a year or two years from now.

So I do say with some concern that we've come to a point, after a day and a half of debate, where we have a section that has not been amended at all. Despite many of the comments, reasoned arguments, examples and scenarios that have been brought forward, which are not provided for under this legislation, it has not been in the wisdom of the House to amend this section in order to make it more workable.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member down at the end -- for Nelson-Creston, I believe; I don't think he's in his right chair -- says: "Surprise, surprise." Well, hon. Chair, it is a surprise to members of the business community, because they thought they had a deal with the Premier -- but apparently not. It is certainly a surprise to members of the public, because they thought the government would be willing to accept reasonable amendments to some of these provisions. The public is surprised, because they thought that there would have been some provisions in this bill to deal with some of those scenarios -- in the school or in the hospitals, as far as home care goes. Those are the types of provisions that should be in this bill; those are the types of amendments that the public was looking for.

So they are surprised, hon. Chair, because they were told time and time again by the minister and the Premier that section 68 was open for technical amendments to improve the bill in order to ensure that certain provisions were allowed for. Yes, hon. Chair, they are surprised. They're very surprised that we've come through a day and a half of debate with the understanding that this government was open to changes on section 68 and that section 68 would be open for technical amendments to improve the bill and to deal with some of those concerns.

It seems that the only people in the province who aren't surprised that section 68 has gone unamended are the members of the NDP caucus. Somehow they knew all along that section 68 was going to breeze through this House totally untouched with no technical amendments. All the talk and discussion that went on in the public, all the conciliatory tones that were taken by the Premier and the Minister of Labour to the public in stating that amendments to section 68 could come forward, were nothing more than smoke and mirrors. They were being pacified in some attempt to allow this bill to go through, so that after the fact they could say: "That's it; it's done. Sorry, we thought we might bring in technical amendments. We thought we might try to improve the bill, but really we never had any plan to at all. This is exactly what we wanted. We brought it in. Here it is; like it or lump it. That's what you've got to work with."

[ Page 4617 ]

Hon. Chair, if the government really cared about the people in this province, they would have brought in the amendments to section 68 that are required. They would have brought in the amendments that would instil confidence in the public of British Columbia. They would have brought in the amendments that would have taken that one inch, that small, small step towards business to tell them: let's work with section 68; let's try and deal with it in a practical manner. If the government really cared, if they were being open and honest and were consulting with British Columbians, those are the types of provisions they would have brought in. Hon. Chair, we'll be voting against section 68 because of the lack of amendments, and that is the direction that we will be taking.

Hon. M. Sihota: Just a few, I would hope, concluding comments with regard to section 68, and particularly in response to what the hon. member had to say. First of all, he made a comment at the beginning -- an interesting observation -- that we always give latitude to unions but no latitude to employers. It's something that he's been observing. Let's not forget that the subtleties of language are also very important. He keeps on referring to strikes. Indeed, if there was a lockout I would expect an employer to show the same type of sensitivity with regard to environmental damage or a fire as I would a trade union. So let's get that straight. Remember that the hon. member's observations are based on my observation that he keeps using the word "strike" and puts unions in black stetsons in that regard.

With regard to the amendments to section 68, the government carefully considered the possibility of these amendments. We discussed matters with the parties, and at this time we have not been able to come to any consensual agreement with the parties. Nor do we feel at this time that the concerns expressed by the opposition are such that they warrant a change.

I want to dispel the view that somehow there has been a cynical exercise in suggesting that there might be changes and then no intention to have any changes. I think that those who have been involved in the private exercise with government know better than that. They know full well that a number of options were considered. But on reflection I think it's evident to the government that the parties are far apart. It's also evident to the government that this provision will not have some of the consequences that the hon. member refers to.

C. Serwa: The minister in earlier debate had indicated that part of the reason for section 68 as it stands was a compromise among the ministry, himself and the unions with respect to secondary picketing restrictions. The minister made that statement earlier. I wonder if some member would confirm that statement. He made it earlier this morning.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The indication is that there's no one here at the moment who can confirm that statement. Noticing the lateness of the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[6:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

On section 68.

C. Serwa: It's really gratifying when we get the House all voting together, regardless of the issue.

This morning the minister made a statement that section 68 was in recognition....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Just a moment, hon. member. Would the hon. members please be quiet if they are leaving, so the member may be heard.

C. Serwa: It's my intention to take only a few minutes, so I'll ask for the patience of the members. Then we'll probably have a division on the section.

This morning the minister made a comment that section 68 was an accommodation for the restriction on secondary picketing. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: What I meant was that it had to be considered in light of that. There was some balancing going on, and the report speaks to that. I meant it in the context that the report refers to.

C. Serwa: I have expressed concern with that particular stance, because it seems to me that the secondary boycott provision is a far more aggressive sword than secondary picketing.

The minister has spoken about section 68 restricting violence and intimidation. I'd like to read into the record a letter I have in front of me, and then I have a few questions to ask the minister after that. The letter

[ Page 4618 ]

was written by the Canadian Federation of Labour to the sales manager at the Capri Hotel in Kelowna, and it says:

"I am sorry to inform you that we will not be using your facility for our Alberta-British Columbia regional labour school. Please cancel all our reservations and arrangements. As you may or may not know, the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce has taken a stance opposing the recent labour code amendments -- Bill 84 -- in British Columbia. With this anti-labour stance, we are left with no choice but to relocate our school away from the city of Kelowna."

The question I have for the hon. minister is: does he sincerely believe that intimidating tactics such as this on a community will be mitigated by section 68 of the bill?

Hon. M. Sihota: The letter has nothing to do with section 68. It's a great question for question period, and I'd ask you to ask me then.

Section 68 approved on the following division:

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

[6:15]

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

J. Tyabji: On a motion of substitution, I ask leave of the House.

Leave granted.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I move some changes to the select standing committees. On Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, I move that Allan Warnke replace D. Mitchell. On Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology, F. Gingell replaces D. Mitchell and J. Dalton replaces G. Farrell-Collins. On Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, D. Jarvis replaces L. Stephens. On Transportation, Municipal Affairs and Housing, W. Hurd replaces J. Dalton. On changes to the Special Committee of Selection, J. Tyabji replaces D. Mitchell. And for the purpose of bookkeeping on the ombudsman committee, J. Tyabji replaces D. Mitchell.

Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. If the Opposition House Leader could clarify, would that mean that the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi would not be on any committees?

J. Tyabji: The official opposition is accorded three seats on committees, and we have just named our selections for those three.

Hon. M. Sihota: Again for clarification, I don't know whether this is a unilateral move or a matter that has been discussed between the parties.

J. Tyabji: The official opposition is accorded three seats. We are not responsible for independents in the House. We have taken care of our responsibilities for our three representatives to the select standing committees.

G. Janssen: Originally the parties agreed to a percentage breakdown for members on committees. That percentage obviously has changed with the official opposition's diminishing numbers. I would suggest that the independent member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi remain on those committees.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. There is a motion before the members. I will listen to the Opposition House Leader on one more point of order, but there is a question to be put.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I think the government is having some difficulty understanding that the official opposition has three seats on the select standing committees. Any routine business as to the allocation of those seats is dealt with outside the House. We have not been approached by the government members as to any change in the allocation. This is routine House business.

Hon. M. Sihota: This is not a routine House matter. I heard the Leader of the Opposition all of a sudden point a finger at me and start yelling: "Christmas, this means Christmas."

I'm amazed that the Liberal opposition would seek to make this substitution at this time. They have to recognize that all members in this House have the right to be on a committee. I accept the fact that their caucus has shrunk in the last few days, and that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has chosen to sit as an independent. They should respect his right to do that. Having now made that decision, it's unfair that the opposition unilaterally, while the member is absent from the House, would deny that member the opportunity to sit on a committee.

Hon. Speaker, it may be, as I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, that this means that debate on Bill 84 will go on until Christmas. That is what he said to me.

[ Page 4619 ]

We're quite happy to stay here until Christmas, if it means defending the right of an hon. member to sit on a committee.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The Opposition House Leader has spoken. Hon. member, we are now entering debate on the motion, and the standing orders apply.

I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan West.

C. Serwa: We in the third party certainly support the wisdom of the government Whip in this matter, recognizing that all members of this Legislature are equal in stature. We heartily support the recommendation of the government Whip.

G. Farrell-Collins: We of the Liberal opposition have no problem whatsoever with the same rights being accorded to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi as have been accorded to the member for Matsqui. If the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi chooses to sit on any or all standing committees, he is perfectly free to do that. All we have to do is come to that agreement through the committee of selection. We have no problem with that whatsoever. But three seats have been accorded to the Liberal opposition. If the government would like to add an additional seat to any or all of those committees, that is fine. If they would like to give up one of their members on any or all of those committees, that is also fine. We have no problem whatsoever.

Hon. J. Cashore: All that the Liberal opposition had to do was seek a meeting with the House Leaders of the various parties and talk about the issue of representation. All they had to do was go through a normal process, a decent, reasonable process among reasonable members of this Legislature, and come forward with a means of dealing mutually with this issue. All they had to do was set about doing this in a reasonable, time-honoured way, and they would not be experiencing the embarrassment they're experiencing at this present time.

Deputy Speaker: Unless the hon. member for Richmond Centre is rising on a point of order the Chair is prepared to put the question.

D. Symons: I am concerned, as the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove said, that this will create an imbalance in the representation by the independent members in the House. I believe we will have to look at that, because the hon. member for Matsqui is certainly outdone by the other independent member when it comes to representation on committees. This would be grossly unfair if we simply carried ahead with the government's opposition to our motion.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think the member should realize, particularly the opposition, that this is an issue of grave concern. We have a Leader of the Opposition who has clearly created a track record for himself: when someone dissents within their caucus, they toss them out.

Deputy Speaker: Order! Would the hon. minister take his seat.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. I notice the smiles of glee in the NDP ranks, but the comments....

Deputy Speaker: What's your point of order, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: The comments by the Minister of Municipal Affairs have absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, that's not a valid point of order.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The thing of honour and integrity to do would have been to refer this issue to a selection committee. The member is not even in the House. He hasn't even been consulted. And they are all hon. members. He cannot defend himself from this attack by his former colleagues. As members of this House, we should all be concerned about that course of action.

U. Dosanjh: As the Chair of the Parliamentary Reform Committee, I can attest to the fact that despite the fact that there have been differences of opinion, David Mitchell has made a tremendous contribution to that committee, and he should be allowed to stay.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member made reference to the member's name, perhaps inadvertently, but that's contrary to standing orders.

F. Gingell: I would like to suggest to all members of this House that there is an arrangement as to the breakdown on these committees. There is no problem with the government deciding that the number of members on certain committees can be increased by one. Through the committee selection process, they can put the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi onto those committees. But the fact of the matter is that our caucus is allowed a certain number of seats, which has been agreed to beforehand. I believe that it is up to our caucus to determine who those members shall be. We are outnumbered -- and we accept that -- on every single committee. But, hon. Speaker, we are allowed to have a certain number of members. This is purely and simply a question of substitution, that is all. I believe that it is within our prerogative to so act.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, there is in this House a recognition of the worth and value of every

[ Page 4620 ]

member, and there are due processes for us to deal with this matter. This debate is not constructive, and I believe it would be useful for the hon. House Leader for the opposition to withdraw the motion, or if we must, we can deal with it and then refer the matter to the committee on selection. It would be helpful indeed, I think, if the hon. members of the opposition would recognize the processes that are available within this Legislature to respect the rights of all members, and would recognize that consultation and a due process through that committee -- which is a committee of all parties -- would be very helpful. I would urge the hon. House Leader for the opposition to consider a process for us to deal with this matter in a way that is respectful of every member of this House.

[6:30]

Motion negatived on the following division:

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:37 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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