1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 7, Number 16
[ Page 4675 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
F. Randall: In the gallery this morning we have the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Angela Schira. Would the House please make her welcome.
G. Janssen: It gives me great pleasure today to announce the birthday of the longest-serving member of this chamber; the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is 63 today. I would like everybody to wish him a happy birthday. [Applause.]
The Speaker: Hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, I am sure you're out of order, but I'm sure you have leave to speak.
E. Barnes: Thank you, hon. Speaker. As all members know, I usually get tied-tongue when I'm on my feet, so I'm not going to break the pattern. I just want to say thank you for the warm applause. It's rare that I get a standing ovation, and I'll leave it at that.
K. Jones: I'd like everyone to recognize the presence of Chuck Connaghan in the House. He has been a long-time servant of this province and is currently working on a commission looking into MLAs' salaries.
Hon. A. Edwards: I would hate to see the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour left out of the introductions. Would everyone today please join with me in welcoming him.
Hon. E. Cull tabled the financial statements for the Medical Services Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1992.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have the honour this morning to present the annual report of the Ministry of Attorney General for 1991-92. I think it's the first of the annual reports for the last year.
The Speaker: The Chair also wishes to table a report to the House, and that is the official report and recommendations of the 1992 review of MLAs' remuneration.
F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: I move that the report be adopted. It is a pleasure for me to present this report. Your Public Accounts Committee has met regularly every Tuesday morning at 8:15, though perhaps not as precisely as we might have done. But the committee has worked hard and has accomplished a great deal.
The biggest problem that I, as Chair of the committee, see is that the time we have available to deal with the very important responsibilities that this committee has is very restricted. The committee meets only while the House is in session, and the committee has to compete for time with all the other standing committees and various caucus committees. It is difficult for us to find a long period of time to get at the work that needs to be done. If one reads back in Hansard, it is interesting to note that when this government was in opposition, they strongly supported Public Accounts having more time. I'm sure that all members of the committee wish that. It is difficult to work it into our busy schedules.
Hon. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to report from the committee, and I can assure you that the work of the committee in the past session has been done in an open, honest and forthright manner. I thank all members of the committee for their input and dedication.
Motion approved.
E. Barnes: I'd like to ask leave to present the Christmas wish list from the organization End Legislated Poverty.
Leave granted.
E. Barnes: I had the -- I guess I could say -- misfortune of attending a meeting last Sunday in my constituency, at which a number of organizations were present from across the province to remind us all that although some of us are enjoying better resources and the good side of life, there are still many people who are looking for a place to stay, for food and for some purpose in life.
This is a list of items that were recorded by those people, who just happened to be in the neighbourhood and on the streets, and it's a very sobering list. I'm sure all members will want to review some of the concerns. I don't want to suggest for one moment that we're not all concerned. We all know that the government has been attempting to address some of these issues. This is a non-partisan appeal to the House to review this document.
[10:15]
Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading on Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
G. Farrell-Collins: It's not with pleasure that I rise to debate third reading of Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code. It has been extremely unfortunate that
[ Page 4676 ]
despite numerous amendments by our opposition and by the third party, the government has refused to accept any amendments. Some of the amendments that were proposed were apparently agreed between the Premier of the province and numerous members of the business community but were not acted upon.
With that in mind, and considering the promises made by this government to members of the business community in the last election to consult and be more constructive, it is important that the government take some time to reconsider Bill 84 and some of the amendments that were brought forward. Some of the amendments are still a concern in the minds of the general public. Because of that, I move that the motion for third reading of Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, be amended by deleting....
Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. My apologies to members of the House. I formally called third reading. After calling third reading, I am required to move the motion. That hasn't been done. So on behalf of the Minister of Labour, I move third reading of Bill 84.
The Speaker: I think members of the House understand that we now have a motion for third reading on the floor. Therefore I would ask the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove to continue with his statement at this time.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad the House Leader got his orders in order.
I continue with my motion, which is that the motion for third reading of Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, be amended by deleting the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."
The Speaker: The Chair has now received a copy of the amendment.
On the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: As I said earlier, it's not with pleasure that I rise to speak to this amendment; it's with some dismay. We have gone through a process for some eight weeks in this House. We have debated Bill 84 and spent a great deal of time and effort trying to be as constructive as possible by bringing forward amendments to Bill 84 that would have improved the bill and mitigated some of the more onerous provisions. In fact, they would have provided a piece of legislation that would have worked much better for the people of this province.
Despite that continual effort, the Minister of Labour has simply refused to accept any of those reasoned amendments. We have a bill that is virtually exactly the same as it was when it was introduced in this House some eight weeks ago. With the exception of very small technical changes -- an apostrophe here or one word there -- this bill is identical. I find it very difficult to believe that a government can bring in a piece of legislation as large as this and with the ramifications that this bill will have for the economy, for investment and for the lives of working women and men in this province and have it perfect before it even reaches the floor of the House.
The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member, I would call the House to order so that we can all hear the debate.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I notice with much pleasure that the member for Nanaimo has decided not to partake in the debate.
The Speaker: Hon. member, we are discussing the amendment, as I am sure the hon. member is aware.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll stick to the amendment then.
I notice some distress by the members of the New Democratic back benches, thinking that they had brought this bill to completion and that it was all finished. The reality is that Bill 84 requires some changes; it requires numerous changes, I believe. Members of the opposition and the vast majority of the public believe that it requires some changes before it will be a workable bill. We have changes in this legislation that remove the rights of individuals to vote on certification. Despite representations that have been made by members opposite, there has been no solid case formed for the removal of an individual's right to a secret ballot. There has been no justification whatsoever given for the removal of the right to a secret ballot. There have been cases brought forward by the government where they talk about intimidation and coercion in the workplace, as it relates to employers toward employees. But a member of this government has never once stood up and mentioned the coercion and intimidation that sometimes takes place by union organizers toward employees. Hon. Speaker, that is the reality; it exists in both cases.
The changes that this government has brought in with regard to certification and the removal of an individual's right is a travesty of justice. It's a travesty of democracy when a government refuses to deal with the problem and, instead, panders to those people who believe that the only way they can get their agenda across is to remove the democratic rights of individuals. There are numerous ways to stop that type of intimidation and coercion. Indeed, the government has done that to some extent in other sections of the bill. There are ways to stop intimidation and coercion without removing the fundamental right to vote.
If we had relied on the process of removing the right to vote, in order to stop the intimidation and coercion that has taken place in electoral processes throughout the years, we'd be in a sorry state indeed. We would not have progressed in our democracy to the point where we are now. It's much easier, as the government has found, to remove individual rights in order to protect one sector of the economy. It's much more difficult and requires more courage to address that in a more constructive manner that will ensure that rights are protected, yet the coercion and intimidation come to a stop. That is the direction the government should have taken, not this direction. I think it's essential for the
[ Page 4677 ]
government to take some time to reconsider the more onerous aspects -- and certainly that aspect -- of Bill 84.
There are other provisions in this bill that have caused a great deal of concern to the general public, and I think they will continue to cause concern as time goes by. There is the removal of the banning of secondary boycotts in Bill 84. The government is now saying that it's okay for the government and the government's union to negotiate a provision whereby anyone who wishes to supply products or services to the government has to be unionized also. That doesn't give the right to organize or to decide whether they wish to become part of a union to the employees in the smaller companies; that gives it to the government and the big union that negotiated the deal. That's another fundamental way in which this bill has removed the individual rights of working women and men in British Columbia, and I think that's a shame.
The potential for top-down organizing is something about which the minister has stated in this House that, if it occurs, he will bring in changes to the legislation to stop it. But members of the business community in this province had assurances from the Premier that changes would be made to section 68 of this code, and they were not followed up on. So how can we possibly trust the government to stand by the word it gives in the House and by the comments that the Minister of Labour has made? How can we possibly put any trust in the government to ensure that, if there are problems with this bill or unintended consequences over time, they will bring in changes to the legislation? I believe that if those unintended consequences come to fruition in this province and they favour the labour organizations that favour this government and are one and the same with this government, those provisions will be left in. Nobody will make a squawk about them. The minister won't bring in amendments. But if there are unintended consequences that are seen in the eyes of the public to favour management, you can bet there will be changes to this code; you can bet that this government will act quickly to bring in amendments to this code.
Throughout this debate we have seen the bias of the government. We have seen the fact that this government is not concerned about the overall impact of Bill 84, but rather, is concerned about the efforts by the trade union movement in this province to become larger and more involved in the day-to-day management and planning of each corporation and organization and to become an increasingly onerous burden on this province.
I don't say for one minute that we would be upset about the idea of workers organizing themselves into a trade union. I think that is up to the individual working women and men in the province to decide. It's not up to government to interfere in that. All we have to do is go to section 2, the new purposes section of this bill, to see where that bias comes through. The government didn't accept the amendments by the Liberal opposition to change the wording of that in order to promote a harmonious labour relations climate or harmonious collective bargaining. Rather, the government chose to use their wording, which says "to encourage" collective bargaining. The government is no longer being the referee; they've donned the jersey of one side of the team and are now playing with that team. Nowhere else in this whole bill is that more clear than in the purposes section. If the government really wanted to stick with their promise to have fair and balanced labour relations, they would have allowed those types of amendments. They would have seen the error of some of the wording they had put into this bill and made those changes, so that in the eyes of the public it would seem that Bill 84 was fair and balanced, that in fact the government was doing the job it had to do -- that is, being the referee in the game, not becoming a player in the game.
The job of this House is to bring forth legislation that will ensure the administration of labour relations in this province in a constructive manner over time, ensure that fairness is seen to be done on both sides and that the legislation does not favour one side over the other. The government's job and, in fact, the whole Legislature's job with Bill 84 was to draft, bring forth, amend and bring into effect a piece of legislation that would be seen by all three parties, and certainly by business, labour and the general public, as fair and balanced. I think there are numerous instances throughout this bill where that is simply not the case, where it is clear that the government has chosen sides. I think that that is extremely unfortunate.
In section 2, had the government accepted wording that would have made it very clear that the only job of the government and this Labour Relations Code was to promote harmonious collective bargaining and harmonious labour relations in the province, we would have seen that the government's intent to be neutral was true. But in reality the government didn't take those amendments. They brought forth their legislation unchanged, including the words "to encourage collective bargaining in the province of B.C." That means that the government has now brought forth an act the purpose of which is to encourage the working women and men in this province to organize collectively and join unions. I'm not making that up; that's in section 2 of this bill. One of the first two or three sentences in the bill states that the government wants this bill to encourage working women and men in the province to join unions. I don't think that's up to the government to decide; it's up to the working women and men to decide. They are the only ones who can determine whether or not they wish to join a union -- not the government.
There are other sections of the bill that are causing concern already. Certainly the successorship provisions are something that, as we speak, are causing problems in the Elk Valley in this province. We have problems occurring in the Kootenay area, in the coalmining industry in this province. We have investors -- it's my understanding as of late yesterday -- who have purchased one of these mines and are trying to get it up and operating. They have stated that if the government tries to impose Bill 84 on them, they'll just sit back and wait a while. They're not eager to become involved in a protracted labour dispute. They'd rather just sit back, let the coal sit in the ground and wait for a time when they can work in a better way.
[10:30]
[ Page 4678 ]
So the impact of this bill is not something that's going to take forever to dawn on the public; it's going to start to impact on them tomorrow. It's going to impact on them next week, and it's going to impact on them in January.
There are seven school districts in the province that have taken strike votes and announced that they are in a position to strike. What is going to happen to the children of this province if and when those strikes occur, when those children are left in school with nobody to supervise them? What happens if that occurs? We must have brought that up to the minister 20 times throughout the debate on this bill. We asked him time after time after time. We tried to mitigate that, tried to make him give us a provision for a 24-hour period when parents could go into the schools to supervise and volunteer, and when members from the excluded staff at the board office could go into a school and work on phoning parents to get those children home, to ensure that they're supervised and aren't running rampant through the classrooms and halls, and that there was somebody there to monitor these children. The government refused to listen to those provisions.
That wasn't an attempt to go around the replacement worker provisions. We had already passed it in second reading; this House had already approved it. It was an attempt to try and mitigate some of the perhaps unintended provisions and some of the perhaps unseen effects of this bill. We tried to have a provision in this bill to, at the very least, get the minister to make a statement in the House that would have said: "If parents need to go into a school and cross a picket line to pick up and deal with their children, they don't have to be concerned that they're going to have to bear the brunt of this labour relations act or abuse as they cross those picket lines to pick up their children." That's all we ask to bring forward, hon. Speaker -- a reasonable amendment, a reasonable change that would have allowed parents to go in and deal with those students. The minister not only declined to accept the amendment but declined even to make a statement in the House that the intent of the government was not to stop that sort of thing from happening. He wouldn't even give that very minimal guarantee to the parents and the students of this province. I think that's a shame.
I asked myself all through that debate: what was the minister afraid of? What was he afraid of, in not standing up and making that statement and that guarantee? What was the minister afraid of, in not standing up and saying that it was okay for parents to go pick up their children? I have to ask: why would the minister refuse to accept that amendment? I think the minister needs to take a second look at this bill. I think the minister needs to take a second look at those provisions on replacement workers, and bring in some minimal changes that would mitigate those types of situations. I don't think that's too much to ask. I don't think that's too much for the public to be asking this minister.
There are parents out there who are concerned. There are principals and vice-principals out there who are concerned. They have a duty to oversee the safety and security of children, yet they run smack against Bill 84. How can they do both? How can they possible comply with the law and do the things that they've sworn to do, that they have a professional obligation to do? The minister is putting people in this province in a very, very difficult position with Bill 84. He's putting them in a position where they're going to end up having to either break the law or violate some of the things they hold dear as far as conscience goes.
The minister should reconsider some of the sections in this bill, starting with that one. Look at some of the amendments that were brought forward. Reconsider what the implications of those amendments would be. They're not to circumvent the whole process of section 68 on replacement workers; they're merely to mitigate some of the more onerous provisions.
One of the other things brought forward in this House that I think the minister should reconsider is the provisions in the bill that would have allowed family members to go into hospital and care for other family members in the event of a strike. The minister has stated that, aside from doing things like fluffing pillows or rearranging the flowers, if they start to do any work that would normally be done by an employee in that hospital, they will be violating Bill 84. Well, hon. Speaker, I can tell you what is going to happen in this province. You're going to have people, family members, maybe members who have very strong trade union ties, who have been members of unions for a long time and feel very strongly about the labour movement in this province, who are going to be put in a position where they have a relative or friend in the hospital. They go in to visit that relative or friend in the event of a strike and they can't take care of that person. They can't volunteer to take care of that person. They can't change bedpans. They can't change the bed. They can't give the person a rub or a massage to soothe the risk of bedsores. They can't do those types of things, because this minister has brought in a bill that prohibits them from doing so.
Here, once again, you have people with a strong personal feeling, an attachment to a family member, a child, a parent, a spouse or a close friend, and they can't go into the hospital and see that, to the best of their ability, that person is being taken care of properly. Here you have the government putting British Columbians in the position where they have to choose between denying their family and running smack up against Bill 84. I think that's unconscionable. The minister didn't even give us a direction in this House. The best we could get out of him was a comment that as long as the family member did the things they normally did as a family member visiting the hospital, they would be okay, but if they trespassed across that line by doing the types of work normally done by members who were on strike, that would be a violation of this Labour Relations Code.
If those are the types of provisions that are in this bill, it is unworkable, because the people of this province -- the teachers, vice-principals, principals, parents and family members -- will ignore it. They will do what they need to do. I can just imagine when the minister or the striking trade union comes down hard on those people and tells them that they can't do that. When they come down on the hospital for allowing
[ Page 4679 ]
family members to come in and do that type of work, I can just imagine the outrage that's going to occur in the community.
All the minister has to do is look at what has happened with the ban on replacement workers in Quebec. The majority of times.... I can't remember the exact numbers, but I'd be glad to get them for the minister at a later date, if he wants. Quebec has countless instances where the ban is simply ignored. It's unworkable. With the complete blanket ban on the situations that we've brought forward, such as volunteers helping family members, this bill will be violated. It will be seen in the eyes of the public as unworkable.
The government can then do one of two things. It can either bring in those amendments that we brought forward in this House in the past eight weeks, or it can have a piece of legislation that in the eyes of the public is unfair, unbalanced and unworkable. He will thereby erode the confidence of the public in the legislation that this government brings forward. That is extremely unfortunate.
We spent almost two full months debating the bill in this House. We spent time going through this bill in principle and clause-by-clause, trying desperately to get the government to make some small changes in committee stage in order to deal with the factors that are of greatest concern to the public; and the minister and the government and particularly the Premier have refused to do that.
Nine days or so after the bill came in, the business community came out and spoke strongly against this bill. They had some serious concerns. I don't know what took place in the negotiations that the minister had in secret with labour and business in his office, or wherever they took place. I don't know the word-for-word agreements that were or were not entered into. I've heard what they were, but I don't know if it's true. It's extremely interesting that the minister would think he had an agreement with labour and business in the lead-up to bringing in this bill and find out nine days later that the business community felt betrayed by the minister. I don't know what took place in those meetings. I don't know what was entered into or agreed to by the minister or the Premier. We've seen time and time again from this government that the Premier makes an agreement, and another minister of the Crown contradicts that agreement. It's time that the government took another look at this bill and tried to come forward with some of those promises that were perhaps made to members on one side or the other in the negotiations.
There seems to be a growing feeling out there of mistrust of this government -- certainly by the business community. They have tried in good faith to deal with this government in a constructive manner. They didn't want the conflict that they have in Ontario these days, which drives investment out of the province. It's not in business's best interest to have that type of confrontation. They want a decent working relationship with the government. They may have different views on things and different philosophies, but they were hopeful that they could work together. They were hopeful that when they entered into an agreement with the government, that agreement would be upheld.
In business -- I assume it happens in life in general -- when an agreement is entered into, that agreement is something that both parties bind themselves to live up to. We have had a case in this province where agreements have been entered into by the Premier of the province only to be changed, negated or backed off by the Minister of Labour. Hon. Speaker, that is very unfortunate. What type of confidence does that instil in the business community? If you look around this country, you will see that the business community in British Columbia has been more than willing to deal constructively with this government. The Premier went around this province for three years in opposition telling everybody that if he formed government, B.C. would be open for business and that they would be able to talk to and deal with the Premier. What they found out is that they can deal with the Premier, but then they have to deal with the ministers afterward. The ministers may not like what the Premier has dealt with. That is extremely unfortunate. Where's the confidence? Where's the confidence in this government, when they negotiate in good faith with the government only to have the terms of that negotiation changed after the fact because of some political ramifications or someone on high telling the minister that he doesn't approve of that type of provision in the bill?
What type of message does that send to investors? I don't know how many tens of thousands of dollars the Premier and his colleagues spent travelling around the globe and telling people that British Columbia is open for business. Well, hon. Speaker, when business people in the world enter into a deal, they expect that deal to be lived up to. What kind of message does this send to those investors around the globe? I wonder what they're going to ask the Premier the next time he gallivants around the world to market British Columbia and to tell the world that British Columbia is open for business.
They're going to say: "Well, last time I talked to a business person in British Columbia about investing in B.C., they said: 'Be leery about what this Premier or this minister says, because they may change their minds on you. They may enter into a deal with you and then change their minds afterward.'" What kind of an investment climate is that? If business people want to invest in that type of political structure, all they have to do is go to some of these countries where you never know who the government will be from day to day.
Hon. Speaker, we need to do more than just provide balanced legislation. At the minimum, the government should be providing balanced legislation. It hasn't lived up to that.
[10:45]
A much larger issue that this bill tends to shed some light on is that we in this province must build a good investor climate. Business people and investors in this country and this world must know that when they make a deal or get assurances from the government of British Columbia, when the Premier of this province goes around the world saying certain things about B.C. -- where they're going in British Columbia; what the
[ Page 4680 ]
goals, directions and promises of the government are; that the government will live up to those things -- investors around the world need to trust the government that's in power. Today that trust has been shattered. It is indeed a dismal day when the people of the province can't trust the government to live up to their word.
In numerous cases throughout this bill the government has stood up and said that they are bringing in fair and balanced legislation, only to find, under closer scrutiny, that in fact the provisions aren't there and they aren't balanced. We've had the government stand up and say, for example, that essential services provisions would be brought in to protect the first party -- they say "the third party," but I prefer to call them "the first party," the general public -- and the general public interest in the event of work stoppages, yet the government is limiting the parameters of those essential services. They've removed the provision for an economic threat as requiring essential services. They've removed education as a provision that would require some level of essential service.
Hon. Speaker, the reason that the government needs to reconsider this bill and take six months' holiday -- or six months of intensive study of this bill -- and discuss it with the general public is that when you look at these sections as individual sections, the government can argue long and hard that they're balanced. When you put all these sections together and play section 68, the ban on replacement workers, against essential services, under section 72, you realize, in fact, that the public interest hasn't been taken to heart. Each one on its own is not as onerous as it may sound; but combine those two and you've got big problems. You've got problems in the education system, dealing with the safety and security of students. You've got problems in the health care system.
We just went through a strike this last year. I can't understand why the government can't deal with this in a realistic manner. They just went through a strike last spring where people were sitting in the hallways in hospitals. The public was writing to us. They were writing letters to the editor. It was the biggest news story for three weeks. The general public -- that first party, the public interest -- felt that their relatives and their friends were not getting the levels of service they required. Yet the government has gone one step in the opposite direction. Instead of following the lead given by legislation in other provinces, which sets out some very clear parameters as to what must be an essential service and what must not be, the government chose to back off and to lessen the impact and the levels of essential services when they should have been going further.
The demand among the general public, those people who couldn't care which party is in government but just want good government.... When they were saying that we need a better level of essential services, this government chose to go in the opposite direction. That is why I firmly believe that Bill 84 will prove itself to be unworkable when we end up with public sector strikes over the next few years. Heaven knows, we've had more strikes in this last year with this government in power than we've seen for a long time. When we see these public sector strikes, the public is going to react. The public then, if they haven't reacted yet.... The people out there haven't been paying a bit of attention to what has been going on here in the last eight weeks, because they're too busy trying to get by. When that strike occurs and they're impacted personally, they're going to ask themselves: what the heck has this government done? When we're asking for a better level of service, better protection for our children and for our family members, this government has gone in the other direction.
This is going to be a bill that proves itself to be unworkable. If this bill is not changed and this government, one last time, doesn't reconsider some of the provisions they've brought in in this bill and make some changes, they will find that the public of this province will turn on them. It will turn on them by increments. It will turn on them strike by strike. It will turn on them bit by bit. But eventually there will be very few people left in this province who will be supporting this government -- and this bill will be one of the reasons. Whether this government with its blinders on can tell or not, this bill is seen by the public as unfair, unbalanced and unworkable, and it will prove itself to be just that -- unfair, unbalanced and unworkable.
An Hon. Member: And undemocratic.
G. Farrell-Collins: And undemocratic, I might add.
The public's tolerance for this type of process of pandering to special interest groups is gone. They're not going to put up with it anymore. The general public demands that legislation should be there to serve all members of the public and to balance all the interests -- commonsense governance -- not to look at paying off one party or another. That's the new type of politics that people are demanding. The message sent to this House a little over a year ago was that they want legislation that doesn't favour business or labour but favours the public. All they're asking for is commonsense legislation that will ensure that the public interest is represented in all cases.
They're asking us to set aside our pandering to special interest groups and our desire to pay off political friends. They're asking us to set aside the old politics, that old way of doing things, and come up with a new way of doing things in government -- not only in British Columbia but also around the country and around the world -- to ensure that the public interest is at the heart of every piece of legislation and every motion and amendment that comes into this House. The government hasn't done that with this bill; it has done just the opposite.
The general public is looking for a different type of labour relations code. Of all the things the government has done in the last year and a half, Bill 84, more than anything else, shows the lack of direction and forward-thinking on the part of this government. They had an opportunity to bring in legislation, 98 percent of which had been unanimously agreed to by business and
[ Page 4681 ]
labour, but they also had an opportunity to bring in legislation that dealt not only with the interests of labour and business but also with the general interests of the individual and the public. They had the opportunity to involve themselves in that type of new government, and they chose not to.
They chose to fall back on their old ways, on the process that they've been involved in in this House for some 40 or 50 years, and bring in legislation that only dealt with business and labour. That is not good enough anymore, and the people will not stand for it. They've had it up to here with being told that there are only two parties. We saw it during the referendum campaign when different special interest groups came together and brought forth a package that they presented to the public, and the public said no to that package -- just like they'll say no to this bill -- because it didn't represent the greater good of all the people in the country.
Until they see that there's no pandering to special interests but rather that the government has a vision and direction for bringing in legislation that looks at the greater common good of all British Columbians and Canadians, they'll say no again, and they'll say no to this bill. They won't work with this bill, because they can't work with it. The government has brought in a piece of legislation that is simply unworkable.
What is going to happen to the confidence in this government when the public looks through this bill and when they start to see the impact of this bill when those first strikes occur, and they see these strange and unusual things happening? They see a picket line in front of a hospital, and they can't go in and take care of their family members the way they would like to without being told that they're not allowed to do that. They can't cross a picket line to pick up their children, see that other people's children are supervised or that they get home, or make phone calls to parents to tell them they're on their way.
They're going to say: "What the heck was this government thinking of when they brought in this legislation?" They're going to say to themselves: "I can understand the government maybe wanting to bring in a ban on replacement workers," or "I can understand the government trying to protect the integrity of a picket line, but let's be reasonable about it." There have to be some limitations on it. Yes, you can achieve that goal without imposing undue stress on family members. They're going to say: "What was this government thinking of? Where's the balance? Where's the common sense in this legislation?" They're going to stand there and shake their heads.
I think that Bill 84 is unworkable, that it will prove over time to be unworkable. I think the government will be forced throughout its mandate to bring in some of the amendments that it should have brought in the first time. I think confidence in this government has been eroded. I think this government should take the time to reconsider Bill 84, to change those provisions which need to be changed so that we have a decent piece of legislation that will represent not just big business, not just big labour, but all British Columbians.
The Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker on this amendment, with the indulgence of the House I want to clarify that the report the Chair tabled this morning was indeed the report by Mr. Connaghan, who is with us today, and that copies of the report commissioned by this House are available in the Speaker's office.
J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to stand and support the amendment. As I understand it, the official opposition are asking the government to delay passage of this bill, which has been debated in both second and third readings, for a period of six months. It's certainly a pleasure for me, and I think I speak on behalf of the Social Credit caucus in standing to support the amendment.
Almost two months ago -- more than 45 days ago -- the Socreds stood in this House and proposed an almost identical amendment. Unfortunately, at that time the amendment failed. But we believed and still believe today that the legislation could have been improved if the government had chosen to take some time to consult with British Columbians after receiving the report from the committee of three. We knew that labour had been consulted. We knew that people in business -- particularly large business -- had had an opportunity to discuss the legislation in some detail. But we knew 45 days ago, and we know today, that small business had had very little opportunity for input to this legislation.
[11:00]
We were disappointed 45 days ago when the official opposition chose not to support an almost identical motion that probably would have been far more appropriate. I think it would have been far more productive for us to have deferred the legislation, having seen the legislation itself tabled. Had the government or a committee gone out and studied the recommendations in detail, brought them back six months later and then debated second reading, gone through committee stage and brought it forward, it would have been far more productive. But I suppose we can gather that at least over these last 45 days we have helped convince the Liberals that this is a bad piece of legislation, because obviously 45 days ago they didn't think so. Forty-five days ago they said: "No, let's get on with passing this legislation. Let's get on with moving it forward." But, hon. Speaker, our voices were heard. If we haven't convinced the government, we've at least convinced the Liberal opposition that this is a bad bill. That is progress, and we take those small victories when they are available.
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: At least they've woken up. There's more animation there than we've seen in at least 45 days.
Hon. Speaker, it is important for us to consider this legislation, because it is a bad piece of legislation. It is, in fact, a dinosaur bill that's going to take us back to the Dave Barrett days. This bill would take us back in time to the 1970s. I don't know why anybody would want to go back to the Dave Barrett days. I don't know
[ Page 4682 ]
particularly why this government would want to go back to those traumatic days which saw a very short period in government, great labour unrest and labour disputes and damage to the economy because of the labour climate that was fostered during those Barrett years.
Hon. Speaker, we are all greatly concerned that what we've done is debate and pass legislation that's going to take us back there. We see labour disputes in this government's first 14 months in office increase dramatically, even under the legislation that existed. We know that under Bill 84 there will be more and more labour disruption and lost productivity. Most importantly, hon. Speaker, there will be continued erosion in the confidence that investors and business people have in our province. That is truly unfortunate, because it will undermine our prosperity.
This government has created a loss of confidence across the board. When we look at the actions of this government and at the way this government has dealt with a whole range of issues -- from the Charlottetown accord to its budget and its labour legislation -- all the actions of this government undermine the basic confidence that not only British Columbians and Canadians have enjoyed in British Columbia, but that people around the world have seen. British Columbia is one of the brightest spots in the world. It is seen as a jurisdiction with great natural wealth, resources, opportunities and a bright, capable workforce. Those are all the ingredients that investors around the world look to, but they need confidence in the stability of the jurisdiction. They need to know that there is not only legislation in place, but a will in place to create a climate for solid economic growth. That is the great failing of this bill and, quite honestly, hon. Speaker, of this government to date.
Confidence is being eroded at every turn, and this labour bill is certainly a major contributor to that. As the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove mentioned, we heard the Premier promise amendments to this bill. But once again we saw him overruled by the the Minister of Labour, by Mr. Georgetti or by someone. It's a disturbing trend to see the Premier constantly overruled and his more senior ministers in the hallway valiantly trying to explain what the Premier really intended to say. Indeed, we've got to give credit, particularly to the Minister of Finance, because he has been very capable in damage control; he has been able to turn around what someone thought the Premier said and reassess it in terms of the minister's interpretation. This legislation will cause too serious an undermining of confidence for anyone to glibly explain it away. This bill has a thread through it that will damage British Columbia: it will hurt labour relations; it will take us back to the 1970s, not only in terms of labour relations in this province, but in terms of a stagnant economy and a loss of confidence. That's what this legislation is all about.
The individual sections of the bill are unacceptable. We don't like things like the loss of democratic rights for workers. Clearly that has to be unacceptable to almost any thinking person. More important than the individual sections of this bill is the overall impact. The impact will be to undermine the economy of British Columbia and the confidence that workers, business people and investors have enjoyed in our economy. Over the last few years in British Columbia we have enjoyed a standard of living that's unparalleled and unequalled, not only in Canada but around the world. One of the primary reasons for that is because we have been in a jurisdiction where growth has become an accepted part of our economy. It has been good, solid growth, but we have anticipated and enjoyed growth, and now we see a series of measures being brought in that will undermine that and start to discourage people from looking at British Columbia as the preferred place to do business. That will have a very serious effect on our ability to create jobs. As I'm sure you know, we have led the country over the last few years in job creation, again related directly to the confidence in British Columbia.
That is why I find this bill so unacceptable. I find it in section by section. Certainly the 22 or 23 amendments that we introduced highlight the areas of greatest concern with the legislation. I will resist the temptation to go through those individually, but I do believe that the sum total and conclusion that you reach from looking at the legislation and the amendments that we introduced is that it's unsatisfactory and it's bad legislation. It's the same bad piece of legislation that was tabled in this House on October 27 in an attempt to deflect attention away from the Premier's dismal performance on the constitution. It was a bad piece of legislation then, and it is a bad piece of legislation today.
We find ourselves, 45-plus days after debating the first motion to delay debate on the bill by six months, back at that point again. The difference is that the first time around on about October 28, the Socreds introduced a six-month hoist. Again, it's unfortunate, because that would have been the proper and appropriate time, when the legislation had been drafted, tabled, presented and was available for debate, for genuine opportunities to change it. It's unreasonable now, having gone through second reading and committee, to realistically hope for the kind of changes we were anticipating, expecting and demanding 45 days ago. In the least it would be an improvement for us to give everyone an opportunity to reflect on the legislation that has, for all intents and purposes, been passed by this Legislature and give the government an opportunity to talk particularly to the small business and investment communities, and consider whether they want to bring forward some changes in the spring session. With that, I second the amendment that's put forward. I look forward to the debate today.
[11:15]
F. Gingell: I would like to specifically speak for and represent the interests of all British Columbians. British Columbians have been hit twice. The pendulum was grabbed and swung violently to the right by our friends in the Social Credit Party when they brought in Bill 19, and the people of this province were bruised. Now we have the same thing happening: the socialist government has grabbed the pendulum and swung it
[ Page 4683 ]
hard to the left, and the people of British Columbia are being bruised once again.
There is the practicality of politics. We have to think about ways in which we can actually bring about change. The Liberal opposition thought about this carefully when Bill 84 was first introduced. It seemed to us that there was no way we were going to bring about change if we were just going to take Bill 84 and stick it in the deep freeze. It would come out six months later frozen solid, needing to be thawed, in exactly the same state that it was when it went in.
We felt that the only way we could change Bill 84 was for us to find some means by which the back-bench members of this government could listen to the public and understand the concerns of all people in British Columbia, both business and labour, unorganized and disorganized, and small business. We felt the only way that real change could take place was to create a select standing committee which would have the normal makeup of a majority of government members who would be required to travel around this province and listen to what people were really saying. If they came back and said to their Minister of Labour, "Listen, the people of British Columbia are truly concerned, and we have to make changes to Bill 84 to ensure that it is fair and reasonable for all British Columbians," then perhaps there was a chance for change. That is the reason we did not support the first amendment, which was made by the Social Credit government -- I mean party.
Interjections.
F. Gingell: Government it was, but it will be a long time yet in coming back.
We wanted to find a route by which real change could take place. This government was not willing to send Bill 84 to a select standing committee to listen to British Columbians. We had to deal with it, and we've come to this point. Where are we now? We're at the point of sober second thought.
During the almost two months that we have been dealing with this bill, the only other matter of great concern, particularly to the Minister of Finance, has been the very real financial crisis that this province is facing. The minister and the rest of us recognize that the way out of this financial crisis -- the way to get our deficit down, to ensure that there are funds available to spend in an effective and efficient manner and to provide the services that British Columbians need -- is for us to have economic growth. We have the world's finest climate and geography. We have every opportunity here. British Columbia truly is a paradise, but that is not enough to bring investment and economic opportunity.
We need an environment that encourages investment. We can't do this with money. I do not support and I have been pleased to hear the Minister of Finance recognize that there are limitations to the kinds of bribes that certain provinces and U.S. states have thrown out to entice businesses. What we need is the right environment. We need a government that's receptive to business, and we need a labour code that creates labour harmony. The changes that Bill 84 brings in -- getting rid of the secret ballot and creating a set of rules on first contract determinations that we believe will lead to difficulties by not banning secondary boycotts -- do not create an environment that will encourage business and investment to come to British Columbia.
There was an article in the Vancouver Province over the weekend by Stan Persky. He referred to our present government as a social democrat government. Well, it's not a social democrat government; it is a socialist government. They have brought in legislation that fulfills all of the desires, all of the needs and all of the requests of their labour union supporters. It is not a bill and it's not a government that recognizes that British Columbia has to be truly open for business, and that there has to be some balance. The people of British Columbia are bruised by this huge pendulum being picked up, swung in one direction by the previous Social Credit government and now hurled back in the opposite direction by this government. We simply have to find a way for creating a sense of balance. Whatever the provisions of the bill, and however one may be unreasonably concerned about some of its provisions, it is a matter of perception. If business does not have the perception that British Columbia has a warm and friendly environment for investment and economic growth, we won't get out of the problems that the Minister of Finance deals with on a day-to-day basis in trying to get our budget balanced. It simply won't happen.
Hon. Speaker, there is one last chance. Sending this bill to a select standing committee would have been a better solution, but there's one last chance now for some sensible, sober second thought. That opportunity is for all members of this House, for once, in the interests of all British Columbians, to join hands and vote for this amendment and allow this bill to sit for six months, while British Columbians from all parts of this province allow their thoughts to be known to the minister and the government.
L. Hanson: I rise to support the amendment. As my colleague the leader of the Social Credit caucus mentioned, the motion before the House has the same effect as a motion that our party presented earlier.
G. Farrell-Collins: The timing was just off, that's all.
L. Hanson: One of the members suggests that the timing was off. I suggest that the judgment is off, but in any case, it was interesting to listen to the member for Delta South talk about the reasons for that. But that's not what we're debating right now. We're debating a motion to delay the bill for six months.
Hon. Speaker, I would like to dwell for a moment on the process. If the Minister of Labour has made any point in his presentation of the bill, it has been to the effect that the bill was arrived at by consensus. The three gentlemen who went around the province listened to all of the presentations that were made, and as a result of that, came out with this consensus on what labour legislation in British Columbia should reflect. Our argument has been -- and we've made the point a
[ Page 4684 ]
number of times -- that there was a very significant part of British Columbia society left out of the process, that part being the public and the public interest. We've made the point several times that the three men are men of great integrity, but are representative of a very narrow perspective. They all have one thing in common: they depend on organized labour, organized management, and the conflict that develops from time to time between those two, for their livelihood.
But I submit that the process we're going through now is flawed, because we have not given the public an opportunity to respond or comment on the legislation. The process was that the minister received the report from the three gentlemen, along with the recommendations for the legislation, and as a result of that, tabled both the legislation and the report for public scrutiny at exactly the same time. If that sounds like consultation to you, hon. Speaker, I would like to describe truly what consultation would be. It would be giving an opportunity to the public to respond to this legislation, to comment on it.
It's interesting when you look at the submissions that were made to the committee. There were a number of organizations and individuals that made presentations. Here are some statistics that we were able to draw from reading those submissions. Organizations were 54 percent in favour of Bill 19 or the status quo. Six percent of those organizations were neutral, and 40 percent were advocates of what we see in Bill 84. As far as the individuals who made presentations were concerned, 44 percent of those presentations were pro-Bill 19, 23 percent were neutral and 33 percent were pro-Bill 84.
It seems to me that the consensus the minister dwells upon was a consensus from a narrow perspective, and that the committee chose to listen to and put more weight on some of the presentations that were made than on others. It's obvious that the committee the minister continues to tout as having reached a consensus did not listen to or didn't place the same emphasis on some of the presentations that were made, because clearly the majority of the presentations that came before the committee were pro-status quo.
I might add that a number of the individuals who made presentions were, in fact, members of a union. They were complaining about some lack of accountability as it related to the pension fund, and there were a number of neutral suggestions from people who weren't involved in either side of the equation that strikes and that sort of disruption be outlawed in favour of compulsory arbitration or final-offer selection.
I think that this bill, without any question, is a denial of the public interest in collective bargaining. It eradicates any notion of individual rights in the collective bargaining system, and there is a less than subtle shift away from collective bargaining to a system of government-guaranteed rights to labour organizations, rights that the minister quite often touts as the epitome of the labour movement that were not gained at the collective bargaining table.
The leader of our party mentioned that this was a bill to take us back to the past, and if I can use the analogy of the very popular movie entitled Back to the Future, which has made millions of dollars for its producers, I suggest to you that this bill will take us back to the past and will cost British Columbia and its citizens and its economy millions of dollars. It strikes me that it is difficult to understand how a group of people elected to represent the people of British Columbia can be in favour of that sort of action.
[11:30]
In fairness, it seems to me that a six-month delay would really give the public an opportunity that it hasn't been given as yet to react to the different clauses in this bill. Therefore I and my party will support the motion when the vote comes.
L. Stephens: It is a pleasure for me to rise this morning and speak in favour of this motion. For the economic development of the province, I ask the government to consider delaying the passage of this bill for six months.
In my view this bill will cause many problems and impose many hardships on both business and employees and will have the opposite result of the stated intention of this government. Already the fear of secondary boycotts has gripped small and medium-sized businesses of this province. We have to send messages to the world that B.C. is a good place to invest and that we are open for business. This bill says to the business community that the government is tying one hand behind their backs. The clear intent of this bill -- and the minister has stated that it is true -- is to promote collective bargaining. This government talks about job creation and expanding the economy, but what this bill says is a shrinking economy and job security for a select group: organized labour. Tying the hands of business and restricting the options of management decisions will force the withdrawal of economic development in this province. What has happened and continues to happen in Elk Valley is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
This government charted its course of destruction. How unfortunate that it intends to take the economy with it. It has done nothing in its first year to respond to the needs of the business community and the pressures of the economy. Since 1989 direct employment in the forest industry alone has fallen by 7,200 jobs. Hundreds of people have lost their livelihoods in the mining industry. Thousands more are losing their jobs, and the government does nothing but hit employers even harder. The government's naivety in bringing this bill forward at this time clearly reflects their lost sense of reality and of what this province really needs.
The small business sector is certainly the primary creator of employment. It is most vulnerable to unionization and its associated costs. Of the 133,373 firms in British Columbia with paid employees, 73.1 percent employ fewer than five individuals; firms with between five and 49 employees represent 22.6 percent, with the remainder of the firms in the 50-plus employee range. Smaller firms cannot afford the same wage and benefit packages and costs as large businesses can. These small firms are low-margin, fledgling enterprises that cannot accommodate the major increase in labour costs that would result from fast-track certification. Government must understand that these small firms are the back-
[ Page 4685 ]
bone of the economy and must be assisted, not compromised in their quest to remain in business.
With the economy in a position of considerable weakness, small business in the province cannot withstand pressure from this one-sided labour code. More importantly, neither can the provincial economy. The past 12 months have witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of days lost to labour unrest. Under a fairly moderate labour code and an NDP government we've seen labour disputes in the health, education, mining and forestry sectors. There has been an increase of 239 percent in the 12 months ending in September as compared to the previous 12 months, and 11 of those months have been under a New Democratic government.
International investment does not look favourably upon labour unrest when determining in which jurisdiction capital should be placed, and now with this labour code we expect nothing but more unrest, aggravated disputes and lengthy strikes. The provincial economy is fragile enough to make any investment risky without the added prospect of a labour strike.
And certainly the provincial government must take the deficit seriously. The Minister of Finance has already announced further ministry cuts as a result of his budget projections being incorrect, in large part due to the shortfall of tax revenues and increased social costs due to high levels of unemployment. We have witnessed the minister's sense of humour in announcing these cuts, but the joke isn't funny, hon. Speaker, because British Columbians simply cannot afford this government and its policies.
As one who realizes the importance of a stable credit rating, the Minister of Finance must be cautious about upsetting the international bond-rating agencies, and clearly labour legislation is one component of a system of credit analysis. Furthermore, the growth in this economy is due largely, through the government's own admission, to immigration; it is not due to any fiscal ingenuity on behalf of this government. And because this growth is tenuous, once the impacts of the new labour code begin to be felt in this province, and because there is no real economic structure on which to base policies, the economy will suffer more and more.
It is a sad state of affairs, hon. Speaker, that the government has chosen not to hear the needs of business, the economy and the workers all at the same time. I have outlined the pathetic course on which this government is intent on taking us, and I am dismayed for all those who will be negatively affected by this bill. Bill 84 does nothing to improve the economy and the state of recession in which we find ourselves. This bill is unbalanced, unfair, undemocratic, so radical and so far-reaching that a delay of six months is in order. I therefore support the motion and ask all members of the House to do the same.
W. Hurd: I certainly rise in support of the amendment to defer this legislation for a six-month period. I think it's significant, hon. Speaker, to reflect on what has changed in the House over the course of debate on Bill 84. I think we've seen a fundamental change in the climate in British Columbia, in the way this bill is being perceived, and I think that that in itself is a strong argument in favour of deferring the bill for a six months.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I want to quote from the press release issued by the Minister of Labour on November 5, when he was addressing this bill: "In today's global marketplace we must compete for business in a larger arena, and it is critical that governments provide an environment for labour and management to develop more effective working relationships." I think that phrase will really determine whether this bill is in fact accepted in the labour relations field and whether businesses will agree to it -- and I think the obvious answer to that question is that business will not. During the course of this debate business has made numerous representations to the government, and I think it's significant to quote one of the more recent comments from the chamber of commerce and the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, which represents thousands of employers in British Columbia. They say they do not believe that Bill 84 in any way meets that objective "of enhancing business in the larger arena." In fact, it creates sufficient economic risk that the economic recovery of British Columbia could be put at risk." These two groups -- the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition of B.C. Businesses -- say that they will continue to actively lobby the government to attempt to effect changes: "We will continue to attempt to educate the present government as to the risk and difficulties faced by small and medium-sized business. We will continue to attempt to raise public awareness of these very serious issues. The very survival of those businesses may be in the balance."
We've been led to believe by the Labour minister that the type of consultative process that went into formulating this bill would have eliminated this kind of concern this late in the day. We were led to believe that the process of the labour review panel -- the three wise men -- had somehow addressed the concerns of British Columbians regarding our labour legislation. But this type of entreaty from major employers in British Columbia indicates that the process has failed and that this bill has not been able to encompass the divergent views and concerns of business and individuals in the province. That is an even more compelling reason that this bill should be delayed for six months, in order that the types of concerns being addressed by the employers of this province can be given serious consideration by this government.
There are 100 changes in this act that will, over a period of time, require interpretation by the Labour Relations Board. That board will be overworked trying to define this new code in the labour relations climate.... Some labour lawyers in the province are making a very handsome profit just by advising employers about what this bill means to their business. They've had to go out and hire lawyers to try and understand how their businesses are going to be affected, on top of dealing with all the other changes that have been brought down by this government which
[ Page 4686 ]
will affect small and medium-sized business. The imposition of new taxes and fees and a whole host of government regulations make it more difficult for business to operate in this province.
Surely, given the kind of economic climate in the province, this is the type of bill that should be delayed for a six-month period in order to give people an opportunity to voice their concerns. Nothing is going to change as a result of the passage of this bill. We have it on record from major employers in this province that they are going to continue to try to educate this government about the impact this bill is going to have. So how is it going to provide a more constructive environment for labour and management to develop working relationships -- in the words of the Minister of Labour's press release of November 5 -- when one side of the equation has suggested that they do not support the bill and are going to continue to actively lobby government to effect changes to it?
We've been whipsawed by labour legislation in this province since 1986. We faced a situation where organized labour didn't support Bill 19, and we've now moved to the other end of the pendulum, where business won't support Bill 84. The impact on investment in the province caused by that uncertainty will simply continue for an indefinite period of time.
The Liberal opposition moved 50 amendments to this bill. This was touched on earlier by the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, the opposition Labour critic, but I think it's important to remind the government where those amendments emerged. They came from concerned organizations, groups and individuals in the province who had had an opportunity to study this bill and involve their labour lawyers in looking at it. They made a determination that the clauses we moved amendments to were going to cause their business serious concerns. Those amendments -- all of which were rejected by the government -- convince me further that this bill needs to be delayed. The government needs to take a sober second look at the provisions of this legislation to ensure that the voices that the opposition heard from during the course of this debate are in some way translated into meaningful amendments to this particular bill.
Surely a government that purports to represent the views of all groups in British Columbia -- including organized labour and small and medium-sized businesses -- would be willing to take that second look. Surely any government that has received the number of entreaties that this government has received over the course of the debate in this chamber for the last two months would agree that their bill, which requires such close cooperation between management and labour and goodwill on all sides, can set an example by demonstrating that they're willing to take a second look at some of the more onerous provisions in this bill. As the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove pointed out, there's a thread running through this bill -- 100 changes -- that tips the balance irretrievably in favour of organized labour in this province.
During second reading debate in this House we talked about how the economy of the province has changed over the past three years. We talked about the fact that organizations like Canadian Airlines and Westar -- major employers in the province -- are grappling as best they can with the new global realities. So are the employees of those firms, who have shown more ability and understanding of the fundamental economic nature of the global economy than the major labour leaders in this province have. The employees understand that the way to protect jobs is not through a collective agreement, but by being efficient and productive employees and working with the employers to ensure that companies survive. That is the way in which jobs are protected.
[11:45]
It's interesting to note that thousands of woodworkers in this province have lost their employment over the past ten years, and every one of them -- or most of them -- were laid off through existing layoff provisions in collective agreements. Contracts do not necessarily protect workers. The viability of the companies they work for and the ability of those companies to attract investment are what ensures employment in the province of British Columbia. This bill, as it currently stands, will not deliver the security, economic vibrancy or economic future that people in the province of British Columbia need.
It's disappointing, although not altogether surprising, that this government, during the past two months of debate, has steadfastly refused amendments from the Liberal opposition, from the third party in the Legislature, from business leaders, from small business coalitions and from the B.C. Business Council. I think it's significant to note that this afternoon the B.C. Business Council and a major business organization will be holding a press conference to say they have lost confidence in this government. They have lost the confidence in this government to lend an ear to business, which is not one of their traditional constituencies, but nevertheless one that they need in order to get the deficit down and to produce benefits for British Columbians. Today they are going to say they have lost confidence in this government, and it will be because of Bill 84, the machinations and under-the-table deals that have gone on and the fact that they have brought forth constructive amendments to the bill and have failed in their bid to get the government to see reason. It is for all those reasons that the major business leaders in this province will say that they have lost confidence in this government.
Unfortunately for this government, when confidence is lost, the only other option available to business leaders is in the political arena. I issue this warning to the government of the province of British Columbia: business leaders, having tried and failed to work with this government on meaningful and constructive labour legislation, will have no other option but to take their battle into the political arena. I'm sure that over the course of the next year or two, that's exactly the choice they will make. It's important for this government to be aware that they will make that choice, because they have had little option, little direction or little interest from the government in addressing the concerns they have with this bill and with investment in the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 4687 ]
A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, I stand very briefly to speak in favour of this motion to extend third reading until six months from now, which the opposition has put forward.
Many people are concerned, and they fear this new legislation which is being imposed on this province. They see it as a hand of socialism, rather than what is really needed today: more private business and private initiative. While there is a lot of good in this legislation, on looking through it I have to admit that there are three fundamental changes causing the threat. The government refuses to include the employees' right to vote -- probably the most important is the right to vote by secret ballot. The removal of that democratic right is probably what disturbs more people than anything else. Boycotts are no longer prohibited, and there is an absolute ban on replacement workers. These are the three critical things. Unfortunately, these three things -- there are others, but they are not as important -- destroy many of the good things in this bill.
Hon. Speaker, I feel that six months of cooling off will give the community a chance to look at this bill more carefully. It'll also give the government the opportunity to perhaps introduce more flexibility in their thinking, and hopefully, at least deal with these three issues differently. The citizens of B.C. need this six months, and I hope that the government agrees with that.
A. Warnke: I think that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, my colleague, has put forth a very reasonable option, which not only should be considered but must be considered. So much was warned about this particular bill in second reading, and yet it was resisted by the government. So much was mentioned at committee stage, and yet there was an obstinate resistance from the minister to consider our options. Hon. Speaker, this amendment does allow for some time to consider the implications of instituting this bill. This is so necessary if one is in small business. I happen to believe that people in small business were not given the opportunity to consider its implications. It's so necessary if one is working either as a member of a union or in a non-union environment.
It's surprising that the government really did not consider the input of ordinary workers. Occasionally this bill has been referred to as representing their interests; yet it's ironic that working people were not given the opportunity to reply to this particular bill. If one is reliant on government services, it is so necessary. It is time for ordinary people, whom I often heard in this chamber being referred to as the third party in a dispute and who are affected by services, to be considered the first party in a dispute. The implications of this particular legislation are potentially very severe, insofar as it removes the rights of individuals in a way that is at their expense in order to serve a particular collective too willing to impose its will on individuals -- of course, the small, the weak, the unprotected in our society -- and most important, on the individual rights of workers in our society, which I believe must be protected.
This bill favours only organized labour. This is why an amendment now is appropriate, because the government must reconsider the effects and implications of this bill on the people. Contrary to what we've heard from the minister and others, this bill is not balanced, it is not fair. Rather, this bill reinforces and strengthens sympathy strikes, closed shops, and most important, the labour elite at the expense of ordinary people and workers.
Other implications of this bill exist as well, and we've explored them in second reading. This amendment, however, does allow the government to reconsider and re-examine the nature and the implications of this particular bill in the next six months. It can canvass once again how the fundamental principle of a secret ballot is extremely important to adopt. It gives them the opportunity to look at the strengths and virtues of the secret ballot. I'm really surprised that there has not been that kind of impulsive, intuitive embracement of the principle of the secret ballot. In not accepting that principle.... Indeed, it's reflected in the manner and the mood sometimes expressed in this House that this principle is rejected. I think that it is unconscionable and reveals a lot of the premises that exist on that side of the House -- and that does deserve some re-examination. Democracy is preached but not instinctively practised, and that is something for the members on that side to re-examine in their hearts as well as in their minds.
I have not been impressed -- and it's another reason I have to support this amendment -- as to the legal implications and the use of the courts, which are implied in adopting Bill 84 -- the use of the courts to favour only one side, and then in other places there are ambiguities. One only has to take a look at section 135, which says ones thing, and at section 137, which says another. And I am a little bit disturbed that 137(3) removes the court's ability to order an injunction.
It has been said by some other members -- by the two parties in opposition -- but I believe that it is fundamentally important for this government to understand that what exists, and what will result from the adoption of this bill, is an erosion of the economic climate conducive to investment. And investment is so badly needed, hon. Speaker. We do need a labour code, but we need a labour code that promotes a stimulating and an exciting labour force, and that can only exist when there is a labour environment conducive to a labour force like that.
Clearly Bill 84, combined with the legislation that has been introduced by this government in the form of increased taxes and increased regulations all over the place, sends a signal to business and the corporate community -- and, for that matter, to the international investment community -- that in British Columbia the government changes the rules to favour only one side: organized labour. So whenever a contention exists between people, the rule will always be, "We will side with organized labour," and that is reinforced through legislation and reinforced in the courts. Hon. Speaker, what kind of a clear signal does that send but a bad one, an adverse one, not only to the international investment
[ Page 4688 ]
community but to our own business and corporate community?
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. Speaker, these are some of the reasons why I urge all members to support the amendment. These are just some of the reasons. I would urge all members to recanvass what has already been discussed in this House at second reading and recanvass the opinions of the public. Six months is adequate to essentially tap what the public feels about this particular piece of legislation.
Hon. Speaker, seeing the hour, I move adjournment of this debate....
J. Tyabji: No.
A. Warnke: No? Okay. I can keep on going.
Hon. Speaker, on that basis, these are just some of the reasons why I urge all members to support the amendment. And I think six months is more than adequate to re-examine the implications and the nature of the legislation that's before this House and to give it a sober second thought.
[12:00]
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak in favour of this amendment. This amendment is definitely needed for both the business interests of the communities and the labour movement throughout this province. They have a great need for a review of this legislation. This legislation, in many cases, is undemocratic. It's not a fair opportunity for many people in the workforce to have their say as to what type of organization will represent them.
It's also a problem that's quite difficult when you have a labour relations act which covers the public service having differences in its structure from the old legislation. I think the minister needs time to take this under review and to come up with recommendations on how to resolve that. It was pointed out well in advance of the time when we got to those clauses that there was a need for amendments, but the minister did not see fit to bring forward those amendments. There are sections where automatic certification for public service employees occurs with only a bare majority or 50 percent, whereas under this legislation everyone else is required to have 55 percent for automatic certification. There seems to be a very definite discrepancy in this legislation that hasn't been addressed by the minister or the government.
This six-month review would give the opportunity for the minister to go back and listen to the people of British Columbia and to hear that there are some real faults in the way this legislation was brought forward and errors that need to be corrected. I think it would be of paramount importance for this government to take the opportunity to support and to vote in favour of this amendment, so there can be that clear opportunity for the whole province to be represented in the decisions that will affect every aspect of their lives, whether it be their jobs, their health care, their family or their children's jobs -- everything else will be impacted by this legislation.
It's a very invasive form of legislation. This legislation is government-imposed in regard to how companies and employees should work together to resolve between-contract problems. It is not imposed by agreement but literally by this legislation and this minister. This minister and the government think that they have all the answers; they think that the people in our communities can't work together on their own, and that they need legislation to force them to do that. It's dead wrong. People work together when they decide that they want to work together. They need that type of encouragement. They don't do that when they are forced to by legislation. On the contrary, they react against the legislation, because they feel it is unfair and undemocratic. There's a real need to take this six-month period that the amendment recommends and utilize it to let people have more input into this legislation so as to better understand what the true implications are.
The minister was continually unwilling to respond to the questions put forward, both in amendments and in specific questions on sections, as to what he meant. What was the intent? If we can't even get some direction from the minister as to the intent, how can we expect quasi-judicial or judicial boards that have no guidance to make decisions? Will the minister step in at the time of an incident and do stopgap-type direction? Will he impose his will at that particular point in the dispute? That's not good legislation. That's not a good way of resolving a need for peace in the labour movement and industrial relationships in this province. We need long-term peace and direction. This bill is not going to give that.
Therefore I think the minister needs to have a little more time for reflection. He's obviously rushed this through, and there hasn't been sufficient thought put into it. It doesn't have the support of the whole community, and therefore that time has to be taken and that change has to be made.
I stand in support of this resolution.
D. Symons: It's unfortunate that we have reached this stage of Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, without any of the opposition's reasoned amendments being accepted. Our amendments were directed at making the bill more balanced. The government has not given close enough attention to the ramifications of this bill, the ramifications for small business, the ramifications for the public sector and the ramifications for the general public of British Columbia. This bill can and will have a negative effect on labour relations in this province. It will have a negative effect on investment in the province, and it will have a negative effect on the economy of the province. It will impact on everyone in this province, organized and unorganized labour alike. Because of this, it is time for a sober second thought. I might think the government, in getting this far along in the bill, could have a drunken exuberance in being almost finished, but I think it is really time for a sober second thought.
As the bill has progressed through the various stages of reading, it has become abundantly clear that my
[ Page 4689 ]
initial concerns were well founded. Under section 2 it is stated that the purpose of the code is: "To encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions...." Note that it said "encourage." This is not a neutral bill; it is biased in favour of unions. It is a bill to promote unionization. It is not a fair or balanced piece of legislation. I believe and strongly support that organized labour has a place, and an important place, for the workers it serves in our society. I further believe, however -- and maybe the hon. minister might hear this -- that organized labour should stand on its own merits. I'll repeat that for the minister in case he missed it: I believe that organized labour should stand on its own merits. Its rise or decline should depend upon how well unions appeal to and serve its constituents. It does not speak well of the union movement if the government has to bolster it with biased legislation. In the long run, this unbalanced labour code, besides hurting the economy of the province, will also hurt the credibility of the labour movement.
In defending his actions and rejecting any amendments, the minister said that the amendments are an attempt to go back to Bill 19. He says that the NDP government wants to move forward. I say yes to moving forward. We're going to move forward to the Brave New World of Aldous Huxley or, more likely, to an era of Big Brother -- and I might add Big Sister -- and big unions � la George Orwell's 1984. Those who have read either of these books will realize that government attempts to structure society on their model does not work. The example of eastern Europe is a sad, non-fiction commentary that it doesn't work.
I'd like to bring forth a quote that is rather apropos to the discussion of this particular bill. It's from one Abraham Lincoln. He says:
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer."
It's particularly that line that we should pay attention to.
"You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could do for themselves."
Those are some points that we should ponder well in this House. They were wisely said more than a century ago.
This bill is ill-conceived, ill-prepared and, at this time in B.C.'s economic condition, ill-timed. It is therefore appropriate that the passage of the bill should be delayed so that there will be opportunity to consider the effects -- planned and unplanned -- of this bill. The section on succession rights can have some unintended but disastrous impacts on investment in British Columbia. This is a time when investment to produce employment is so sorely needed.
I have a quote here that I should like to read also, which I think is apropos. This quote, by the way, was from the current Minister of Education when she sat in opposition in 1987: "We need to stop sending messages that we are not a good place to invest, and we need to stop working on legislation that will make us even more not a place where people can practically invest." I would say that those were wise words by the Minister of Education. I would tell the government to heed those words at this time.
I will close with one further quote, also from the government benches when they were sitting in opposition:
"Our view is that this bill will cause so much problem" -- a little grammatical error there, -- "so much discord, and will bring results opposite to those suggested by the government as their intent, that it is essential that the bill not be proceeded with. At this stage of the debate there are really only two ways left for this legislation not to proceed. One is the motion that we're proposing today that the bill not be read today but rather six months hence; the other is that the government, in its wisdom, could choose not to proclaim sections of the bill until some additional process is undergone."
That was by the hon. Attorney General back when they were proposing a similar amendment to hoist Bill 19 for six months. Those words are as applicable today as they were when the members who now sit in government said those same words five years ago. I would very strongly encourage the government to heed their own words and support this motion to postpone third reading of the bill.
R. Neufeld: I also rise to support the amendment to delay the passage of the bill for six months to allow for it to be taken out to the people in the province of British Columbia so they have their opportunity to say what they feel about the bill. The minister has continually talked about the consultative process that went on in designing Bill 19, but seems not to be as comfortable with taking it out to the people for six months to allow them to have input into it as he is in pushing it through the Legislature.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: A voice comes from the back bench: "Pushing it through." I stand by that remark. This is exactly what has taken place. This session was called specifically to push this piece of legislation through the House. It's obvious to most British Columbians and to an awful lot of small businesses who are going to be dramatically affected by this bill that that is exactly what this government is intending to do.
[12:15]
The member said he didn't feel this was pushing it through. I read in the paper today: "Premier Slams the Door." This is what we may call an open door but not an open mind. It says Bill 84 is unfair, unbalanced and unrealistic and is going to have a dramatic effect in time on the economy of the province of British Columbia. There are probably 50 signatures to that -- "Closed to Business" -- simply because of what the Minister of Labour and the Premier said earlier: that they would look favourably at some amendments to the labour bill. It's unbelievable that this bill went through 176 sections -- a brand-new bill -- with only one small amendment, which didn't really change the thrust of the bill in any
[ Page 4690 ]
way. If that isn't ramming a bill through the House, then there's something wrong with that member's thinking about this.
Obviously, hon. Speaker, we should look at the past a little bit with this government. I'm going to go back and quote Premier Harcourt: "New Democrats and the union movement must stick together." The other quote is from Mr. Georgetti, who has been mentioned quite often during the debate. It says: "New Democrats have the support they need from the trade union movement. We need Mike Harcourt." These quotes come from The Democrat news magazine that many members get. It's no wonder that people and businesses feel that this is being rammed through. They feel that bias. They feel the government is so much on that side.
Hon. Speaker, I speak in favour of the amendment that we send this out to the public for a while so that they can have their input. The minister talked about public consultation at every opportunity that was given to him during the debate in the House. Big business was represented well. I don't believe big business has a lot of problems with Bill 84. I think they operate under most of those parameters already. But maybe not represented quite as well and quite as vocally was small business. They didn't feel, after listening to the Premier travel the province of British Columbia for quite a number of years prior to being elected Premier -- I should say, when he was in opposition talking about how the New Democratic government would be open to business, and all his promises.... The platform promise that was put forward in "A Better Way," which said that they would listen to everyone, that they would be a little bit more down the centre and that B.C. would be open for business, has again been broken by the Premier just recently.
In the last 14 months this government has not lived up to a lot of its promises about encouraging small business and small industry to come to British Columbia and settle. Small business and small industry is very nervous about a socialist government to start with. You don't have to introduce labour legislation as radical as this to have investors not wanting to come to British Columbia. In fact, the Minister of Economic Development stood up in the House the other day -- if I remember correctly -- and spoke of 26 companies which are talking about moving south of the border. He said it was because they were expanding. I guess they were expanding south of the border because it's not comfortable to expand any more in British Columbia. That's the problem.
When we go through the submissions that were made to the committee, we find that 54 percent supported Bill 19 and, in fact, wanted some of Bill 19 strengthened. That's something that this government didn't listen to. They should have listened to that, should have read it and felt it and said: "Listen, we're here. We promised we were going to represent mainstream British Columbia." But obviously the quotes that I read earlier came back to mind and reminded the Premier quite often of who elected him, who put him here: "Remember, we want our bill put through."
When I talk about unions, I want to emphasize and have on the record today that unions are needed in certain sectors of our economy. There's no doubt about it. They perform an excellent job in a lot of those sectors. But that does not mean I agree the whole province of British Columbia should be unionized. There's absolutely no need for it, especially with what's happened in Bill 84. You can see it coming, and it will come more and more. People may not feel the impact of Bill 84 right away, but let me tell you that it will not take long.
The part that will be hard for the public to understand is the amount of investment that probably will not happen. Those aren't statistics; you can't grab onto them. The companies that would have come to British Columbia, invested and created jobs, may not and probably will not -- especially small businesses. That's not going to be good for the province. We've got a Minister of Finance who is scratching for every dollar he can find, and in fact is putting out a bounty of 25 percent to different ministries so they can grab a little bit more, because of the problems that they're in. Knowing what is happening, you'd think they would be a little less provoking and would encourage more investment in the province.
It was said earlier by the member for Delta South that British Columbia had been bruised by labour legislation, that Bill 19 was too far to the right and that now Bill 84 is too far to the left. We can go back to some statistics and talk about them. When Bill 19 was in effect we had the fastest-growing economy, the most jobs produced, the fewest worker-days lost to labour unrest, the highest average weekly earnings...
Hon. G. Clark: Those were the good old days.
R. Neufeld: The Minister of Finance talks about the good old days, and I reminded him quite often about the golden days, yes -- and they will return. ...the second-highest average hourly wages, the lowest per capita debt and the best credit rating in Canada.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: The member across the floor asked what happened to it. We elected an NDP government about 14 months ago, and that's how it all went astray. But I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that confidence to invest in British Columbia was there under Bill 19, and I'm afraid that under Bill 84 it's slowly diminishing and going away.
I think it's worth mentioning that members in the Liberal caucus talk about Bill 19 being too far to the right. Yet in the 25 amendments that we put forward dealing with the right to vote and the public interest and with restoring clauses to recognize competitive realities in our global economies, restoring government-supervised strike votes, repealing the secondary boycott provisions.... These are all items that we tried to deal with in this bill. The secondary boycott item in Bill 84 is going to be very detrimental to the province of British Columbia, and it will start showing fairly quickly. Restoring the broader definition of excluded management personnel is going to have a dramatic effect on people investing in British Columbia and
[ Page 4691 ]
starting businesses. We talked about allowing off-site managers to perform the work of striking employees where it is essential to the maintenance of business operations. Hon. Speaker, that's going to have a detrimental effect. Common-site picketing -- we don't agree with it. We talked about more reasonable successorship and flow-through provisions. Those are much the same items that the Liberal opposition talked about also.
So I guess it comes to light that 55 percent of the people in British Columbia would have liked to have seen Bill 19 stay in place -- in fact, strengthened in some places -- so that we could continue to enjoy the things we do in British Columbia today. But we had an election, and the NDP government was elected. But people did not want a really dramatic change such as we're seeing. People wanted to be able to continue on with the things that I talked about earlier -- a good economy, interest in the economy, confidence in the economy -- and they were hoping that this government under the Premier would do that, because that is one of the things he promised, loud and clear, along with quite a number of other promises. But this government has fallen by the wayside. They're being controlled, not by the people who belong to the union so much but by the union brass. That's who is controlling this government. We see it in so many ways. But as I said, people didn't want to see such a dramatic change. They wanted change only to help our delicate economy at the present time and to instil and encourage continued investment in British Columbia, so that we can have the jobs and continue to enjoy the benefits we have enjoyed in the past.
Hon. Speaker, I don't think Bill 84 does anything to instil confidence in the people of British Columbia or in the business world, and it's unfortunate that we'll probably see quite a bit of investment leave the province and union membership increase greatly. If in some areas it does help with some wage increases for people, I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with chasing away investment, the investment that creates the jobs. We know that small business in British Columbia creates most of our jobs. I just can't believe that we would alienate that part of our economy. Why would we make those people feel so nervous? Those are the people.... It's not just me standing up here because I'm a member of the Social Credit government.
Some Hon. Members: Government?
An Hon. Member: Never again. People do remember.
R. Neufeld: It's interesting that when you insert a word every once in a while, the opposition does wake up.
Those small businesses that create the jobs in British Columbia have signed, in the paper.... They're part of the 36,000 or so businesses represented by different coalitions. Those are the people we should be listening to, because those are the people who have the investment and are going to create jobs. But if they're not going to work under Bill 84 or won't feel comfortable about investing, then we're not going to have those jobs. That's going to be a detriment to the whole province.
I would like to see this government take Bill 84 out for six months. Let's get some public input. Let's do the same thing that Ontario did.
The member talks about Bill 19. I want to remind him that Bill 19 went through a spring session, and it probably took a number of months, while Bill 84 is being rammed through in one session that was called specifically for it.
I hope the government sees the wisdom of putting the bill out so people can have some input. I'm sure they'll be quite surprised -- about as surprised as they were during the referendum campaign -- that people are not happy with Bill 84, and neither is small business, which will have a detrimental effect on British Columbia.
[12:30]
L. Reid: I rise today in support of the amendment to take a seasoned, second look at this legislation. In the early days of this session we had the Premier of this House rise on two themes. Consultation was the number one theme, and the number two theme that the Premier spoke about in much detail was that this was modern legislation. I don't think British Columbians will be duped any longer. This is not modern legislation. This is not an opportunity to suggest that consultation and consensus building is the new, modern approach of this government. This is an opportunity to continue to impose on British Columbians something that neither I nor the official opposition is convinced they truly want. That's an issue that we need to discuss.
The message that I need to leave with you is: can we say that this legislation will have a positive impact on British Columbians? I would submit that we cannot. I will speak in some detail and repeat the words of the current Attorney General of this House, because what he had to say regarding the debate on the previous labour legislation applies very closely to this labour legislation. He said: "Our view is that this bill will cause so much problem, so much discord, and will bring results opposite to those suggested by the government as their intent, that it is essential that the bill not be proceeded with." He's making the case about previous labour legislation for the same reasons that we're making the case that this labour legislation not proceed.
He continues:
"At this stage of the debate there are really only two ways left for this legislation not to proceed. One is the motion that we're proposing today that the bill not be read today but rather six months hence; the other is that the government, in its wisdom, could choose not to proclaim sections of the bill until some additional process is undergone."
That is what you'll have heard many members of the opposition speak to today, hon. Speaker. There needs to be some ongoing consultation. We were never impressed with the three wise men who produced the report. We were never impressed that the majority of the issues of British Columbians were not addressed.
[ Page 4692 ]
I don't think this government has been fair. I don't think they've been the open government they campaigned to be, and I believe, quite honestly, that they have whitewashed a number of issues contained in this legislation. I made reference earlier in my comments that this was not the Christmas present British Columbians were looking for. That issue is still extremely relevant today. In fact, it's ten days until Christmas, and we have labour legislation that is wide open to interpretation and may not meet the needs of groups this government suggests they intended to serve. We believe they intended to serve those groups alone. We don't believe it's fair, balanced labour legislation. I don't believe we've gone any distance in terms of levelling the playing field.
We have a government who suggest they're listening to both sides of the House, but we're not convinced which side of the House or the province they're prepared to act for. They've definitely gone a long way down the road in terms of pitting one group against another in this province. Again, we're not convinced that Bill 84 is a solution to labour disruptions in this province. I'm not convinced that this government's word stands for a great deal, and I speak directly to Bill 14 that came before this House in the spring sitting that was a duly negotiated contract. That is something that cannot be allowed. Bill 84 does not suggest any different approach.
A respect for individual rights is missing from Bill 84. That was missing in the spring sitting; it's missing today. And I don't think British Columbians are convinced that their individual rights will be respected as we go through this. The option for a secret ballot definitely ties into the option for individual rights. British Columbians haven't stood up in record numbers and suggested that that is something they wish to give away. We need to recognize that they absolutely do not wish to give that away.
New labour legislation in a province must be inclusive. It must look at all the parties we have before us today. New labour legislation can never be a one-size-fits-all proposition. That is the chasm this government has fallen into. They have suggested somehow that Bill 84 can be responsive to small business, medium-sized business and large business. As it's written, it simply cannot. It is not a one-size-fits-all proposition, and I think we must remember that. Again, it's ten days until Christmas. I don't think that British Columbians are going to be particularly impressed with what 1993 brings them under this particular piece of labour legislation, because I don't believe it has the best interests of British Columbians at heart.
I wanted to close with a quote from the current Minister of Labour, because I think it's very salient and speaks directly to the hoist motion you have before you today. The Minister of Labour said: "The labour legislation of the previous administration has failed with respect to process; it has failed with respect to content; it has failed with respect to philosophy; and it has failed with respect to leadership." I would submit that the same considerations, concerns and criticisms apply to this government's legislation entitled Bill 84.
I speak very strongly to the hoist motion. I stand firmly behind an opportunity for British Columbians to be more directly involved. The three wise men -- the time of debate in this House -- have not invited participation by all British Columbians, and this is a government that stood firmly behind being responsive to the needs of all British Columbians. I suggest we take a seasoned second look, and I trust that 1983 to 1993 -- those ten years -- will have somehow made a difference in labour negotiations in this province, and that the year following will be an improvement in terms of how we wish to involve all British Columbians in the process.
C. Serwa: I rise to support the amendment put forward by the Labour critic from the better-late-than-never party. I say that because when we first put forward our amendment with the six-month hoist motion that would have given the public, the citizens of British Columbia, the opportunity to peruse this labour legislation, the Liberal Party saw fit not to support that in division at a time when it was formulated, when changes could have been incorporated into that and where public interest would have been more ably served. So that's why I used the "better-late-than-never party," who all of a sudden realized the public support, public interest and the controversial nature of Bill 84.
Bill 84 is full of paradoxes, hon. Speaker. It's full of inconsistencies. In fact, it will create many more conflicts than exist today, and it will create many more problems than it has tried to solve. It was a bill that was not needed; it was a bill that was not wanted. It is a bill that will not serve British Columbia or British Columbians well at all.
The paradoxes are that the words of the government and the deeds and actions of the government are dramatically different in nature. The bill as put forward is purported to support the concept of good labour relations, and to provide the environment for a vibrant and strong economy. If that is so, why then was the free market economy not one of the considerations which is acknowledged or taken in in this particular bill? A number of reasoned amendments were put forward with respect to the free market economy. We had interesting debates in this Legislature on the free trade agreement, the bilateral one between Canada and the United States, and the North American free trade agreement. The realization that we're not competitive.... In order to have a strong economy, we must be competitive. This bill, with its strong bias, creates a situation where the free market economy has absolutely no place in the bargaining position -- absolutely no place because of the biases inherent in this particular bill.
The IWA is an example of a private sector union that has suffered a dramatic loss in membership. I've heard a member speak on sections of Bill 84, emphasizing how good high wages are for the economy, and how high wages have built this nation of Canada. In fact, hon. Speaker, the reality is something dramatically different. I wonder how the approximately 40,000 people who formerly belonged to the IWA in the last ten years feel about high wages when they have no jobs in the bush, no jobs in the manufacturing sector. I wonder how they
[ Page 4693 ]
feel. Every time a union has gone out on strike, management has been forced to modify the way they do things. Mechanization has certainly increased dramatically, and in order to pay higher wages and maintain competitive union costs, we eliminate employees.
So I just wonder what Bill 84 is purported to serve. It's certainly not going to serve individual union members' interests. Everyone has a right to a dream in Canada, and that dream should be a dream of a full-time, well-paying job.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: That's right. It's not funny. It's a dream that we like to see our young people start out with, hon. Speaker; it's a dream that we would like to see everyone retain until their senior age; it's a dream of opportunity, a dream of fulfilment. It may be a young person getting married. Perhaps it's owning your own home. Perhaps it's starting a business or working for suitable employment. But we should have a right to that dream. Bill 84, and the sections we've discussed, will preclude the opportunity of having that dream. Bill 84 is written with the interest....
Hon. G. Clark: Owning a home and getting married -- what are you talking about?
C. Serwa: Regardless of the wage rate and all of the other goodies that come along with the package, if there is no employment, there is no opportunity for dreams.
The Minister of Finance engages in all sorts of dreams, I suppose. But I'm not exactly fond of the reality of those dreams, because it's turning into a nightmare for British Columbia.
What type of discipline is enabled by Bill 84 for the public sector unions? Let's take a look at the BCTF, which is an example of a union that is ardently supported by this government. Members who sit in this Legislature are members of that specific union. With their strength, what have they done, and what will they do with Bill 84? They have created a very difficult situation in education in the province at the present time. Many of our young teachers are without jobs. We have more students in schools, but we have fewer teachers and counsellors. Their success has only increased the wages of those who are still working; it hasn't served the public interest, public welfare or education, and it hasn't benefited young teachers in the profession. So I think that Bill 84 will, in fact, fail there. For the B.C. Government Employees Union, what sort of free market economy will they have to restrain their high wage demands? They say "Jump!" and on the way up the government asks: "How high?" That's the type of strength and bias that is inherently built into Bill 84. I suggest that the loser in this whole exercise will be the taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia.
They say that Bill 84 is designed to encourage high-paying jobs. But they have disregarded the concern for public interest. Bill 84 disregards the requirement for an interest in public safety, it disregards public welfare and it disregards the individual rights of citizens as well as union members. Again, I emphasize that Bill 84 will not enhance opportunities for union members; it is going to simply support lazy union management and overpaid union management executives and organizers. It's clearly a payback by this government that is so closely intertwined with labour that we might as well say that the government is labour and is not representative of the New Democratic Party.
[12:45]
The unions in British Columbia form the government. That's clearly evident because of the lack of willingness on the part of this government to incorporate any of the reasoned amendments put forward. As the Minister of Labour is aware, Bill 19 incorporated a number of amendments that were put forward in this Legislature. The one amendment that the minister and the government accepted is all that has been incorporated into this particular bill.
There is a great deal of concern with respect to the fairness and balance of this particular bill. It is truly draconian in nature. I say that not because I like the word, because I really don't. But the consistency of bias throughout the bill is clearly evidence of the nature of the bill. It's been very cleverly crafted. It was drafted by the three members of the subcommittee, but it was crafted by the Georgettis and the Shields. That's how it was crafted, hon. Speaker; in order to achieve the collective rights of unions over the rights of individuals, in order to achieve the collective rights of unions over the welfare of the citizens of British Columbia.
Bill 19 was not a right-wing bill. Bill 19 succeeded in every facet. Union membership was not diminished; union membership strengthened.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Yes, back to the amendment. Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.
The principals that put forward previous labour legislation came from a diverse and balanced sector of the community. What has happened in Bill 84 is that it has clearly been put together by those with a strong union bias. There's flip and flop as a type of diversity in this particular bill as well; again, the inconsistencies in this bill. On certification we do one thing, on decertification we require another format. There is no consistency inherent through the bill. The inconsistency is again emphasized by the fact that it's clearly obvious that there were a series of backroom deals. Even the three principals in the subcommittee were engaged in dealing, representing the interests of big unions, big government and big business, to the exclusion of the interests of small business and the overall economy in British Columbia.
Hon. Speaker, before I take my seat, I would like to indicate what a Social Credit government would do with Bill 84.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: I will. I see a lot of interest. I have to state this, because it states clearly my difficulties with the
[ Page 4694 ]
present structure of Bill 84, the recent amendments presented to the Minister of Labour and the government, and their absolute refusal to take those into consideration.
A Social Credit government would restore employees' democratic rights to vote. We would reverse the provisions that ignore the public interest and the rights of individuals. We would restore clauses that recognized the competitive realities of our global economy. We would restore government-supervised strike votes. We would repeal the secondary boycott provisions. We would restore the broader definition of excluded management personnel. We would allow off-site managers to perform the work of striking employees where essential to the maintenance of business operations. We would outlaw common-site picketing. We would take a more realistic approach to successorship and flow-through provisions. We would restore education as an essential service.
Hon. Speaker, when its effects hit the public, Bill 84 will be recognized for what it is: an absolute failure to accomplish harmonious labour relations because of the inherent biases in the bill. Clearly the public consultative process was not followed at all in the drafting and crafting of Bill 84. A government, albeit elected with a smaller percentage of votes than they had when they formed the official opposition, nevertheless with the abundance of members on the government side, have not acknowledged their responsibility to the citizens of the province. They have acknowledged their responsibility to only one minority group -- not to the whole group but to a minority portion of that minority group, which are the union moms and pops that control the government of the day. There is an abject and dismal failure of the government of the day to recognize their responsibility.
Perhaps there will be a glimmer of hope, and I hope so, because I hate to leave on a very pessimistic note. The Minister of Labour has indicated that if there are abuses to this legislation, they will try to narrow the field of abuses in subsequent amendments. I'll take the Minister of Labour at his word and also hold him to his word. Perhaps that's a small glimmer of hope that the sense of responsibility incumbent on any government to represent the broad interests of the people will be taken into consideration. I will hold onto that glimmer of hope, as will citizens in the province of British Columbia. If we progress in the face of national and international competition, it can only be done by all of us, whether it's big business or small business, big government, big unions or just ordinary folk like you and me, linking our arms and working together in a harmonious, objective and constructive way. So with that, I shall close.
C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, noting the hour, I move that we adjourn.
The Speaker: You have a motion before you. Perhaps the member could clarify if the motion is on adjournment of the debate or adjournment of the House.
C. Tanner: Adjournment of the debate until 2 o'clock.
The Speaker: The hon. member, as I understand it, is moving adjournment of the debate until 2 p.m.
C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, it is the normal custom of this House to rise at noon. We've gone past that time now. I would suggest that we adjourn.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, there has been an agreement by the parties, and the member may not be aware of it. But if it pleases the House, I could move that the House, upon its adjournment, stand recessed for five minutes and sit no later than 6 p.m. tonight.
The Speaker: While a motion of adjournment is always in order, we cannot have two motions at one time. Therefore the motion before us is adjournment of the debate, and I call the question on that motion.
[1:00]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 44 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Petter | Marzari | Boone |
| Sihota | Edwards | Cashore |
| Barlee | Charbonneau | Pement |
| Schreck | Lortie | MacPhail |
| Giesbrecht | Conroy | Smallwood |
| Hagen | Harcourt | Gabelmann |
| Clark | Cull | Zirnhelt |
| Blencoe | Perry | Barnes |
| Pullinger | B. Jones | Copping |
| Lovick | Ramsey | Hammell |
| Farnworth | Evans | Doyle |
| Hartley | Streifel | Krog |
| Randall | Garden | Kasper |
| Simpson | Brewin | Janssen |
| Miller | Tanner | |
| NAYS -- 14 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Warnke | Reid | Tyabji |
| Farrell-Collins | Gingell | Stephens |
| Hanson | Weisgerber | Serwa |
| Neufeld | Symons | Dalton |
| Jarvis | K. Jones | |
Hon. G. Clark: I move the House at its rising stand recessed for two minutes and continue to sit not later than 6 p.m., unless otherwise ordered.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 1:02 p.m.
The House resumed at 1:09 p.m.
[ Page 4695 ]
Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
On the amendment.
C. Tanner: Finally, we get to a point in this debate....
Hon. G. Clark: The member for Saanich adjourned debate, so he has obviously lost his place in this debate.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: That's quite correct. It was passed. If there are other members, of course, they can speak.
The Speaker: If I could have the attention of the House, the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands adjourned debate, and that motion was carried. Therefore, I can call on him to continue with his comments at this time.
C. Tanner: If I might continue, I appreciate that all members are as hungry as I am, and consequently, we're making decisions on empty stomachs. The objective of my adjournment of the debate prior to this was so that we could eat before we got back into the debate.
The last speaker to the amendment to Bill 84 suggested that some time in the future a Socred government would make some amendments to this legislation. Let me disabuse that member right now of that wishful thinking. That will never happen. There will never be another Socred government in this province. There might very well....
The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all hon. members that we are discussing the amendment to third reading of Bill 84.
C. Tanner: So am I, Madam Speaker. The amendment that I'm addressing is an amendment to give a six-month hoist to third reading of this bill. It is my suggestion that it would be a very good thing to do, and I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Bill 19, the bill that the Socred government was so proud of, was not a balanced bill. Bill 84, the bill that the government is so proud of, is not a balanced bill. In the first case it was a bill that supported big business to the exclusion of labour, and in the second, it's a bill that supports labour to the exclusion of business. Having gotten this far in the debate, having accepted no amendments or changes and having had no input from this side of the House, it seems to me that the public is entitled to have six months before this bill becomes law.
Madam Speaker, you will recall that the member who promoted this bill through the House did not make one change, did not give one explanation and did not accept one amendment, except one minor technicality. Who has been helped by this bill? Certainly not the employees he pretends to support, certainly not business and most certainly not small business.
Investment in the retail business in this province is going downward, not increasing. Investment in tourism in this province is decreasing. The last thing we need now, in this type of business climate and particularly for small business and the independent entrepreneur, is this type of legislation. It will be the death knell to many businesses. I am not saying -- please don't misunderstand me -- that some time in the future we won't need some legislation such as this with some amendments, but we do not need it now. The timing is exquisitely bad.
Madam Speaker, you, like other members of the House, will recognize that a major retail outlet, the department store Woodward's, went bankrupt this past weekend. One of the reasons they went bankrupt is that they attempted to continue in business by not laying off employees when that hard, terrible decision had to be made. It's unfortunate, but that's the case in point. You will find in the retail business, which is the objective of big unions to start unionizing, that in Canada only one major retailer has been unionized. It is Miracle Mart in Quebec and Ontario, and it's out of business. That is not to say that there isn't a place for unions in retail and in the tourism business, but it is to say that it's got to be done delicately. It is not the same case as in the forestry industry, the mining industry or one of the larger manufacturing industries of this province.
[1:15]
It is the declared intent of the Federation of Labour to move toward unionized retail, banks and tourist operations. In the last week or ten days two of the major banks have reduced the number of employees to be competitive not only with other banks in Canada but with banks operating out of other countries. We must realize that the decisions made today in this Legislature will affect the business climate in this province in competition with all others.
The six months, which this amendment suggests, is time for the government to honestly look at what they've done. They've accomplished everything that they set out to do, in that they've put the legislation in. What will be lost in waiting six months to let the public, particularly small business, have some input? What are they afraid of, Madam Speaker? If they had to have a special session to bring it in, why can't they reconfirm it in six months' time when we'll be back in session again? I urge every member, particularly those on the back bench who might at last find a backbone, to support this amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, these will be my concluding comments with regard to Bill 84, in the sense that....
The Speaker: I just want to remind the hon. minister that we are on the amendment to third reading.
[ Page 4696 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I realize that; therefore I won't be speaking on the main motion but will be speaking with regard to the amendment.
Let me say at the beginning what I intend to do in my closing comments. I intend to reflect on the events of this session and a little bit before that in terms of how we've gotten here, but more importantly, to talk a little bit about where we have to go as a province. It's really those latter points that I want to spend most of my time focusing on and, in the process, making it clear to the House why I'm opposed to the hoist motion.
With the indulgence of this House, I would think that Bill 19 will be history sometime this afternoon, and we will move towards a new era of labour-management relations in British Columbia as evidenced by Bill 84. Much has been said during the course of debate about Bill 84 not being fair and balanced legislation. I would obviously take issue with those comments. The reason I take issue with those comments is that when one reflects upon the process which resulted in the development of Bill 84, I think one would have to concur with my view that the legislation is both fair and balanced. I think people would have to concur with my view that there's a lot of unnecessary fear and paranoia about the legislation, in part perpetrated by the opposition. I suspect it's their job to do that, but I think that if we reflect on the contents of this bill and some of the things it achieves, it's easy for that paranoia to evaporate.
This legislation was developed through a remarkable process of consultation and consensus-building. I need not repeat the number of communities visited and the number of submissions presented to the panel as it travelled around the province. But that happened, and it happened through a very conscious decision on the part of the government. We were elected almost a year ago and sworn in on November 5 as a cabinet. I guess the politically expedient thing for us to do would have been to proceed with the introduction of labour legislation which fit exclusively the ideological views of the government. We chose not to do that. We chose, rather, to recognize that the public interest would be best served if we were to proceed through a process of consultation and consensus-building. It's important to this amendment to reflect on that process.
We spent a lot of time last year in the months of December and January talking to business -- yes, both big and small -- and to labour about who they thought should be involved in the process, who should be on the panel. That input was considered. In fact, pretty well daily through the month of December last year and the early part of January I met with every conceivable business and labour group to discuss their views on who they would put forward as nominees to the panel. As a result of that, there was a panel of nine people, representatives from both business and labour, and representatives from both the small and large business sector.
It is important to recognize that when the panel was established, it then went around the province to elicit the views of British Columbians. Through a very long process it arrived at a series of recommendations which were tabled before the House on October 20.
As for the recommendations that were before the House, which formed the basis of the report, both business and labour agreed to 98 percent of the matters that are now contained in this bill; 160 of the 164 provisions which are directly related to that report were agreed to by business and labour. I don't think anybody can overlook that accomplishment. It's a remarkable accomplishment in a province that has been characterized by highly adversarial labour-management relations. It's amazing to think that you can get labour and management to agree on 98 percent of the provisions that will govern them. This bill was not amended during the course of the debate here in the Legislature for the fact that it represented consensus between business and labour.
Also, it was not amended during the course of debate in this Legislature, because the amendments that were put forward by the opposition just mirrored Bill 19. We did not think it appropriate to go back to the Vander Zalm era and amend our legislation to reflect Bill 19. I must say in passing that the bulk, if not all, of the amendments put forward by the Liberal Party duplicated the language of Bill 19.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I can understand the Liberals objecting to that, but if one looks at it, in terms of intent and language, that was indeed the case. We're not prepared to go back to that era of confrontation in terms of labour legislation. During the course of that debate, the Liberals demonstrated the extent to which they have taken an anti-worker attitude with regard to this legislation.
An Hon. Member: Nonsense!
Hon. M. Sihota: In any event, let me continue. We went through an extensive process of consultation that had gone on for the better part of a year. Therefore it's not necessary to hoist this bill for further consultation at this point. We have had remarkable consultation with regard to this legislation.
There were four issues on which the panel was divided. We sat down and listened to both business and labour, and we attended to their concerns with regard to those issues.
Small business in particular indicated that it had reservations about sectoral certification. We agreed with the B.C. Business Coalition and agreed not to proceed with sectoral certification. We have no intention, as a government, to proceed with sectoral certification in the future.
Second, the small business sector and the large business sector -- particularly the small business sector through the B.C. Business Coalition -- indicated that they had some difficulties with respect to secondary boycott provisions. Again, we listened to what they had to say. As a consequence of the arguments they put forward, I made certain statements very consciously in this House with regard to secondary boycotts, which I believe attended to their concerns.
[ Page 4697 ]
Third, during the course of representations on the four issues where the parties were divided, business suggested that they wished that restrictions with regard to secondary picketing remain. They made the argument that neutral third parties ought not to be drawn into a dispute, and that picketing should be confined to the site of a dispute. Again, to a large measure we listened to business, and we made accommodation in this bill to recognize their concerns about secondary picketing.
So I think it's unfair for the opposition to suggest that somehow business concerns have not been attended to. In three of the four areas where there was division between the parties, we listened to business and, in one way or the other, attended to the concerns that they articulated.
The fourth area of contention was the area of anti-scab provisions -- replacement worker provisions. Again, it makes no sense to hoist this bill for another six months' analysis with regard to anti-scab. We listened to the arguments that the opposition made and also to the arguments that business made with regard to anti-scab. In particular, we listened to the arguments made by the B.C. Business Council through Mr. Matkin.
On reflection, we came to the view that it was imperative that we prevent a situation from arising in this province that could result in violence. We think it's important to state as a matter of public policy that violence and brute force have no place in the picket lines of British Columbia. To date, our labour relations culture has prevented replacement workers or scabs from crossing the picket lines. We want to make sure that that practice does not creep into our culture. It has crept into the culture of other jurisdictions in Canada, and we want to make sure that it doesn't happen. So in order to prevent violence and brute force, we chose to proceed with the anti-scab provisions. We make no apologies for proceeding with those provisions. They make good, rational labour relations sense, and they're good public policy.
As I indicated, there are a number of areas where the parties reached a 98 percent level of consensus. One of those, which the opposition flagged, was the whole issue of certification and the question of whether there should be votes or whether we should be proceeding with the system of membership cards. Since 1984 we've had a system of votes by secret ballot in British Columbia. During that time period we've seen a 100 percent increase in the number of unfair labour practices, where there has been undue influence by an employer -- employer intimidation -- during the course of the campaign leading up to the vote.
We asked business and labour to reflect on that experience. We also asked them to reflect on what occurred in British Columbia prior to 1984. For 40 years prior to 1984, we had a system of signed membership cards in British Columbia. The panel looked at that experience from 1944 to 1984, as well as at the experience between 1984 and 1992. It also looked at the experience elsewhere in Canada. In seven of the other nine jurisdictions and at the federal level -- in other words, in eight out of ten jurisdictions in Canada -- they have a process of allowing for membership cards to be the determinant in deciding whether or not workers wish to certify.
The preponderance of the literature, analyses and studies with regard to labour relations supports the view that the system that exists in eight out of ten provinces in Canada -- a system which will exist in British Columbia in the future and which did exist here for 40 years -- is the best system possible. It is conducive to labour peace, it prevents the relationship from being diseased because of a tough representational campaign and it is a decent way to ascertain the support level of the membership.
I understand the politics of the situation. I understand that superficial politics will make it very easy for one to argue in support of retaining the secret ballot. But our obligation in this House is not to succumb to superficial political arguments but to make rational public policy determinations. All of the evidence points to the fact that the rational way to deal with the certification issue is to allow it to happen on the basis of signed membership cards. That's why the panel -- both business and labour -- unanimously recommended that that's the way it should be done, and that's why this government would not agree to amendments with regard to the 55 percent provision. Again, we make no apologies for that.
[1:30]
I think the time has now come in this province to look to the future. We have the pleasure of living in this province, and those of us in this House have the pleasure of serving the residents of British Columbia. We live in a province that has enormous economic potential. We have an economy that is growing, in part because Canadians from other parts of this country want to come to British Columbia to live. Therefore our internal immigration is having an effect that's positive in terms of our economic development. We are also a province which is resource-rich. I need not comment on it any more than that, but we have abundant natural resources. We are also a province situated in a geographically unique position. We are, of course, on the Pacific Rim, and we are a natural port of entry for those overseas, particularly from the Asia-Pacific markets, who wish to invest in North America. We also offer a lifestyle and a security of lifestyle that is superior to that available in Washington, California or Oregon, which are our natural competitors with respect to the Asia-Pacific market. Indeed, because of the security and the safety of the lifestyle that we offer here, and the resources that we offer here in this province, we have seen that there has been incredible investment in British Columbia.
I have no doubt that that investment will continue to come to British Columbia and that this legislation, which is fair and balanced, will not deter that investment. I have no doubt that business and labour do not wish to deter that investment. After all, both business and labour realize that if there is investment in British Columbia, businesses profit and working people benefit from the jobs and from the economic stimulation that occurs. So we're well-situated and well-poised to take advantage of the investment that can flow to British Columbia.
[ Page 4698 ]
I understand that certain people have to go through certain sorts of political motions -- if I can put it in the small "p" sense -- to sort of state their case and to at least make comment with regard to labour legislation. But in my private meetings with both business and labour, which have been numerous in the past month and a half, I am totally satisfied that business recognizes that this legislation will not serve as an impediment to investment. I can't say the same about the opposition, which for their own political reasons want to establish that kind of imagery and perception in British Columbia because it serves their short-term political interest to make those kinds of comments. But I hope they realize that when they make those comments, it doesn't serve the long-term interests of the province. Our interests are served by making it clear that we wish to encourage investment, economic stimulation, job creation and wealth creation in this province of ours.
So it makes no sense to delay the implementation of this legislation for six months; it makes sense to proceed. Why does it make sense to proceed? Because we on this side of the House recognize that, although we are well-poised geographically to be the beneficiaries of investment both from elsewhere in Canada and the globe, we also realize that we are in a highly competitive marketplace and that there are remarkable global tensions at play. Those competitive variables mean that we as a province must be able to compete with those that seek to secure some of the markets that we have access to or that we are seeking access to.
In order for us to be effective competitors in this global economy and with the changing nature of the economy, it's imperative that both business and labour work together, that business, labour and government work cooperatively to try to secure investment and generate wealth creation and jobs here in British Columbia. That means that business and labour and government must work cooperatively in terms of our trade missions to begin to attract investment here. It means we must also demonstrate to those that come to British Columbia seeking investment opportunities that we have a stable labour relations climate. This legislation, for reasons which I'll amplify in a few minutes, seeks to establish that kind of stability with regard to labour-management relations. In addition to that, in our view it's important that business and labour continue to work on the kind of basis that we have established in this legislation. Again, I'll comment on that in a minute.
I said that there must be stability in labour-management relations. This legislation is superior to Bill 19 and deals with contemporary labour relations in a number of ways. It is not a throwback to the seventies, as some have suggested, but rather it establishes provisions in its framework that deal with labour relations in a contemporary way and, in particular, tries to stabilize labour-management relations. How? Through insisting in legislation that there must be joint consultative committees of labour and management so that labour and management are meeting at least every two months to deal with workplace-related issues. That's designed to ensure that we can be competitive and productive, that we are efficient, and that we can catch on to problems before they become problems in terms of labour-management relations.
It establishes a new process for first-contract resolution. Why? Because we do not want to see extended disputes as they relate to first contracts, but we want to set forward a system of resolving disputes with respect to first contracts as expeditiously as possible. Therefore we introduced provisions with respect to first contracts that will ensure we can resolve them in an expedited way. Those workers, for example at K Mart in Port Alberni or Campbell River, can't afford to wait six months for this hoist to have that provision put in place.
We try to stabilize the situation by putting in better, new and improved provisions with respect to essential services. We've moved forward. We recognized the problems that existed in Bill 19 with regard to essential service provisions, and we provided a new format to ensure that essential service matters are designated and determined before a strike or lockout is commenced so that once again we can have some stability with regard to labour-management relations.
We've provided for expedited arbitration in this legislation so that by law parties must resolve their disputes very quickly: 28 days from the time a grievance and arbitration is commenced the arbitrator must hear the case and render the decision within 21 days. Expedited arbitration, which will stabilize labour-management relations in British Columbia, allows for issues to be resolved quicker and, quite frankly, cheaper.
We've put new provisions in this legislation to prevent frivolous cases from going to grievance and arbitration through some of the duties that we've imposed upon unions. Again, why? To stabilize labour-management relations, to be able to say that cases that unnecessarily disease the relationship between management and labour, because of the duty to take frivolous cases to grievance and arbitration.... We've removed those requirements. We said through our anti-scab provisions that you can't disrupt the situation by bringing in replacement workers; you've got to deal with your own workforce in order to resolve issues.
When you think about it, there are a half a dozen to a dozen issues -- I haven't enumerated all of them; I've enumerated six or eight of them -- designed to change the way in which we operate and to begin to stabilize labour-management relations. We feel that investors who come to British Columbia must be able to see direct efforts to stabilize labour-management relations in legislation. If they see the potential for that in legislation, then it increases the potential for them to make investments in British Columbia.
Through the process of involving labour and management in the development of legislation, we have also taken the first step toward bringing about an attitudinal change in the province. Rather than develop legislation as Bill 19 was developed -- i.e., solely on the input of business in the back rooms or by doing legislation exactly opposite in terms of the back rooms with respect to labour -- we've encouraged the parties to work out their differences in developing the legislation. That wasn't simply to produce legislation that we could say was consensual, fair and balanced; it was also to get them to work together so that we take the first step in
[ Page 4699 ]
bringing about the attitudinal change that's required to move us away from the confrontational and adversarial relationship that has characterized labour-management relations for so long in British Columbia. We've done that through development of this legislation, and I want to say to business and to labour today that there is a high expectation on the part of government that the parties will continue to cooperate. I understand that there is some fear and paranoia about this legislation, and I'm sure that as the legislation develops its own life, that fear and paranoia will evaporate. Certainly it has been created, as I said, to a large measure by some of the statements that, I think have been recklessly made by the opposition.
Today we want to encourage business and labour to get on with the job of creating wealth and opportunities here for British Columbians. We want them to do it in a cooperative way, and when they can't do it themselves, we want them to seek the assistance provided in this legislation through the mechanisms that I've mentioned and through the preventive mediation and adjudication provisions that I haven't talked about. We can assist them to work in a cooperative way to the benefit of all British Columbians, because that's what we deeply believe British Columbians want, and we deeply believe that it is possible to move away from what has been a highly adversarial situation in this province in the past and to get them to work together. We will in the future be working toward other initiatives, like the Pacific Institute for Labour Relations, trade missions and some of the other cooperative ventures that flowed out of the Premier's economic summit to bring about that type of cooperation.
In conclusion, we have remarkable potential in this province. We can achieve great things. We aren't going to get there if we are at each other's throats. We are not going to get there if we employ the tactics of the past. We're going to get there if we learn to work together, if we cooperate. We as a government understand that. We, through this legislation, established the framework to ensure that there is cooperation, that there is a change in that attitudinal approach that has existed in the past, and we have made sure that we in this province can achieve the economic potential necessary to provide jobs, wealth and opportunities for British Columbians, whether they live here in Victoria or whether they live in Prince George or Prince Rupert.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 18 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Warnke | Cowie | Reid |
| Tyabji | Farrell-Collins | Gingell |
| Stephens | Hanson | Weisgerber |
| Serwa | Dueck | Neufeld |
| Symons | Hurd | Dalton |
| Jarvis | K. Jones | Tanner |
| NAYS -- 43 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Petter | Marzari | Boone |
| Sihota | Edwards | Cashore |
| Barlee | Charbonneau | Pement |
| Schreck | Lortie | MacPhail |
| Giesbrecht | Conroy | Smallwood |
| Hagen | Harcourt | Gabelmann |
| Clark | Cull | Zirnhelt |
| Blencoe | Perry | Barnes |
| Pullinger | B. Jones | Copping |
| Lovick | Ramsey | Hammell |
| Farnworth | Evans | Doyle |
| Hartley | Streifel | Krog |
| Randall | Garden | Kasper |
| Simpson | Brewin | Janssen |
| Miller | ||
Bill 84, Labour Relations Code, read a third time and passed on the following division:
[1:45]
| YEAS -- 43 | ||
| Petter | Marzari | Boone |
| Sihota | Edwards | Cashore |
| Barlee | Charbonneau | Pement |
| Schreck | Lortie | MacPhail |
| Giesbrecht | Conroy | Smallwood |
| Hagen | Harcourt | Gabelmann |
| Clark | Cull | Zirnhelt |
| Blencoe | Perry | Barnes |
| Pullinger | B. Jones | Copping |
| Lovick | Ramsey | Hammell |
| Farnworth | Evans | Doyle |
| Hartley | Streifel | Krog |
| Randall | Garden | Kasper |
| Simpson | Brewin | Janssen |
| Miller | ||
| NAYS -- 18 | ||
| Warnke | Cowie | Reid |
| Tyabji | Farrell-Collins | Gingell |
| Stephens | Hanson | Weisgerber |
| Serwa | Dueck | Tanner |
| K. Jones | Jarvis | Dalton |
| Hurd | Symons | Neufeld |
Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 68 on the order paper standing in the name of the Attorney General.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like to move the motion that stands in my name on the order paper and, with leave, make a substitution of names: the name "Ms. Reid" to be deleted, and the name "Mr. Warnke" to be substituted.
[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of a Information and Privacy Commissioner, pursuant to Section 37(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that the
[ Page 4700 ]
Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to
the Committee;
(b) to sit (i) during any period in which the House is adjourned,
during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House, and
(ii) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(iii) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and
(c) to release any reports during a period when the Legislative Assembly and, upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chairperson of the Committee shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly;
and shall report to the House on the matter referred to it as soon as possible, or following any adjournment of the House, or at the next following Session, as the case may be.
The said Special Committee to be composed of Mr. B. Jones (Convenor), Messrs. Hartley, Garden, Krog, Mmes. Brewin, MacPhail, Pement, Messrs. Dalton, K. Jones. Ms. Reid and Mr. Serwa.]
Leave granted.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As members know, earlier this year we passed the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a bill yet to be proclaimed. This motion is to establish a legislative committee which will be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to this assembly the appointment of an information and privacy commissioner.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: By agreement, I ask leave to move a motion adding some members and substituting other members to select standing committees.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the following changes be made to committees of the Legislative Assembly: that Mr. Krog and Mr. Warnke be added to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills; Mr. Gingell and Ms. MacPhail be added to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology; Ms. Tyabji be added to the Special Committee on Selection and Mr. Mitchell be removed; Mr. Dalton be substituted for Mr. Farrell-Collins on the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology; Mr. Hurd be substituted for Mr. Dalton on the Select Standing Committee on Transportation, Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, we are just awaiting the Lieutenant-Governor for royal assent, and at that time I'll move the appropriate motions. Perhaps a recess would be in order. He is expected momentarily.
The Speaker: The Chair will recess the House briefly and will signal the House to come to order with the ringing of the bells.
The House recessed at 1:54 p.m.
The House resumed at 1:59 p.m.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.
[2:00]
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Clerk-Assistant:
Labour Relations Code
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first session of the thirty-fifth parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And moreover, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purposes of this order.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I would like at this time, on behalf of all members, to wish a merry Christmas and a restful holiday season -- and a happy Hanukkah as well, I have been advised.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 2:09 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada