[ Page 1389 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government advertising. Mr. Harcourt –– 1389

Mr. G. Hanson

Miles Miller employment offer. Mr. Miller –– 1389

Voter registration. Mr. G. Hanson –– 1390

Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 1390

Mr. Rose

Sooke school arbitration. Mr. Jones –– 1391

Langford intermediate-care facility. Mr. Sihota –– 1391

Ministerial Statement

Establishment of cabinet committee on traffic safety. Hon. Mr. Michael –– 1391

Mr. Miller

Industrial Relations Reform Act (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1392

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Miller

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Rose

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Loenen

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: In the members' gallery today is a very close friend of mine, a former resident of Chilliwack who then moved to Terrace as a small businessman and has now moved to Sidney and opened up a little business there. He has finally found time today to come in and watch the debate on Bill 19 — to watch it pass this afternoon. He's my special friend and guest, and I wish the House would make him welcome: Mr. Bruce Carruthers.

MR. BLENCOE: In the galleries today is a constituent from Victoria, Mr. Tom Chatham, and he has a special guest from Hungary, Mr. Joseph Batiki. Would the House please make them both welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: In the gallery are two women from the White Rock–Surrey area — Agnes Dafoe and Betty Olynick. Both have been very active in seniors networking and helping their community. I'd like the House to bid them a very warm welcome today.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the gallery today we have two fine young gentlemen from Central Fraser Valley: Mr. Edward Fast, a lawyer, and George Groening, chairman of the Columbia Bible College. They will be here watching our debate.

MR. BRUCE: In the gallery today are two friends of my family and constituents of Cowichan-Malahat, Ken and Betty Harry, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tell us more.

MR. BRUCE: More? As many members will know in the House here today, starting tomorrow Cowichan-Malahat is the home of the B.C. Festival of the Arts, and I would hope that this House would join with me in congratulating the many volunteers who have helped and done a remarkable job in putting this festival together. What in other years has taken 10 to 12 months, we in Cowichan-Malahat, a very progressive, enlightened community, have been able to do in just three months.

MR. LOVICK: You know, Mr. Speaker, to judge from the length of the previous member's introduction, everybody in the galleries would have been covered, but in the event that they haven't, will all the members of this House please join me in welcoming all of you here who have not been introduced.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary a question. Yesterday he said that several ministries had contributed from their advertising budgets for the Bill 19 propaganda campaign. He also said that eight ministries are cooperating on the JobTrac program. I asked him to give a very simple yes or no answer yesterday, and hopefully he can find the ability to do that today. Was the money spent on Bill 19 ads money that had been allocated for advertising the JobTrac program?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No.

MR. HARCOURT: Could the minister then tell us where the funds for the Bill 19 campaign came from? Which particular part of the program for advertising government initiatives did that come from?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his question, Mr. Speaker. JobTrac is a program involving several ministries, as I stated yesterday. Funding for its promotion will be apportioned from those ministries. Bill 19 radio and print ads are the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services and will be paid for from that ministry's information budget. The combined JobTrac and Bill 19 TV ad with the Premier will eventually be cost-apportioned between the Ministries of Labour, Consumer Services, Advanced Education and other ministries involved. No money — not one dime — was hijacked from the JobTrac information budget to pay for the Premier's TV message. I hope I've answered your question in its entirety.

MR. HARCOURT: Can the Provincial Secretary tell me when the advertising budgets were rearranged between yesterday and today?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm afraid he's going to have to ask the question of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), because I can't help him with his hearing problem.

MR. G. HANSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Is it not true that because of the public opinion polling that's being done, and the fact that the popularity of this government is dropping like a stone, you're stealing from the information budgets of all the ministries where that money should be going into job creation in this province? Is that not true?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it is not true.

MR. G. HANSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given the direction of this so-called fresh-start government, can the minister advise if Bill Bennett has been hired as a consultant on strategy?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No. Neither is there any truth in the rumour that Bill Barrett is now working for Dunsky.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill Barrett!

MILES MILLER EMPLOYMENT OFFER

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Highways. I'm sure the minister is aware of the shabby treatment received by Mr. Miles Miller of Langley at the hands of his ministry, and I assume he does not condone that. Can the minister advise the House that this matter is under

[ Page 1390 ]

investigation, and that Mr. Miller will be given full redress? By the way, he's no relation.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, and I can assure the member that the matter is under investigation by the minister.

[2:15]

MR. MILLER: Supplementary to the Minister of Highways. I'm advised that in the course of all of these transactions Mr. Miller consulted his MLAs on several occasions regarding that job, and that the cancellation of the job may have had some relation to that. Can the minister advise the House that this particular aspect, which in my opinion is the most critical, will be fully investigated and that a report will be made to this Legislature?

            HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter will be investigated and a report will be given to the Legislature.

MR. MILLER: The minister's executive assistant, when commenting on this issue, in my opinion happened to make some pretty arrogant and callous statements. I quote: "It happens. That's the way it goes sometimes." We have a person who's out a considerable amount of money and has only four days' residency left in his present dwelling. Would the minister assure the House that he's going to admonish his executive assistant and advise him on the proper way to respond to these kinds of happenings?

VOTER REGISTRATION

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) is arguing, under a phony guise of abuse in the electoral system....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, we've had that member for Victoria use the term "stealing"; we've had him use the term "phony" in direct relation to ministers. I think he should withdraw.

MR. G. HANSON: I'll be happy to withdraw, because the issue is too important to the people of this province to be hung up on any word or sentence.

Mr. Speaker, this Provincial Secretary Because of sloppy enumeration procedures in this province, many hundreds of thousands of British Columbians were left off the voters' list in the last provincial election. The Provincial Secretary has introduced legislation to take away the right to vote on voting day and register at the poll. Is it not true that the problem is more with the enumeration procedures in this province than with any abuses by the citizens?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member will realize that that bill is just before the House, and there will be a lot of time to discuss this during debate.

MR. G. HANSON: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I'm directing my remarks to the remarks of the Provincial Secretary — public remarks outside of this chamber — where he has alleged widespread abuse, when he is not able to point at people double-voting, but simply the fact that they have moved from one location to another and may not have known whether they were federally, municipally or provincially enumerated. Would not a full voter enumeration procedure answer the questions, and not this abuse that he's alleging?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, there will be lots of time for us to defend this bill and for the people of British Columbia to understand what it's all about. I will not offend this House by talking about something that is already on the order paper and that we'll have ample time to discuss. We can discuss it in the hall. I'll provide the member with all the information he wants.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, there's a very important issue at stake here, and that is the right of the citizens of British Columbia to have easy access to express their opinion on voting day in the coming election. Has the minister decided to have a full voter registration when the writ is dropped?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I must stress that the bill is before the House, and there will be plenty of time to discuss that matter when it gets into debate during second reading and committee.

ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. Yesterday at 2:15 the minister advised this House that he had not decided to introduce admission fees at the Provincial Museum, Fort Steele and Barkerville. Later yesterday afternoon he advised the media: "All attractions that come under my ministry are currently being considered for a user fee."

Was the decision to impose charges made yesterday afternoon shortly after question period, or was the minister deliberately trying to hide his activities?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to answer the question in relation to.... "Being considered" was the comment I made to the media. It is being considered. There are attractions in the province which are currently in need of drastic repair. Because the repair funds are not available within the government, there is the possibility of charging to attend the attractions on behalf of the requirements to improve the facilities.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to begin to get the answers to the question I posed yesterday. But I'm wondering why the minister opted for potentially misleading answers, instead of coming clean with information that he had.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, if the question yesterday had been consideration rather than the direct question that they had been finalized . . They are not finalized right now. This is an open government. We are consulting with all the communities out there about whether they want the facilities improved. If they want them improved, then we have to get the people who utilize the facilities to pay part of the costs. The tourists coming to the province are telling us in record numbers that the facilities we have are the best in the world but need improvement, and if we can improve them they'll come back. They're prepared to pay to see the great facilities we have, but the improvements are also necessary.

[ Page 1391 ]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, is the investigation the minister is doing into the imposition and the possible imposition of admission charges going beyond a certain small group, or is it going to tourist bureaus? Is it going to chambers of commerce? Is it going to people within the tourist industry? Or is it simply going to small community groups?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, that would be considered future policy, and I'm prepared to answer that at a later date.

MR. ROSE: Supplementary. The minister spoke of improvements. I wonder if the refined Minister of Culture could tell us whether he's considering improving his own attitude to the House, because yesterday was an example of complete contempt.

HON. MR. REID: If the opposition House Leader would be so inclined as to read yesterday's question period, he would find that the answer was entirely in relation to the question asked.

SOOKE SCHOOL ARBITRATION

MR. JONES: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. I understand that Jack Gallagher has recently been appointed the sole member of an arbitration board to deal with the contract dispute between the teachers and the board in Sooke. Was the minister aware, when he made this appointment, that Mr. Gallagher had served on a number of previous occasions on three-member arbitration boards, and on the side of school boards in those disputes?

HON. L. HANSON: When I was first approached to appoint Mr. Gallagher as the arbitrator, I did not know that; but before I approved it, I did know that, and I feel that he will provide a fair and reasonable arbitration in the situation involved.

MR. JONES: Supplementary to the same minister. I understand that the teachers in Sooke are meeting today to try to decide whether or not to boycott this arbitration. Can the minister tell this House, in all fairness — and he used the word "fairness" in his decision — how he expected that both parties in this dispute could accept somebody who had been so clearly partisan in previous arbitrations?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I think we're dealing with a hypothetical situation, where the teachers' organization may refuse to sit in on part of the arbitration. That will have to be dealt with by my ministry when it becomes a reality.

LANGFORD INTERMEDIATE-CARE FACILITY

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Tourism. The minister has placed a restriction by way of an order, which frustrates the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Dueck's) rightful decision, on the construction of an intermediate-care facility in Langford. Will the Minister of Tourism, who I'm sure has had the opportunity to discuss the matter with his seatmate, now agree to lift that order and allow immediate construction of the hospital in Langford?

HON. MR. REID: In answer to the question, I will not, the reason being that there is currently also a request that the sewage question be resolved at the proposed site prior to any demolition or construction of a hospital.

Ministerial Statement

ESTABLISHMENT OF CABINET
COMMITTEE ON TRAFFIC SAFETY

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, members will be aware that earlier today the Premier announced the establishment of a cabinet committee on traffic safety. As chairman of that committee, I wish to make a brief statement to this assembly on our objectives and purposes.

I expect that most hon. members have at one time or another been personally touched by the outcome of a highway accident. For some, the tragedy has indeed been deep. Many of us have had members of our families, or our friends, killed in such accidents. Even more of us are aware of someone who has been injured. Far too many of these injuries have had lifelong implications. In addition, there is the matter of huge property losses.

All of us in this chamber — certainly we in government — are here to represent the interests of society at large. I'm sure all of us will agree that traffic safety must be a priority. The Attorney-General, who is responsible for the Counterattack program and policing, and the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, who is responsible for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, will be joining me on the cabinet committee. Our first priority will be to bring some coordination to the traffic safety programs now administered by our ministries and relevant agencies.

I know that in my ministry alone we will be able to achieve much more in the area of traffic safety now that all government agencies will receive guidance from a single cabinet committee on traffic safety. The Attorney-General will be interested in enforcement, the police system and the potential of the criminal and civil justice systems for enhancing our traffic safety record. The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, as minister responsible for ICBC, will be addressing questions of greater coordination of the corporation's programs with those of our ministries. Therefore establishing the cabinet committee on traffic safety means government intends to tackle in a direct way not only the concerns of many public authorities and volunteer agencies, but also those that have been expressed over the years in this assembly.

All of us have a responsibility to make our highways safer. I want to assure all hon. members that the cabinet committee of which I am chairman will earnestly apply itself to the enormous challenges presented.

MR. MILLER: First of all, I congratulate the government for setting up this committee. I think the area that the committee is looking at is an important one, and obviously of some significance to a number of people in this province. I have some question about priority generally in terms of these kinds of committees. At the same time as we now have a committee dealing with traffic safety, there are a number of things happening that could impact: for example, we have a committee dealing with perhaps the liberalization of our liquor laws. Certainly one wonders if the sequence of events has been properly outlined or considered by the government

[ Page 1392 ]

in terms of setting up these kinds of committees. Nonetheless, I don't want to condemn outright.

A number of areas that the committee should immediately turn their attention to seems to come quite readily to mind. First of all, I'll deal with the question of deregulation, which was promised in the throne speech. If we look at jurisdictions where transportation industry deregulation has been brought in, some things come immediately to the fore. One of those, of course, is the lowering of overall safety and the increase in accident rates in the trucking industry. I think that can be tied directly to the instability created in the marketplace by the new and smaller outfits coming in, by the squeeze that's put on existing outfits in terms of longer hours, poorer maintenance. A survey in March in the United States, for example, revealed quite an alarming increase in the incidence of the use of alcohol and drugs by long-distance truckers, and that's since the introduction of deregulation in the United States. So certainly that's one area that the government should immediately turn its attention to.

[2:30]

The second — and again perhaps the most obvious — is that one of the casualties of the 1983 restraint program was the mandatory....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Time!

MR. MILLER: Am I under a time limit, Mr. Speaker? No? Would you kindly advise the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser)? We're looking forward to hearing his stirring debate on Bill 19 later today.

One of the casualties was the whole area of vehicle testing that was cancelled by this government. There have been numerous cries to bring that testing back in. Testing can indeed save lives and save money.

So without continuing, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude my remarks on this subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the opposition House Leader, I might just mention that ministerial statements and replies are supposed to be non-argumentative — not to be a debate. I just point that out for future reference, to both sides.

MR. ROSE: Because it was overlooked by my colleague from Prince Rupert, I'd like to thank the Minister of Transportation and Highways for extending us the courtesy of having the statement in advance. That could well be emulated by other ministers, because it's pretty important that we have....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: After that, he might change his mind. But I think if we're all guided by the rules, it is really much better to have an informed reply, even though it might hurt a little bit, than one that's just off the top of one's head, so to speak. We like to have this kind of courtesy extended to us, having notice of the statement.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 19.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 5 as amended.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to having some dialogue with the Minister of Labour, and I am only sorry that my colleague from across the way, the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), isn't here, because I know his usual refrain: "The member for Nanaimo is lecturing us once again." I'm sorry 1 don't have that opportunity, because indeed I propose to do some lecturing, simply because so often I see an absolutely perfect case on the other side of the House for compulsory education. I'm therefore looking forward to that, as I say.

Let me start my remarks on section 5 of this bill by posing a question directly to the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, this committee is in session. If any of you have private conversations you'd like to carry out, or have a little committee work, it would be much better if you'd do it out in the hallway. The Chair will give you a moment or two to settle down, and then we'll get back to this committee on Bill 19. All right, the Chair recognizes the second member for Nanaimo. Please continue.

MR. LOVICK: 1 shan't repeat what I've said already. I want, as I say, to begin my comments about section 5 of the proposed bill by posing the question, first rhetorically and then directly: why? We know that in the explanatory notes to the bill it says that section 5 "preserves freedom of expression and prohibits discriminatory practices."

The obvious question that comes to mind, of course, is that if, indeed, we are in section 5, adding a subsection to two existing clauses in legislation in the original Labour Code, namely section 2 has subsection (1) and subsection (2), the intent of section 5, as we know, is to create a subsection (3) with various other subsections there.

The obvious question then arises, certainly: did we not have freedom of expression before? Is it the case, then, that the existing Labour Code, the one we are charged now with amending, apparently somehow deprived us of freedom of expression? Certainly that would seem to be the intention, and I will take my direction from the minister at this point. Perhaps, to begin, he would like to respond to that question.

HON. L. HANSON: In response to your question, I think there is a very good rationale for ensuring that there is, in fact, freedom of expression, and certainly if the member opposite subscribes to that philosophy, there can certainly be no harm in enshrining it in legislation.

MR. LOVICK: I guess the issue surely is whether we need to state that freedom, given it is already embraced in law and, for that matter, in many, many hundreds of years of common-law precedents and tradition, not to mention in the Charter of Rights.

What I'm suggesting is that the moment we explicitly state that we are going to put all of these things in a bill that has to do with industrial relations in this province. then inevitably and predictably what's going to happen is that

[ Page 1393 ]

people are going to say there must be another agenda. That point I think was made very effectively by my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) yesterday when he quoted at some length from Paul Weiler's book which is now, of course, a textbook on the subject of industrial relations.

You will all recall, I am sure, that my colleague suggested that the minister had indeed read that. The minister assented that, yes, that was indeed the case, but obviously the minister was also saying he disagreed, then, with the conclusions that Weiler drew. The conclusions were that there are parts to be played by the two sides in this business called industrial relations; and in the business of certification, or decertification for that matter, the employer interest ought not to be represented.

The minister suggested that he did not accept that proposition. In other words, though he's read Weiler, though he's read the textbook, he disagrees with the conclusion Weiler derives. My concern, and I think I can say that this is the concern of all of my colleagues on this side of the House, is that the creation of this specific section 5 and plugging it into the Code, the proposed legislation to govern industrial relations in this province, is effectively to open doors that increase the chances for management to keep out trade unions.

That's the contention; certainly that was the conclusion that Weiler presented to us as articulated by my colleague the member for North Island. What I want to touch on is just why that is, indeed, the case, why we aren't, I think, being alarmist or suggesting that the sky is falling when we make those claims about how this section does have the capacity to make it possible for those who would keep out unions to do so with relative impunity. Let me suggest to the minister that this document, as written to us — section 5, subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), etc. — is a really a document written for another time, another place.

It's a document that is, dare I say, pre the revolution of the unconscious or the subconscious or psychology, pre the age of electronic media, pre the age of our recognition of all those other subtle forms of persuasion. Let me see if I can explain precisely how that works. I am sure that the minister, or at least his advisers, will be familiar with that whole new literature developing in the United States that goes by the euphemistic terminology of preventive labour relations.

Indeed, I sincerely hope that the minister has read Kilgour's book on that subject, because what we discover there is that, first of all, the terminology is, as I suggested earlier, a euphemism. "Preventive labour relations" means keeping out unions or getting rid of them if they are already in place. The language, the very title of the book, the very use of that nomenclature gives us the clue as to the problem that I want to sketch out now.

What that book — and it is about 450 pages in length, by the way; it comes from a guy who calls himself a professor of industrial relations at Cornell University in the United States — does effectively is say: "Here's how you can beat the law. Here's how you can beat phrases like" — take note, please, Mr. Minister — "'intimidation, coercion, threats."' Those are all those things that we kicked around yesterday at great length when we talked about the amendment to section 5. I am suggesting that what that book by Kilgour says is: "Here is the way you can keep out a union. Here is the kind of campaign you can run so no law court in the country will ever be able to get you for somehow violating what we consider to be the normal rights of free speech."

Surely the minister and his officials are familiar with that, and surely then they know that to anybody who is at all bloody-minded, at all smart and at all committed to keeping out unions, all of the force of this language doesn't amount to a thing. It doesn't matter. It is not going to prevent anybody from engaging in what we traditionally call unfair labour practices.

Before I begin to develop that further, I will give the minister another opportunity. Would he choose to respond to my references to Preventive Labour Relations and perhaps share with us his knowledge of that case I just outlined?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the Industrial Relations Council is not bound by the American textbook in developing its policy. Second of all, the suggestion that there is a hidden agenda is, I assure the Hon. member, not the case.

I have some difficulty in understanding the opposition of enshrining in legislation the ability of people to communicate. In a society such as ours communication becomes very important, and communication then leads to decisions that are fair and reasonable on the part of the individuals.

I think that the member on the opposite side is suggesting that this thing is only directed at the employer's ability to communicate with his employees. I would suggest that the member should look at the wording in the various sections. It says: "Nothing in this Act deprives a person of his freedom to express his views provided he does not use undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats." Then I would suggest that the hon. member go to the interpretation of "person." It deals with all segments of collective bargaining and their ability to reasonably and freely communicate without using undue influence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the second member for Nanaimo continues, I would just like to bring to everyone's attention that we are dealing clause by clause here. It seems to me, from the discourse that has gone on up to this point, that we are in some ways canvassing back into our second reading when we were dealing with the principle of the bill. I know the second member for Nanaimo is very capable in this regard, so I would expect that he could continue and keep his comments strictly toward section 5 as it applies now.

[2:45]

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I accept that caution. Indeed, if I am on the threshold somehow of violating that restriction, I would ask you please to so inform me and then I will certainly change my approach.

I thank the minister for his answer to the question. Sadly, however, I don't think he quite dealt with the particular case I was making. What I am suggesting quite simply is that it has been documented at great length and corroborated by numerous people who have studied in the field that this kind of language — this great rousing cry to freedom of speech and the good old-fashioned John Stuart Mill kind of libertarian principles — doesn't mean a darned thing in the context of contemporary labour relations. That is what Kilgour's book is about.

It is also the case that there is a burgeoning industry primarily in the United States, but one certainly that shows signs of spilling across the border — of people who are professionals, legal firms and others, who say: "We can

[ Page 1394 ]

guarantee, you employee who is threatened with or confronted with the possibility of having an organized workplace, to show you the tactics and the techniques that will keep out unions. We can do so regardless of what kind of legislation is written that talks about free speech and the limitations on speech and that talks about unfair labour practices in this kind of way." That's my contention, and I'm suggesting to you the evidence is there. It's available; it's documented; there's lots of it.

Regarding the minister's comment about no hidden agenda, I am perfectly willing, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that the minister truly believes there is not a hidden agenda. But let me suggest, given the current history we have already had with Bill 19 and a number of different things that have come to light in the course of the debate and the course of the discussion, where the minister has in fact said: "That was not my understanding of what the legislation meant. I am horrified. I am surprised by that, and therefore I will amend and withdraw certain provisions...." I would suggest that that demonstrates that in the minds certainly of labour, they have every reason to suggest there may be a hidden agenda available. Again, I'm not suggesting culpability on the part of the minister, but I'm saying the evidence is certainly there that would enable labour to draw that conclusion.

I want to also respond briefly, because it's one of the things I want to deal with at some length and in some substance, on the business about our focus. The minister is quite right to point out to us that we seem only to be looking at this issue from the perspective of the employees rather than the employers. The minister suggests, of course, that this freedom-of-speech clause effectively also gives certain powers to those who would get organized as well as those who would keep them from becoming organized in the workplace.

I want to pick up on that by carrying on from comments made by a couple of my colleagues who spoke yesterday. The one I recall specifically was the anecdotal experience related to us from a former labour organizer: namely, my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), who made the case, I think very effectively.... Again, it's one of those things that people who study industrial relations know full well: the deck, quite simply, is stacked against those who would get organized. It's stacked against them for economic reasons primarily. It's also, however — and this is the point I want to touch on — stacked against them in some other areas that are, for want of a better term, more abstract, more grey, less tangible.

I want to suggest a concept that's borrowed from sociology on the one hand and political science on the other; you know, sometimes we academics have something to contribute to the debate. The concept is called political culture. What a political culture is, in effect, is simply the total value system that guides and animates a given society, that effectively says to a society: "This is what's allowed and this is what's not allowed." Our political culture in North America is essentially small-l liberal, individualistic, democratic. We set up a system, we envisage a system, at the heart of which stands the authentic, free, independent, decision-making individual.

The point about that, though — the other side of that — is that the collectivity, the group within our society, is always coming from the perspective of being suspect just because it is a group, because it represents an interest that is not purely and only individual. What happens as a result, then, is that individuals nurtured in, brought up in, our society, our value system and our "political culture," become conditioned to believe that, as the Frank Sinatra song says, "I did it my way." Everything is focused and based on the rights of the individual, and how much the individual can achieve.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I didn't sing it, take note, members who are smiling at me.

Everybody is conditioned, if I can use that terminology, in our society to believe that all success is the result of only what the individual has done. We don't acknowledge the validity, say, of a class consciousness. We don't have a sociological consciousness in this country, if you like; instead, we have a psychological consciousness. That sounds, I grant you, pretty airy-fairy on the face of it, but let's translate it into some concrete terms — which I think will demonstrate quite clearly to the Chairman, who I can see is anxious to find out about the relevance of this — which will translate very clearly and very directly into the point about Bill 19, section 5, which I am talking about.

What that political culture means, in effect, is that individuals who are asked to embrace a trade union as their identity within a society are asked to embrace something that is already a minoritarian culture, is already suspect. Because we believe in our value system. Given that the individual is at the centre of that system, we believe that, well, if you have to belong to a trade union, you're probably a relative failure. Because, after all, if you were really successful, you'd be self-employed or you'd be a manager. You'd be able to handle yourself in some marvelous kind of rugged, individualist environment. You wouldn't have to combine with others.

That, I like to think, for all of us who pause to reflect on it, is a pretty silly kind of conclusion to derive. I would suggest, however, Mr. Chairman, that that is precisely the culture we live in. Individuals in our society do not have much in the way of force or influence to make them want to embrace the concept of collectivity. Instead, we are taught from day one, and it's reinforced every single day of our lives, that the individual is where it's at.

One case in point: think about the difficulty we had with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country. The reason we had such difficulty with that Charter is because what we did actually acknowledged the validity of something we call group rights. If you want to get a sense of how important that development was — and it caused us considerable anguish and soul-searching, by the way — try this out. Do you think that our counterparts in the United States of America could ever endorse in their constitution or charter something called group rights? The answer is obviously no, they couldn't. They couldn't, because in the United States of America the political culture is completely realized as liberal, individualistic, democratic. There is no place for a collectivity in American political culture.

Happily, in Canada we have a little bit of room for that, and thus we have examples that I think make our society, with all due respect to the Americans, somewhat more civilized, insofar as we are willing to say that there are times when we must do things collectively which we cannot do individually, and that is a legitimate part of our political culture.

The point, though — in case anybody has missed it thus far — is that the culture we live in is alien to things like trade unions. That's why trade unions have got to continually, regularly reconvert their members. That's why trade unions

[ Page 1395 ]

have fought so bitterly and passionately to ensure things like compulsory check off, so that the union dues will be paid without the union having to go and get them.

What has happened in fact is that all trade unionists, even the most knowledgeable and the most labour-literate, have this faint perception that, "Gosh, maybe I'm a failure insofar as I am" — pardon the terminology — "working class." That's the other dimension of the political culture I'm referring to. It is not only that the culture discriminates directly against the collectivity and the group identity within a society, but there is also a class dimension in construct, which I want to touch on, albeit briefly, now.

I shall pause for a drink of water, if I may. Given that I have the minister's undivided attention, I'm sure I can pause for a drink of water.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is like going to college.

MR. LOVICK: The concept of class is, of course, the economic appendage to the group construct I have been discussing thus far. In the nineteenth century, and indeed in the early and formative parts of Canadian trade union history, organized labour tried desperately hard to inculcate among its members a sense of pride in being part of the working class. That has not, however, obtained for a very long time. Indeed, most people who examine the problem say that there is no such thing as class consciousness among organized labour today. They're perhaps right. The important question for our purposes, though, is: why? I suggest that the answer is simply that individuals who are part of a trade union, who discover that because of the reality of economic circumstance they need to combine together and form trade unions, are, in the eyes of so many people within our population, effectively admitting that they have not succeeded as we measure success within our society.

I have gone on now at some length. I want to thank the minister for apparently paying attention and making some effort to understand those comments. Maybe I can pause for at least a moment and ask him if he would like to respond to any of those utterances.

HON. L. HANSON: Well, two very quick things. First of all, I don't subscribe to the fact that anyone who belongs to a union is a failure. I'm sorry that the member feels that way. Secondly, I never said I was horrified at anything disclosed in the bill. I simply said I was surprised at an interpretation of the wording that was produced.

[3:00]

MR. LOVICK: One of the terrible frustrations in trying to talk at a level beyond nuts and bolts or bread and butter is that so often one is misunderstood — whether consciously by the listeners or simply because of an inability to comprehend, I would not presume to say. But to suggest for a moment that I am arguing that to be part of a trade union is to be a failure is simply silly. Quite frankly, that is offensive to me. What I am suggesting, for those who have the capacity to comprehend, is that our culture is such that precisely that point is the unstated message that defines us. For heaven's sake, I am not saying anything new when I say to you that if you ask any group of students from about grade 6 onward, who've begun their process of political socialization — that is, learning the way the game is played, learning what their society is about — what "working class" means, I guarantee you, as sure as God made little apples, that they are going to say "ignorant, uneducated, selfish" and so forth. That's the problem we have in this society

I see somebody opposite shaking his head. Indeed, I can hear it shaking. The point, though, is that whether we want to deny it or not is irrelevant, because it's part and parcel of our socialization. It's part of our culture. It's the way we've been raised. None of us, given the situation in which we have to explain that bias, that prejudice, would for a moment try to defend it. We would all say: "Not me, certainly not me." But for heaven's sake, it's precisely that sense that what our society demands above all else is aspiring onward and upward — if you're a success, you're a manager; if you're not a success, you're a worker. Sorry, friends, but that is indeed the name of our culture, the one that we have all been conditioned to accept. We may deplore the fact, but the fact remains. I hope that will clarify for the minister.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I started to outline my concerns about this section, and was unable to finish, so I'll take the opportunity today.

In dealing with the section, one can have no other opinion than that this section really deals with the rights of employers in relation to their employees. I'll go back again to what someone said earlier — on the basis that the Charter alone guarantees freedom of expression, one wonders about the need to add this new part to labour legislation, which in essence, I presume, just duplicates that, but in practice will have a much greater impact.

I note in reading the minister's response yesterday that he said that the only reason to add it was this: "We wanted to make it very clear what the relationship in communications was with the employee and employer and therefore have created those changes...." Now that relation is clearly spelled out in the following section of the legislation — the employer's right to communicate.

I talked yesterday about the difficulty that working people have in forming unions, and how easily that process can be undermined, quite often in ways that are extremely subtle, not on the face of it intimidation or coercion or, I suppose, by some stretch, even undue influence. Nonetheless that situation does exist. I used an analogy of an operation in my constituency where through the hiring practices that the employer used, it was virtually guaranteed that the employees would not have the opportunity to join together and form a trade union. One other example that I think is worth quoting is the very long struggle that bank employees engaged in in their attempts to unionize the workers in the banking industry.

I suppose in some sense when we get in this chamber it's easy to dismiss the personal tragedy that many people have happen to them as a result of a simple thing, a thing that at least in legislation we pay lip-service to: that is, the right to belong to a union. We tend not to acquaint ourselves or be familiar with the real personal tragedies that have resulted from people trying to achieve that result. I know that in trying to organize the workers in the banking industry, there were people who lost their jobs. Despite legislation that says there's lots of protection and that everybody has freedom of expression, people lost their jobs, and employers were able to justify that, and they were able to justify it on some other basis, as they quite often are. So why the minister feels that there has to be this extra edge given to employers — these disadvantaged employers — really escapes me.

[ Page 1396 ]

You talk about the phrase "freedom of expression." Certainly you can't deal with that term in isolation. On the face of it, it simply means that we all as individuals in this society have the right to stand up and to say what we think, and to do what we think, within the confines that what we do and say does not have a material harm to someone else. We can't stand up and slander somebody, except here. We can't preach hate. But we tend to think of that freedom of expression as applying to individuals, and we disregard the weighted advantage that some individuals have in this society, and that corporations, companies, groups or organizations may have in relation to an individual.

We look at the legislation that exists now about the rights of employers to impart their views to employees, and we look at the section dealing with — and I'm relating this to the section, Mr. Chairman — unions' rights in terms of trying to organize workers, and we see that unions are not able to go to the workplace: there's a bar; there's a gate; there's a barrier. If you want to organize and you're a union person, you can't go to that employer's workplace. You can't contact people where it's most easy. There are barriers in the way. There are no barriers in the way of employers. Many people are captive in the workplace, in terms of the employer's ability to talk to them.

I've had grievances that I fought years ago.... Sometimes you'd get bosses who weren't trained too well; rather than try to solve the problem on the shop floor, they somehow thought that they had to exercise their rights as managers in a kind of bureaucratic way. On one occasion I said: "Look, we have a serious problem on the floor. Let's you and I sit down and talk about it." "If you want to talk to me, " he said, "you come to me after hours." "Well, that's fine; I can do that" — and I did it. But the guy didn't last long, because he didn't realize that it was far more important to deal with the issue at the time, and to develop a kind of relationship between me, the shop steward, and him, the foreman, and solve these problems, rather than go on to deal with them at arbitration or somewhere.

Employers have those rights to be obstreperous, to have instant access in terms of their communication. If you're an employee in a factory, or wherever the heck you are, and the boss says, "Come into my office; I want to see you, " you don't say: "I'm sorry, this is working hours. I'm not going to do it. I'll talk to you after work." You say: "Yes, I'll be right there." Or the employer can say: "That person disobeyed an order. I'm going to fire him." Maybe the minister thinks I'm using a bit of hyperbole. I don't think I am. I've seen lots of situations in my working life that I thought were completely unjust. It became clear to me as a relatively young man that in terms of the rights, if you like, of working people in relation to the boss, the boss had a heck of a lot more. What we had for our protection was labour legislation. Quite frankly, it wasn't until 1973 that the document came along that really allowed what I was talking about to take place: that is, the resolution of disputes on a kind of equal basis.

We talk about freedom of expression. We can't view that in isolation. We have to talk about it with the knowledge that some people have far more influence in this world than others. It's a bit of a con job. I think we might see this later on in this legislation. We've seen it and heard it in debate about this bill being about guaranteeing democracy in the workplace, somehow suggesting that there is no democracy, that somehow working people are not allowed to exercise any kind of freedom of expression in the activities of their trade union. I can certainly tell you, as a person who has done every job in a trade union from shop steward right up to president, that that's certainly not the case. The people who are on the receiving end of that freedom of expression, quite frankly, are often the union officials — and sometimes it's not very pleasant, but that goes with the territory.

I1 don't understand this need to insert clause (3) under section 2. It has no particular meaning. I've heard no justification. The rights of parties are clearly spelled out in following clauses in the legislation. It fails to acknowledge that there's a weight of advantage that some parties have. It's almost a symptom that runs through this legislation, that seems to run through the government's thinking, that somehow employers need to be protected, and we're really dealing with big labour. I think they ignore the fact that in many instances labour is not big labour; labour is simply men and women deciding to join together to try to improve their conditions, whether it's conditions on the job, wage levels or their benefits package — that's all it is, purely and simply.

Labour fought many, many battles — and not on their own; there were lots of politicians throughout the years who stood up and championed those rights as well. We see an attempt here to undermine, to reduce, to take away — and I mean that. Unfortunately, the result of that is that people in the labour community, those working men and women I talk about, draw an inference that this government somehow has a bias against them. I say that not as a political statement; I say that as an accurate reflection of the things that are passed on to me when I'm in my constituency, and in other places. Not five minutes ago an individual I was talking to, who felt aggrieved by some other process, said: "You know, we're losing rights, and now they want to take more rights away under Bill 19." The minister purports to give rights under section 5, but quite frankly I have not heard a rational argument from anybody on that side that can justify the inclusion of section 5 in the amended bill.

I'm going to cede my place at this moment, but I'm feeling quite strongly about the inclusion of this clause in the legislation, and I intend to comment further on it. If the minister wishes to respond I would be happy to hear.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that the Minister of Labour is not going to be responding to the fine words uttered by my good friend from Prince Rupert.

I want to raise a couple of issues as we deal with section 5 in particular. Perhaps the best way to start out is by reflecting on my days at law school. In my second or third year at the University of Victoria, I chose to take the labour law course, and the guest professor that year was Innis Christie. Dr. Christie had served for quite some time as the chairperson of the Labour Relations Board in Nova Scotia. At the same time he had served as a professor of law at Dalhousie University and had chosen to take a sabbatical leave to teach at the University of Victoria. When we got to this area of labour law, this whole matter of.... And it is a contentious issue; I don't think there's any debate about that: to what extent ought an employer to have the opportunity to influence the decisions of employees as to whether or not they wish to certify or seek certification and form a trade union.

[2:45]

The issue is clear; it is one of whether or not the employer properly has a role. The philosophical debate on that, which is captured largely by this section, is, as I'm sure the Minister of Labour would agree, a philosophical debate that has taken

[ Page 1397 ]

place over and over again in chambers like this one elsewhere in this country, let alone in the United States. I think it is fair to say that the approach we've taken in Canada is one that is quite distinct, and I'll tie this back into what Prof. Christie had to say when we were at law school. The process in Canada, and the end result of those debates in Canada, has been quite distinct from the end debate in the United States. In the United States, there has been in general terms an acceptance of the principle, if you want to call it that — or certainly an embracing of the philosophical point of view — that the employer ought to have some say in this process of certification. That is based largely, as I understand it and recollect it, on the concepts of fairness and due process that the Americans have come to play with.

That has been the philosophical embrace south of the 49th parallel. North of the 49th parallel, the embrace has been totally different, in that it has been recognized that employees ought to have the sole right to determine whether or not they wish to engage in forming a trade union. That has shifted, much as all these debates do, and the pendulum has swung back and forth. But if one were to analyze labour law history in this country and look at legislation, I think it would be fair to say that the gist of it in Canada is that employers ought not to be a part of the certification process, that there's an immunity there. Employees are shielded, and they decide among themselves which way they want to go. In labour legislation in this country we have seen different ways of applying that principle, and clearly there is a way in which that principle is applied in the existing — if I can call it that — Labour Code. That's one example.

To emphasize the extent to which this legislation represents a radical departure from the traditions and heritage that we've embodied in Canada in dealing with our labour legislation, a cogent example is a Nova Scotia situation. It comes back to Prof. Christie, who was, as I said, the professor of labour law. During his tenure as chairperson of the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board, not only did they embrace the view that the employer ought not to have any say — this immunity that exists with employees — but in that labour legislation during the seventies they went so far as to say that once the union is of the view that it has majority support of the employees at any site, it then goes to the Labour Relations Board and requests that there be a certification vote. That vote has to be taken within five days. What they found, with respect to section 5....

We're on 5, right? Section 5 as amended — that's what I'm talking about. If the good member for Vancouver South is lost in reading on to section 6 and dreaming that we might get there sometime this afternoon, maybe I could put this in the context of why I am dealing with it in the way that I am, is because I think this is a pivotal section. In my view, it represents a change in philosophy that's very fundamental.

Going back to the point with respect to section 5, in Nova Scotia it was deemed under their legislation that that certification vote had to happen within five days. I haven't seen it the latest figures on it — it's been some time since I left law school — but the experience was that 80 percent of the certification votes were passing. The reason for putting that five-day rule in was to minimize the input that an employer could have on employees deciding whether or not they wished to engage in collective bargaining and form a trade union. They found by putting in this five-day provision — there was a high number of certification votes — that it limited the potential, because it became apparent, once the application was made to the board under their system, that there was a union at play, and it made it very difficult for the employer to begin to interfere with the process.

That was the extent to which the Nova Scotia legislation had embraced the philosophical point that has become, in my view, the very fabric of the Canadian tradition on these types of matters. In Nova Scotia they decided that not only did they philosophically agree with the fact that employers ought not to have any significant input, but they tried to achieve that philosophical end through this five-day provision in the legislation.

There are a lot of other things I want to talk about with respect to section 5, but I want to pause here and ask the minister whether or not, during the course of his deliberations and considerations with respect to section 5, and particularly subsection (3) thereof, they considered the Nova Scotia experience that I've outlined; and if so, why was it rejected?

HON. L. HANSON: Without wasting a lot of time, no, it wasn't considered.

MR. SIHOTA: Then let me go back and ask perhaps a more fundamental question. Does the minister agree with the philosophical attitude embraced by that provision in Nova Scotia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister can answer that if he wishes, but I really find it hard to relate that directly to what we're dealing with here.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty in responding to that. I subscribe to the philosophy of freedom of speech, so that people are properly educated and can make a value decision as to the future of their life, whether they wish to be organized or not. In section 5 that's what we're ensuring, and we're also protecting undue influence on he part of the employer, the union or anyone else to intimidate or coerce the individuals to make up their minds in a particular direction.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, first of all I apologize if I'm straying, but I don't think I was. I think I was clearly within the four comers of section 5, because the question was designed to ask about the freedom-of-expression provision, as it's labelled, within this section.

Let's take it now a step further, and I won't fire a question at the minister for a few minutes, because I want to lay out again what my thinking is on the matter. I think it then again invites another question to the Minister of Labour.

The Minister of Labour says, in response to the question hat I just fired over there, that he wants the employees to make an informed decision. I can't see how anybody on this side of the House could argue against people making an informed decision. In fact, we like to think that if they made an informed decision in October there would have been a different outcome on the 22nd. So we're all in favour, as citizens of this great province, in terms of having informed decisions. We'd like to have all the facts before the people who are making the decision. But the central question here is what that decision is that is being made by the employees? If I can answer that question, the decision that's being made by the employees in these circumstances is a decision to unionize or not to unionize.

[ Page 1398 ]

During the course of their decision, what kinds of questions will they reasonably be asking themselves during the course of coming to a decision, so they can inform themselves as to whether they should unionize or not? Let me suggest to the minister that there are a set of questions that I think they should be informed about, and which I'd like to think we could all agree would be questions that they would want to reasonably be informed about.

They would want, in my view, to be reasonably informed about who makes up this trade union that they're thinking of joining. What is its constitution? What are its bylaws? How does it operate? How do they interact with that trade union or with that constitution and those bylaws?

Clearly, they should be informed about that aspect of it. There's no two ways about it. But who's to inform them about it? The employer? What right should the employer have to inform — to use the minister's words — employees? Remember, we're talking in the context of freedom of speech. We'll get to freedom of speech a little bit later on. But what has that got to do with the employer? What special knowledge does the employer have about the constitution, bylaws and the structure of the trade union?

My submission is that the employer has no knowledge of the constitution, bylaws and so on of the trade union. That is obviously a question that one can conceive that employees will reasonably ask themselves, but one cannot reasonably say that it's the employer who will provide them with the answer to that question so they can make the informed choice. The people who are going to be able to provide them with the information to be able to make that informed decision are going to be the employees themselves, who go to the union and secure the information necessary to make that informed choice.

So it seems to me that that's one reasonable question that you would expect employees to ask. I don't quite see how it is, or why it is, or how it could possibly be that the employer would be in a better position than the employees to tell them about the structure, the constitution and bylaws of a trade union. In my mind, that reinforces the argument that you keep the employer out. But that's only one question.

[3:30]

The member who spoke before me talked about big labour unions versus small labour unions. Once again it would seem to me that if we're dealing with a case of big labour unions, the employees who are considering joining a trade union are going to want to know that they're going to have a say in that large trade union. They're going to want to know how they would fit into, let's say, the BCGEU, or any other large union. They're going to want to know how their autonomy is going to be affected. They're going to be worried about whether or not they're just going to become a lost entity in a larger entity that's being controlled by some leaders that they don't have any access to. They're going to be concerned about that.

In order to evaporate that concern, they're going to have to go to somebody to evaporate it. Can it be reasonably said that it's the employer who's going to be able to evaporate that concern? 1 say no, it can't be reasonably said that it's the employer who has the ability, the understanding or the means to be able to inform them on this sense of belonging within a trade union.

Again, we're talking about freedom of expression. I'm reacting to what the minister had to say, and I know he said it yesterday as well in response to another question about an informed choice. Well, the way they're going to find out is that they have to get the information themselves, not from the employer but from the group that is trying to persuade them to join or become a part of that union. Therefore it seems to me that it cannot reasonably be said, Mr. Chairman, that the employer has that special knowledge. Somebody else does, and therefore it cannot reasonably be said that the freedom of expression provision ought to sit in this legislation.

Another question: it's obviously going to be in the minds of employees, when they're considering whether to unionize or not.... It's going to be, I think, a question that will always come up: whether or not, or how much, they are going to have to pay in terms of union dues. What's the quantum of the fee that's going to be deducted from their paycheque? That's obviously a concern. Now again, if I haven't driven the point home yet, the question to be asked is: is it the employer who has the special knowledge and the ability to answer those questions? Of course not. It is again for the employees to secure that information from the group that they want to join, or that wants them to join up. That's where they're going to go for that information in order to make the informed decision that the minister talks about.

Now I've tried to raise at least three examples, and as I stand here on my feet a number of them go gushing through my head, in terms of other ones that I could lay out. But I'm sure the minister doesn't want me to gush on and talk on and on on the point. I think the point has been made that when you begin to look at the psychology of deciding whether or not you want to become members of a trade union, and if you agree — which I say I do — with the philosophy that the minister has articulated with respect to making an informed choice, then it does not stand to reason that the employer ought to have any say in making that informed choice, because the employer does not have at his or her disposal the very information that employees are going to need to be able to make that choice. That's where the flaw is in terms of the minister's thinking on that point.

I see the minister has another telegram of support, I would imagine.

I'm not so naive as to think that obviously one of the other thoughts that's going to come across the minds of employees, particularly in the case of a small shop, is not going to be: "Well, what is the employer going to think about us unionizing?" Now that's obviously a thought, and I want to deal with that thought. It seems to me that the presence of that thought may in itself have resulted in the incorporation of this section into the legislation when it talks about freedom of speech. When you think about that for a moment, the question is: what is the employer going to think? But that in itself raises another question in my mind: what should it matter what the employer thinks? Because the employees are making a decision among themselves, trying to determine in their own minds how it is that they want to deal with their employer.

I understand what the motivation is in part to put this section in, but the decision that the employees are making is about how it is that they want to represent themselves in dealing with the employer. It is not a question, as I think members on the opposite side like to phrase it, of what the employees are thinking in terms of ways in which they can sabotage the employer, if you catch the difference. It's not a question of sabotaging or undermining or threatening the employer; it's a question of deciding how it is that they want to sit down and talk to the employer about things that every

[ Page 1399 ]

employer knows employees want to talk about — wages and benefits and so on, working conditions.

In my own experience.... And I want the minister to know in the context of this debate that not only have I belonged to trade unions, but I've also run my own business. I've also run my own law practice, and I have an understanding, of course, of what it means to run a business. I would submit that running the law practice, particularly a small one like I run, is also a business in the real sense of the word. I know what the considerations are in terms of overhead, administration, staff, making a buck at the end of the day, and getting a good or decent return on your investment. I understand all that stuff. It's not as if the people on this side of the House are totally immune to that kind of thinking; we understand that. But at the end of the day my employees, whether in the context of my law practice — no matter which business I was involved in — are going to ask me about a wage increase this year, about having Mondays and Fridays off, or Mondays and Fridays off during the summer on a rotational basis. Or they're going to ask me about an increase in holidays. They're going to tell me they're working too hard, and all that kind of nice stuff. It's within my right as an employer to talk to them about those issues, but it is not within my right, I would submit, to determine how it is that they arrive at the decision to determine which issues to put on the agenda, how they want to represent themselves and how they want to make their submissions to me.

I don't think it's a question of sabotage; I think it's a question of deciding how it is that they want to represent themselves. Therefore I'm sure that if my employees wanted to unionize, one of the things — like I say, I'm not so naive as to think this wouldn't be a question — they may want to ask themselves is: "What's the employer going to think?" But when you begin to think about that, it's really none of the employer's business how it is that they, the employees, come to talk to you about things that are your business — you know, the various working conditions that are freely negotiated under a collective agreement. That's the other question. As I said, a number of them would gush through my head. But when you begin to analyze it, not only in the context of that last question but, more importantly, in the context of the minister's reply to my original question, it becomes evident that it is impossible for the employer to provide the very information that employees need to make an informed decision about forming a trade union.

Maybe I'll pause at this stage because there are other things I want to get into, but I would hope that the minister will now see the flaw in that thinking. I would like to know if the minister has a response and if he thinks there's a flaw in the argument that I'm making.

MR. ROSE: I was intrigued by the line of questioning embarked upon by my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew and points north, and I was hoping the minister would get up and respond. I was waiting with bated breath to hear the minister. But if the minister hasn't got sufficient information from the member to respond adequately, perhaps the member might flesh out his question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, it would seem to the Chair that the question has been fairly well fleshed out. I would like to point out that I listen very carefully to everything that is said, and about 30 percent of what has been said up to this point has been very relevant, and the rest of it I've had some difficulty with. We've been on this section for quite some time; it has been very well canvassed. But seeing that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has more to say, we'll recognize him.

MR. SIHOTA: I do apologize, Mr. Chairman. I've really tried, as I understand the rules, to restrict my comments. Section 5 talks about freedom of expression, and I've tried to restrict my comments to what the minister had to say in response to my earlier question. If I've deviated by 70 percent, I apologize. And I'm sorry to see that we're not getting into that kind of debate in this chamber. Like I said, I think it's becoming evident that one of the reasons so many of us on this side of this House are talking about this section is because it is a pivotal section in the legislation. It really does represent a different form of thinking and a radical departure from the philosophy that we've embraced in this country in the past.

Having said that, I want to move on to something else which I hope will in itself generate a response from the minister. Again, it's headed towards another question which hopefully this time will result in a reply.

The section here talks about freedom of expression. I want to talk a little bit about freedom of expression. I'm not going to deviate into a huge Charter of Rights dialogue in terms of what freedom of expression means, and provide a lecture on that, because that's clearly not my intent. But I want to make one very quick comment about that, and the quick comment is this: in my opinion, those words are very cleverly used within the context of this section, because — the minister would agree with me, I am sure — there are indeed restrictions upon freedom of expression as we know it. There is always a tension between freedom of expression in the real sense of the word and freedom of expression in a practical sense. We have always had in this country a recognition of that and we've had laws, both common law and statute, that have placed restrictions on freedom of expression. I don't want to be facetious, but I think we have also seen this to some extent since this session started in the context of events that have taken place outside on the steps of the Legislature.

But let's go on from that. There are always tensions between freedoms and rights within a given society. Freedom of association is another attribute that is a component within our Charter, and it can be another clever way of developing language in the act. I think that it is well recognized that in this society we have the freedom to associate. We have the freedom to associate with political parties, with organizations, with trade unions. I don't want to get into the nuances of a recent Supreme Court of Canada case, because I think there are a lot of interpretations on that case and there is a lot of intrigue in terms of the three-three-one vote on that — because someone will argue that it was a split decision, that there was no decision, and others will argue that it was a decision against freedom of association.

[3:45]

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Before I talk in length on the matter of freedom of association, I think the minister would recognize that freedom of association does exist in this country. We have allowed it to become a part of our institutions. We have allowed it to become a part of the Charter. If freedom of association — and I don't think I am wrong in this assumption — can be

[ Page 1400 ]

interpreted to allow people the freedom to engage in trade unions, the question that arises is: to what extent can that freedom of association be restricted by freedom of expression, particularly expression along these lines? My opening question then to the minister is: in drafting this section, did the minister consider or seek the opinion of counsel, either internally or through the Attorney-General's department, to see what the interplay is between this section and what we've talked about, freedom of expression and freedom of association?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, we did seek legal advice, and their interpretation is that it does answer the concern that we were raising in our original intention. I think that it was mentioned earlier by the opposition members that the rights of freedom of speech and association and so on are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I suppose that if they do subscribe to that as being a reasonable and just cause, then there is certainly no harm in stating it again in our labour legislation, because that certainly is all that we are doing. As long as there are reasonable controls that it is not used in a discriminatory or an unduly influential manner, it should be allowed. We feel that is fair and just in our society.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, Mr. Chairman, let's talk a little bit about the minister's response to that question. In itself, it raises a whole new set of issues in my mind.

The minister acknowledges that within the context of this legislation — and we are dealing with the section as amended now — there has been placed the phrase "undue influence." Tagged along with those words in section 2(3) — which is section 5 of this legislation, which is where I get confused from time to time — is the notion that although the employers are free to express their views, they are not to exercise "undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats." It seems to me that in injecting those words into the legislation, there is an acknowledgement on the part of the minister that the employer can play and, indeed, does play a role in the certification process which can be interpreted as persuading employees not to engage in trade unions. I take it that those words are the limitations on this freedom to express.

But it strikes me that the minister has come to the conclusion that there are some things that employers can express to employees and other things that they ought not to express to employees. My question to the minister is this: can he, for the sake of my better understanding of this section, provide me — and I'm not asking for an exhaustive list — with his thoughts on what kinds of things he thinks the employer ought to be allowed to express to employees? I want to make it clear that I'm not asking the minister to define what he means by "intimidation," "undue influence," "coercion" or "threats." I'm not asking for a definition of those, and for the purposes of this debate I'll accept the fact that those matters can be defined by a labour relations board. So I won't focus in on that; that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what things it is that the minister, in putting this section in, thinks are appropriate for an employer to express to employees.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I didn't really intend to speak a great deal on this particular section. While I was tempted by the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who gave us one of the most arrogant displays I've ever heard in the House, I'll let that one go by.

But this one is kind of interesting because, as I recall, the minister told us that the words "undue influence" were added at the request of the trade union movement. I want to add to the question from my hon. friend across the floor. In addition to answering his question, would the minister kindly tell us if, in fact, those words "undue influence" were added at the request of the trade union movement?

HON. L. HANSON: It's certainly an interesting discussion, Mr. Chairman, but as the former Chairman who was in your spot commented, I have some difficulty relating some of the discussion to section 5. Be that as it may, I think that the member opposite is.... I would like to point out to him that freedom of speech and expression is not limited to employers. We're suggesting that everyone — the union organizers, the employees, the employers — should all act in a manner that does not use undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats. I think that the insinuation by members opposite that the whole section simply gives employers the opportunity to speak their piece is in error. I might add that the question of undue influence — which to me is really immaterial, because I think it's a reasonable addition or amendment to the Code — did come from organized labour.

MRS. BOONE: My comments are a little more basic, and deal with some of the things I can see happening with regard to the influence that an employer can have, with implied influence the effect that an employer has on his employees without actually saying or doing anything intimidating. Sometimes it's not what is said, but how it is said. For example, if an employer discovered that his employees were organizing, were seeking talks with unions, just a comment such as, "I understand you're talking to unions," can carry an implied threat to many people and can have a profound effect on many people. When you're talking about some of the sectors that haven't been unionized, or about some of the traditional women's positions, which are usually in lower paid areas and frequently in areas that do not have a lot of influence, sometimes just having an employer speak to employees can have an influence on them. I guess my question to the minister is: does the minister not agree that intimidation can be achieved without actually saying anything intimidating?

HON. L. HANSON: Well, certainly, I agree with the member opposite, and that's why we've put those words in. But again, I think it's a very narrow outlook on the clause, in that we're protecting the freedom of speech to everyone. The same can be said in organizational drives. There were many accusations that there was undue influence used by some of the people trying to organize. I'm not suggesting any of that was true; I'm just simply saying that the clause applies to everyone, that they should act in a fair and reasonable manner. I think that any one of us can be subject to unfair threatening gestures, or whatever, in our normal life; but there's recourse for that. That's why we have the freedom of speech in the bill. That's also why we have a dispute-resolution mechanism. If there are accusations brought up that are contrary to the words in the act, then there is a method of resolving them.

MRS. BOONE: I don't think any of us wants to see any kind of intimidation or threats used. But in the past the employers haven't been able to speak to their employees.

[ Page 1401 ]

They weren't able to use any such things, or even acknowledge; therefore there wasn't any implied threat; it wasn't possible. What rights does an employer have to influence a decision of his or her employees to organize themselves in a way in which they can best defend themselves, or present themselves, or whatever? What right does an employer have to influence in any manner — and you're saying "undue influence" — that decision of the employee to organize? All they are doing is organizing.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the conversation from the other side of the floor, I keep getting the idea that everyone on the opposition bench thinks that everyone on the government side of the House is against union organizations. I can assure you that that is not so. I could also assure you that there are lots of employers who like the collective bargaining process, who want the collective bargaining process; yes, like one of my colleagues for Dewdney. In fact, my own company had a trade union which worked very well. So the negative approach that you speak of is defeating the purpose of the legislation, which is to give people an opportunity to converse with each other freely and fairly, so that they can collectively — the employee or the employee — solve the problems of the day, like keeping that business going and their incomes going. That's what it's all about.

It would seem to me perfectly logical that employer and employee would talk. It would be unrealistic to separate them so they could not talk. Here we have some legislation which simply says: yes, you may talk to each other, but you can't be unfair — either side. It's either side we're talking about here: he can't be unfair. That's what it does. That's very simple. I suspect that every logical person would like that.

MRS. BOONE: I honestly don't. I find it very hard to understand that the member for Vancouver believes that an employer can give information to his employees regarding organization. What information could an employer impart — an employer that is not up till then organized? What pertinent information would he or she have that could influence their decision, other than a threat as to, say, their keeping their business going, or their job functions. Those are the very things that I think will probably happen when an employer decides that his employees are organizing. I can see them coming in and saying things around possibly closing down their store, or possibly closing down their business, or having to reduce their staff if it becomes unionized — using all kinds of implied threats there, which, although you say they're not allowed to do, they can be taking place in ways that are not very overt but are actually taking place there. The employer has no place in the decisions of the employees as to what kind of bargaining unit they have. The employee is the group that decides how it organizes itself; and that is the only people that should be making a decision with regard to how it's organized.

[4:00]

HON. L. HANSON: It's sort of interesting to listen to this conversation, because I think I heard a member opposite ask earlier why we were putting this in when it's there already and they had the ability to do that. Now I hear another member get up and say that they could never do this before. Obviously, if there's any confusion....

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON: No, no. I think it was the lady right there.

Anyway, it's obvious that there's some confusion.

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON: Read the Blues tomorrow, instead of arguing about it today.

It's obvious that there's some confusion in the minds of the members opposite about whether the ability is there or not. What we're saying is that the ability is there. It's effective to both sides, but you can't use intimidation or coercion, whether you're trying to convince an employee to belong to a union or not to belong to a union. But that freedom of speech to empower the individual to make an informed decision is paramount and should be there.

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: I really like living in this city, so if we can keep it through the summer, I could be here all summer.

Actually, I think I would like to suggest that this addition of words which we went along with would be quite useful, because it would, as was said a minute ago, prevent an employer from coercing his employees into joining a union, and I know that's been done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. R. FRASER: It has been done.

So it's very important that the influence either way be avoided. That's how fair this legislation is, and that's what you want to talk about. You always come at it from the wrong end. It's astonishing how bad it is.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, since the Minister of Labour is out of the roomv....

HON. MR. REID: He's listening.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I wish he would listen. The minister opposite, who is not even in his seat, is now telling me that the Minister of Labour is listening. Well, he should have listened months ago, when he went on his great tour of the province. Was he listening then? To keep within the context of this section, who asked for this section? How many of those people who appeared before those panels said: "Yes, we want the freedom to express. We want to be able to talk to our own employees"? Well, of course you can talk to your employees right now. You know, there's no law on the books that says you can't talk to your employees. There's just a law on the books that says that you don't talk to them or you don't intimidate them; you don't talk to them when they're deciding among themselves how they want to talk to you, that's all. Where was the minister when people were talking to him about withdrawing this legislation, and not coming forward with section 5?

Where was the listening? The minister opposite said it was 24 hours a day. Well, if he was listening, we would have seen something more than 48 or 49 amendments, or how many other flaws it was that they found in this corpse of a legislation. Instead, what we got was something that doesn't

[ Page 1402 ]

amount to freedom of expression, or freedom to make people have an informed decision; it amounts to freedom of intimidation. That's what I want to tell the minister over there. This amounts to freedom of intimidation, and the minister knows that.

The minister should also know.... And I'd like to know whether or not he was one of those sacred employers that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) was just talking about a few minutes ago. The Minister of Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) over there — did he go to his employees and ask them to unionize as well? Did he say: "Yep, I want you to unionize, and I'm using my freedom of expression to tell you that I want you to unionize right now. Please unionize. In the name of free enterprise, will you begin to engage in free collective bargaining?" I think it's ludicrous to expect that any employer, with the exception, of course, of the Minister of Culture and the member for Vancouver South, would go to his or her employees and say: "Yes, I want you to unionize." I find it difficult to believe that there is a galaxy of employers out there who are going to their employees, running right away, the moment they set up their shops, and saying: "I want you to unionize."

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, there is a reason for that. The reason for that is that the employer wants...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members, please....

MR. SIHOTA: ...to deal with his or her employees....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. First of all, hon. member, I think if you would address your comments to the Chair, and the other members would refrain from this type of discussion, we'd get along somewhat quicker.

MR. SIHOTA: My apologies, Mr. Chairman, but I was getting the other side excited a bit, and I will address my comments through the Chair.

I think it was the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) who was raising the issue of: "Well, why do you think that's the case?" Well, the reason for that, I think the Minister of Social Services and Housing would agree.... I didn't see him going down to his radio station asking people to go in and unionize. If I'm wrong in saying that he's the operator of a radio station, I apologize; I'm operating from memory here.

But the point is that I'm sure he didn't go running to his employees, because he would prefer to deal with his employees on a one-to-one basis, and to do whatever he would prefer to do with each one of the employees, instead of with the employees on a collective basis. Because there is strength in collectivity, and there is not necessarily strength in terms of individual bargaining. There is a democratic process in terms of employees deciding what they want together, one and the other, and then carving out the agenda that they want to take to the employer, rather than each employee coming up separately and, with the employer, sort of deciding to grant favour and advantage to some over the others. Those are the reasons, and I would like to think — and I'm sure the Minister of Social Services and Housing will assure me of this — that he doesn't have an anti-union bias either.

Let's get back to the debate we were engaged in before all of this talk started to happen across the floor. I'm glad to see that the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) wants to see us get back to this debate, and I look forward to his comments on section 5, as we proceed with the debate this afternoon. Let's get back to the point I was trying to make earlier on, before the member for Prince George spoke. The minister is now arguing in this House that it's not a case of employers; it's a case of people — persons — having the right under the legislation to express their opinions, and that our attack, if you want to call it that, is a misguided missile, a loose cannon, or whatever you want to call it, when it comes down to our comments on section 5. The fact remains that the minister must understand that the definition of the word "persons" includes employers, and it's within that context that I'm raising my points. Of course, the word "person" can incorporate a lot of other entities, and it can incorporate trade unions. I take it that the minister's argument is that he wants to make sure that trade unions cannot use intimidation, coercion or undue influence in expressing their point of view; that there are other people who may be interested in what's going on in the workplace; and as I understand it, he wants to place those same restrictions on their freedom of expression as well.

But what the minister loses sight of is that the one person who clearly can use this section to his or her benefit the most is an employer. That's why we are dealing with employers, the potential abuse and the radical departure from the philosophy we've previously had in this country. It's for those reasons that we're beginning to use the employer as the example. I think it highlights the potential abuse in the section.

So I want to pose this question again to the minister, with the understanding that the word there is "persons" and that it applies to a whole spectrum of entities, things and beings — if I can use the provisions of the Interpretation Act, where it deals with the definition of "person": what kinds of communication does the minister think it proper under this section for an employer to make? Again, I'm not asking for a definition of "undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats." But within the context of the certification process, what kinds of comments does he think this section ought to allow the employer to make?

HON. L. HANSON: To the hon. member, I think that he realizes as well as I do that later on in the act we will be dealing with some other sections.... If I can refer to the old act, the Labour Relations Board would determine that in the course of their receiving evidence in making decisions that are relevant to the wording of the act. For me to hypothesize about what wording or situation would be contrary to the act.... That's why we have a Labour Relations Board, as we know it now — soon to be replaced by another board. I think that's a matter of adjudication, and it will be determined as each case is presented to them.

MR. SIHOTA: You know, that argument can be made for every piece of legislation — that it's not up to the minister to decide or to explain what a section means; that in the long run, whether it's a specialized board or tribunal like the Labour Relations Board or the courts, who also interpret

[ Page 1403 ]

legislation, it's up to them to decide. You can always duck the question on that basis.

I'm just pausing here, Mr. Chairman, largely because I see that the minister is engaged in a conversation with the Minister of Education, who just went through this process on Bill 20. I'm not too sure if he's giving him tips on.... The Minister of Education almost drove me out of the House on Bill 20 when he said that he didn't want to listen to lawyers anymore.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you better prepared now?

MR. SIHOTA: I'm far better prepared on Bill 19, Mr. Minister, than I was on Bill 20, and I can also tell the Minister of Education that even the Minister of Labour has said that he finds this discussion interesting. So we'll continue with it.

The question I ask the minister is this: is he the one who drafted this legislation? He's the one responsible for this legislation. Therefore he must have had some thoughts as to what those words meant and what that section would involve. I'm asking the minister within that context. I understand that there's a role to be played by the Labour Relations Board and the courts and all those types of entities when dealing with it, but at the end of the day the author of this legislation is the minister, and I'm asking the minister for clarification. Why did he put those words in there? What's his understanding of those words? What's his understanding of what it is that employers ought to be allowed to say? What is the intent that the minister saw when he drafted this section?

[4:15]

HON. L. HANSON: It's sort of interesting to hear this debate go on with them wishing me to deal with hypothetical cases. I think that what I've said earlier as to the philosophy of the section is still the reason for the section. We want to ensure that those employees who are making a decision — and now we're only dealing with the very narrow confines of certification.... This, by the way, applies to certification, decertification; it applies to all of the votes that the employee may make relating to his working conditions in the workplace. What we're saying, quite simply, is that the employee should be entitled to the best information that it's possible to provide him so he can make an educated decision with all the information that is reasonable on whatever the issue is. We're simply saying that no one should use, including the union, including the employers.... Within reason, not using undue influence, not using intimidation, not using coercion or threats, they should make the employee aware of their thoughts on the issue.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, let's bring this back within the context of my comments about an hour ago, which were as follows: let's talk about this within the context of a certification process; let's talk about this within the context of employees wanting to make a decision in terms of deciding whether or not they want to form a trade union. I tried to lay out to the minister at least three and possibly four examples of issues that one would reasonably expect to come up in the employees' minds during the course of a decision to certify or not to certify. Will the minister, within that context, tell me what it is that he sees as special information that the employer would have at his or her disposal which would somehow help these employees make an informed decision about a trade union?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that the member over there wants me to come up and say: "Thou shalt not." All we're saying — and we're saying it again and I've said it so many times — is that it's simply freedom of choice. The individual should have the ability to get all of the information that gives him the ability to make the best possible and most wise decision that he can on the issue.

If it's relating to certification, if the employer is not communicating information that uses undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats, what is the difference if it is not of any value to the employee? It doesn't do any harm if he doesn't do anything like that, and I think that there are many instances that it could. I'm not going to be drawn into the situation where I suggest that this is the right wording or that is the right wording or this is what he can tell. I'm sure that there's information which the employee should have that goes with an employee-employer relationship that doesn't relate to intimidation, coercion, threats and using undue influence.

I have great difficulty in understanding the opposition's great concern with the ability of the employee to get that information.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps, Mr. Minister, since we've been accused of going at this from the wrong end, we'll try it from a different end. Let me rephrase that question. I think it's a good question and it strikes at the heart of why this amendment is being brought down, why it's put in. The minister says that it's not up to me to interpret. Could I ask the minister, then, what information he feels employees weren't getting that caused him to bring this amendment in? What situations occurred and what information was not being passed on to these employees so that they could make a logical determination as to whether or not they wanted to form a trade union? Surely it's central to the amendment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd just like to make a couple of remarks, since the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) brought my name into it and referred to the business that I used to manage. I would suggest that it's not the minister who's coming at this from the wrong end; rather it's the two members who have just spoken from the opposite side. I don't know the backgrounds of their previous employments as well as they know mine, it seems, but maybe they assume wrongly that it's only the management or the owner who wants to talk to the employees. Such is not the case. I know from firsthand knowledge that very often the employees want to go and talk to management to make an informed decision.

This happened in the business that I used to run; and you're quite right, Mr. Member, I used to run a radio station in Kamloops. My competitor became unionized during the time that I was running the station. There's nothing wrong with that; there are a lot of fine radio stations across this country that are unionized, and there are a lot of fine stations that are not. But the point is that when that happened to my competitor, my employees, with whom I had a good working relationship, came to me and wanted to talk about this, because it was a phenomenon, and it was big news in our town, in a two-station market, when one had become unionized and the other was not. It was big news and they wanted to talk about it. We had a good working relationship. But I cautioned them. I said: "Under the present Labour Code I have to be careful talking to you about it, because at what

[ Page 1404 ]

point do you decide that you want to certify? Once you pass that point and make that decision where you may want to take a vote, then I'm not allowed to talk to you any more." I think that's nonsense. My employees had a lot of confidence in me, and I in them, and they wanted to come and talk about it. 1 can't see anything wrong with that.

So it's not always the "big bad employer" who wants to go and talk to the people to try to talk them out of joining a union. In fact, I did nothing of the sort. But we had some good informed discussion about it, and they had every opportunity to try to form a union, as my competitor up the hill did. So I submit to you, members opposite, that it isn't always the employer who's the big bad guy. A lot of employees have a lot of confidence in the people that they work for and work with. That's the type of relationship that we had. I repeat: I didn't try to talk them out of certifying, like my competitor up the hill. I said: "You do what you want." But we had some good informed discussion about it. I was even on dangerous ground because I didn't know at what point I was not allowed to talk to my employees any more. And that's absolutely nonsense.

MR. LOVICK: This is dangerous ground.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I doubt very much that it is. I think it's you who are coming at this question from the wrong end. Many times the employees wish to discuss it with the management of the company. I see absolutely nothing wrong with section 5.

MR. GABELMANN: It's unfortunate that the Minister of Social Services and Housing, at the time he was running his radio station, hadn't read the Labour Code, section 3(3)(g): the employer has the right to "communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business." It's been there for years. You could have done all the talking you wanted to do. So to raise the red herring, such as he's just done, to say that he was nervous about talking to his employees, who came to talk to him about the unionization down the street, is absolute nonsense. He could talk to them all he wanted, and in fact could talk to them about any opinion he might have held, if he held it reasonably. That's the problem with this debate. For years we've had in the labour legislation a clause which allows employers to talk to employees if they have a view that's reasonably held. As decisions of the LRB have come down over the years, that right even includes to say to employees: "I'm going to have to close down the business." That decision is clear in labour board decision No. 247-86, just last year.

I think what we're trying to find out..... I want to pursue this later, after the other members have had a chance to pursue this line of questioning. We want to find out the need for this amending clause, when in section 3(3)(g) of the Code, as it existed and will still exist, employers have the right to communicate views reasonably held. What's this particular clause all about, given that the LRB has made decisions which allow employers to talk about what might happen to their business? What's it for?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify that I was aware of the previous Labour Code. It says: "with respect to the employer's business." Period. It's very explicit. I have it right in front of me, and he's right. It's section 3(3)(g), and it says: "with respect to the employer's business." In other words, that's the only thing that an employer could talk about. If his employees came to him and said, "We'd like to discuss this whole matter of certification with you, " he could not discuss it. It was very clear. There were even decisions — and I can't quote them, because 1 don't have them — handed down on that section.

I was just merely making the point that many times employees like to come and discuss those kinds of matters with their employer, and I don't see anything wrong with that. This section 5 just gives the employer and the employee the unfettered right to sit down and discuss it. Not coercion or threats about shutting down the business or anything. That happens, I suppose, but very rarely. It didn't happen in my case. We had some good informed opinion of it, and they had every right to seek certification in the company that I used to manage, and they chose not to, for whatever reasons.

MR. MILLER: I think we've come full circle and back to the question that I originally posed, and taking the comments of the Minister of Social Services and Housing.... My interpretation of what he's saying is that the existing labour legislation did not allow him to go and advise his employees about whether or not he thought it was a good idea for them to form a union. That's what he's saying.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, that's the way I interpret it. They wanted to come to you, and you were prevented from giving your advice as to whether or not they should form a union, and somehow you felt hampered by that, and that employers generally feel hampered, because they're unable to advise their employees who come knocking on their door and say: "Gee, do you think we should form a union?" I'd suggest first of all that it's highly unlikely that that scenario takes place, given the history and the struggle that employees have had to form unions in the first place.

Secondly, I'll rephrase or reput the question to the Minister of Labour. What is an example of the kinds of things that were not allowed under the existing legislation and that therefore made the minister feel compelled to bring this amendment to the bill in — that employers could not advise their employees about whether or not they should form a union?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, this discussion is interesting. 1 really do have some difficulty with all of the concern that is being raised. The section is very simple. It preserves the freedom of expression and prohibits discriminatory practices. It guarantees freedom of expression for all persons — and I underline "persons" — and it prohibits, in that freedom of expression, intimidation, coercion and threats. What can you possibly have against that?

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the minister is the author of this legislation. Everybody in this House can read and see what the section says. Some of us are asking the rationale for introducing this. What was the problem that the minister was trying to remedy by putting this in? These words are not meaningless. They're designed to have some intent, and we're trying to find out from the minister what it was that he was trying to remedy. What flaw was there out there? What was it that the previous legislation was not addressing that this

[ Page 1405 ]

section now allows to be addressed? That's the question to the minister.

[4:30]

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I think that we're losing sight of the intent here again. You know, in the Code it did say that the employer had the ability to communicate within certain bounds, I guess, with his employees. But we're not talking about that; we're talking about freedom of expression between the individuals — persons; and we're talking about the ability of the trade union organizer to act in a reasonable and responsible manner and communicate it; and we're talking about the individuals within the employees to have the right to communicate with each other. There's no great mystery behind it. There's no great hidden agenda, and I don't know how many more times I can answer this question. Read it as you see it. Don't read anything into it that isn't there. You can read it. One of the members, I believe, is a legal authority. Form your own conclusions. It's very straightforward and very simple.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, people always had that opportunity to converse with one another. The question to the minister is this: what was wrong with the old Labour Code, if I can put it that way? What flaw did he see in the old Labour Code that would warrant this section being introduced?

MR. LOVICK: We just heard a sound emanating from across the floor. I would dearly hope that the member would actually stand up and articulate in plain English what that sentiment was, because the member said, if I heard the murmur aright, that there is no free speech. I posed that question about an hour ago, and of course it was dismissed out of hand by the minister. I said at the time: "Are you trying to tell us that prior to this bill and this amendment there was indeed no freedom of speech in this province? If so, then by heaven, 1 think you owe it to us to say so."

I think, however, that was probably a rather frivolous comment as opposed to a serious comment. I sincerely hope so, because I want to suggest that the minister owes this House and the people of this province an answer to the question put by all of us who have spoken thus far on this amendment. We have all asked the same question from different ways, notwithstanding that we've used somewhat different language: please demonstrate to us what was missing or what was wrong with the old legislation that this new wording is somehow going to fix up. Explain that to us. That is not a question offered for debating purposes alone. If anything, it is the kind of question that ought to appeal to people on the other side of this House who claim to be enamoured of some kind of small-c conservative ideology, because surely part and parcel of any small-c conservative ideology is that the onus of responsibility for change lies in the hands of those who would advocate and move the change. We have a status quo that, thank you very much, has functioned quite effectively.

We are suggesting to the minister and to this government that it is your responsibility, therefore, to demonstrate to us what is wrong with the status quo. Show us what in fact will be accomplished by this new section. So far we've had bafflegab; we've had evasion; we've had no direct answer. I suggest to the minister that he has an obligation to give us a direct answer to that question. I implore the minister to do so.

MR. SIHOTA: We're again not getting an answer from the minister. I see that the Premier is here. During the course of the election campaign.... In fact, I think I heard him talk on the radio about open government, about answering questions that are put to government about openness. All we're trying to get out of the minister here is an answer. I don't know whether or not the Premier agrees or is backing down on that thought. I would like to think not. I'm sure the Premier would like to think not, so let's see it in practice here in terms of seeing whether or not the members of this House, particularly the minister responsible, is willing to engage in a debate to explain what his motivation was in introducing this section, what flaws he saw in the previous Labour Code.

I see the minister is rising, so I'll sit down in respect to the minister.

HON. L. HANSON: That polite gesture in sitting down is very much appreciated.

It is interesting. I'm getting the impression.... I guess I have to state it again. I have stated the reason for the amendment: that there is a requirement for the ability of people to freely communicate so that they can make value decisions knowing all of the facts. If the members on the other side continue to say that that is there, that's fine. I think that's great. But if it is there, then there is no harm in restating it. The difficulty seems to be that the members don't get the answer they want; they get the answer, but it's not the answer they want. So they continue.

I'm not sure what you're looking for. The fact is, we're trying to ensure that there is freedom of expression, freedom of communication, and that's what is in section 5.

MR. SIHOTA: The harm lies in the situation that I raised earlier in the House with respect to the certification process and communication between the parties during that process. I opened my comments by talking about what the former chairman of the Labour Relations Board in Nova Scotia had done, how they had dealt with this issue, how it had become ingrained in the Canadian fabric of collective bargaining in this country: that employers do not talk to employees with respect to these types of matters. That is why in Nova Scotia, as I pointed out earlier, they have this five-day provision.

I then tried to lay out to the minister, when his response was exactly what it is now, the things that would come across the minds of those who wanted to unionize, and asked which one of those things the employer would have any special knowledge in, and which of those situations would entities other than the employer have. It's clear, I would think, to everybody in this House that all of the things that were listed, with one possible exception, were items that somebody other than the employer would have a special knowledge of. That's where the minister's argument falls down.

But let me then ask the minister this: does he think that employers ought to be able to talk to employees during the certification process about whether or not they should unionize? Yes or no?

HON. L. HANSON: Well, first of all, if, and I agree that he's right.... My critic suggested that they already have that right in section 3(3)(g), I think it is, so there is absolutely no harm in that. Secondly, what harm is there, even if the employer doesn't have any special information available to him, in ensuring that all the information is available to the employee to make his decision?

[ Page 1406 ]

But again, it's not dealing with certification only, or decertification; it's dealing with all aspects of communication between the employee, the union and the employer.

MR. MILLER: I'm getting the feeling that the minister doesn't appreciate the history of trade unions and the difficulty in terms of forming trade unions and the struggles that really took place — or, without overstating it, the lives that were lost in terms of that becoming a right for working people on this continent.

The minister wrongly suggested that the labour critic, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), said that employers have that right under section 3(3)(g), in terms of communicating with their employees. In fact, that section reads that they can "communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business," a fact that the first member for Kamloops, the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), complained about — that he was restricted.

We're trying to get at the reason for the clause. The minister did not answer the question, and the question is: does the minister think that under this section employers should be able to advise employees about whether or not they should form a union?

HON. L. HANSON: I think it's only fair and reasonable, just as the act states, that they should be able to communicate to the employee anything, as long as they're not using undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats. If an employee comes up to the employer as an individual and says, "Shall I join the union or shall I not join the union?" I suppose the individual is going to answer that question with how he feels. It's a fair question, and I think that that can be communicated. But I also think that if it goes further than that and uses intimidation, coercion and the other things, that isn't correct.

MR. GABELMANN: It's taken them some time, but we're finally beginning to get somewhere.

MR. MILLER: Two hours.

MR. GABELMANN: And yesterday afternoon, too. We're getting now to the point where those on this side of the House are saying clearly that employers do not have the right to tell prospective union members whether or not they should become union members. They do not have the right — we say — to suggest to employees whether they should bargain individually or collectively; we've said that. It's clear now from the minister's answer that he believes that employers do have the right and should have the right to say to their employees: "I wouldn't join the union if I were you." The minister qualifies that by the words in the prospective law which prohibit coercion, threats, undue influence or intimidation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Just unions are allowed to do that.

MR. GABELMANN: No, no. That's not true. No persons, to use the term that describes more than people, have been allowed to use intimidation, coercion or threats in the past, and the labour board has held that on a number of occasions.

I want to cite a set of circumstances to the minister and ask him, given that these circumstances occurred under the language that is now the law — not the changes, the existing Labour Code.... If required, I will be more specific about the name of the employer and all that kind of detail, but I will leave it out unless people want me to include it.

There's an organizing drive on Vancouver Island, a crew of about 18 people. The crew had problems. They had no statutory holiday pay, no rest periods other than a half-hour for lunch, no call-in, no seniority rights, etc., and were being paid $5 to $6 an hour. So they approached the IWA to see if they could form a union.

The IWA was forced to conduct an early vote prior to having canvassed the entire 18 employees, because somebody went to the employer and said this was happening. One of the employees went to the employer and said: "There's a union drive going on." The vote was taken on May 29, before the organizing had completed, and it was 9 to 6 in favour of unionization. The next day the employer shut down half the plant and laid off half the people, and then proceeded to refuse to bargain for ten months, until the employees, half of whom weren't working because they'd been laid off, were in such desperate shape that a decertification vote was applied for. It turns out that during the initial campaign the employer had said, "Should you choose to join this union, I'll have to shut down half the plant, " which he did the next day, after they were certified.

In its decision the labour board said: "We find that" — the name of the employer — "went beyond the communication which is acceptable pursuant to section 3(3)(g) of the Code, in that we find on the evidence that he did indicate that he would 'close the back shop,' should the union come in." The labour board found that the employer was guilty of violating the existing language: he said he'd close down half the shop. In the conclusion of their judgment, the labour board said: "We have considered all the evidence and come to the conclusion that the employer has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the actions taken were not motivated in any way by anti-union animus."

Here we have, in 1986, a situation in which an employer can intimidate.... He wasn't able to intimidate sufficiently before the certification vote, but he intimidated following the certification vote by refusing to bargain and by continuing the shutdown of half the plant. Then, when a decertification vote came up, of course it passed — the guys want their jobs back. The labour board was able to say, under the existing law, that "on a balance of probabilities" there was no anti-union motivation involved — or, as they say, "anti-union animus."

[4:45]

So under the existing law the owner of a radio station in Kamloops could say to his employees, when they come seeking his advice about whether or not they should join a union: "Well, if you do, you know, I'll have to shut down the radio station." Unfortunately, that right exists under the current law. So what more freedom of speech do employers want? Why this clause? If the clause is not directed at this issue — allowing additional freedom of speech to employers — what single example does the minister have of a trade union, or a person acting on behalf of a trade union, violating the principle that will now be enshrined in this particular amendment? Give us an example.

[ Page 1407 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Now indeed the intent has come out, in terms of what it is that the minister had in mind when this section came out. It reinforces the very concern that we had all along, that it violates that very fundamental principle that I started talking about two hours ago. Now it's evident what indeed the motivation was, and that in itself reinforces the opposition to this section.

I'm not going to be too long; I know there are other members who want to speak. Maybe I'll take a look at it from a purely legal point of view. The minister may stand up and say: "Well, what harm does it all do if we're simply allowing what happened in the past to continue to happen?" The member for North Island has said that some of this was allowed to happen in that 1986 case. I want to make this point to the minister. Earlier on, during the course of our discussions and our debate on this matter, he said to me: "Well, a lot of these matters are open to interpretation by the Labour Relations Board." He's right, but I also pointed out where he was wrong in that point of view.

One of the things that those of us who practise in this field of labour law, let alone any other type of law, are not allowed to do is present evidence from Hansard with respect to what the intent of the Legislature was in passing legislation. To that extent, the minister is protected. But to further the point that the member for North Island just made, it is an example from a very practical point of view in terms of what happens in real life in front of these arbitrations.

One of the things that lawyers will do is take the old Code, and we've already heard from the member for North Island what it allowed. They will cite the old act, and then they will produce the new legislation — which, as 1 understand it, is to be embodied, if it passes, which we hope it won't and which 1 trust, at the end of this process, the minister will realize is not the way to go.... Then they'll take the new piece of legislation and say that we can't go back to Hansard to see what the intent was. But what we can do is read the old Labour Code and compare it to the new one and then ask ourselves why it was, in our opinion, without looking back to Hansard, changes were made. Why were those changes made, and what type of interpretation can be placed upon those changes? Because I can assure you there will be a case that is more offensive, in my view, than the one that the member for North Island just pointed out, that will come before one of these tribunals.

They will point out what was allowed under the old legislation. The solicitor, arguing for the employer in those circumstances, will point out what was allowed under the old legislation, will cite the case that was allowed under the old legislation, and then will cite the new legislation. Given the fact that the Interpretation Act, which is also a statute of this Legislature, suggests that people ought to interpret statutes liberally, not narrowly, they will then argue that there must be a greater meaning — an expansion of what was under the old Labour Code. Hence, situations that are more offensive —  and I trust the minister will find the situation that the member for North Island has pointed out to be somewhat offensive as well — will be allowed to go on in light of the history of the legislation.

That's the web that the minister is tangling. That's the flaw in the legislation, and that's the very practical usage that people will make of that legislation. It will be seen, given the Interpretation Act, given the changes in the Labour Code, as an expansion of what already exists, an expansion also of what it appears that the minister wants to expand in light of his response to the questions that we've been posing for the last two hours.

It's on that basis that we have some concerns — a lot of them. I think now perhaps the penny may have dropped on the other side, and the minister can begin to understand what the essential flaw is with this section.

MR. LOVICK: Madam Chairman, the minister continues to feign incredulity when we pose questions and continues to suggest: "Why don't you believe me? Why don't you trust me?" We say to him: "Please explain to us why this change. What do you hope to gain by making this change?" The answer we get is a kind of stony silence that says: "No, I'd prefer not to." We then try a more specific approach. We present a specific case and ask the minister if he will give us that documented evidence that we are suggesting he has, and we get the same response: no, he'd prefer not to.

We then present a closely reasoned legal opinion and the minister gives us the same response: no, he prefers not to answer. Yet the same minister, despite those responses to those three kinds of questions, all of which have been developed at some length, nevertheless assumes that we are going to believe and trust in the goodwill and the good wishes of this government.

Let me suggest that one of the reasons that we are apprehensive on this side of the House about the new section 5 being added here is because of what we've heard about section 3. Indeed, even though we think it's better language than section 5, it has not provided protection to employees against the anti-union activities of employers. If that is the case, as we have documented, then the logical conclusion is that the only reason for section 5 is to give the employer another kick at the can. Just in case section 3 isn't tough enough, isn't restrictive enough, isn't limiting enough, then let's use some buzzwords. Let's use some cant-like freedom of speech, and maybe that will give us an opportunity to take another kick at the can.

I realize I am no longer speaking with the kind of cool and equanimity that one ought to in this debate, but I'm starting to get a little indignant. I'm getting indignant simply because we are getting, despite the protestations to the contrary about fresh start, new beginnings, we want to listen, we want to cooperate, we want to consult, a very old stone wall.

Let me offer to the minister this observation; I gave it to his colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) some while ago. Part of the reason this kind of acrimony is creeping into the debate is the track record of that government. I am sorry to tell the minister this, but your government does not have much credibility with organized labour in this province. You are not perceived to be the "honest broker." You are not perceived to be the impartial adjudicator.

You wonder why people feel there are indeed hidden agendas evident here. Let me suggest to you that if you won't give us a straight answer to three specific and discrete questions, what logical conclusion other than that can you expect people to draw? Surely that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. If we get no answers to questions, if we have a track record of more than ten years that demonstrates patently, blatantly obvious anti-labour legislation, how then, given that you won't answer questions now, can you expect us to say: "Well, let's trust to the good wishes and decency and elementary kindness built into the minister's genetic makeup" — or some such twaddle? That is our predicament.

[ Page 1408 ]

That is why, as I suggested, a kind of acrimony is creeping into this debate.

I would happily yield the floor to the minister should he want to respond. For the moment, in the course of maintaining civility and decorum in the House, I will sit down and let another speak.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Speaking of inferences, the legislation as I read it says that people are entitled to freedom of speech in order to inform people so that they can make informed decisions. Am I then to draw the inference, or would you, Mr. Minister, draw the inference that since the opposition has spent so much time objecting to a clause that says people are entitled to freedom of speech, they are against freedom of speech? You are against freedom of speech.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, I can think of an example where I am opposed to freedom of speech, and I would like to share it with the Minister of Education; that is the freedom to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. That freedom of speech does not exist. For workers who are attempting to organize a union, particularly in a small business.... For the employer to tell them what might happen to their jobs as a result of that activity is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. If these people on the other side of the House do not understand that concept, then they do not understand this debate. They do not understand what happens to workers at the time of their lives when they consider whether or not to organize a union.

It is a very traumatic time for people. It is a fundamental question. Many of those people have worked for years in a non-union setting, often with a good relationship with the employer. Often the business changes hands and a more distant employer takes over. The relationship begins to break down and, for the first time in their lives, workers are faced with what for them is the most fundamental question in their lives, whether or not to organize, because they know that should they do so, given the state of law in this province, they may lose their jobs. For them, that is all they have to provide security for themselves and their family and to pay their mortgage. It is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Akin; I didn't say it was exactly the same. It's akin.

To make another argument, the argument that Paul Weiler makes: when Canadians are voting in an election, it is not appropriate for Americans to tell them how to vote. When workers are voting in an election to determine whether to bargain by themselves or whether to bargain as a group — because that is what the vote is about — it is not appropriate for the employer, with whom they have to bargain one way or the other, to tell them how they are going to do it. It is their business, just the same as it is the business of Canadians, not the business of Americans, to determine how we will govern ourselves. The decision that is being made is a decision about how to govern themselves. It is of no consequence and no concern and no business to their employer. The employer is not part of the group that is making the decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not part of the business.

MR. GABELMANN: We are not talking about the business; we are talking about the business of deciding whether to bargain independently and individually on one hand or collectively on the other hand. The employer has no business....

[5:00]

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, I'm going to take the advice of the second member for Nanaimo, (Mr. Lovick) and cool down, because I'd much prefer a quiet debate.

I guess the problem is that there's a gulf of understanding here that is seemingly unbridgeable. Perhaps we should concede that we can't make the arguments in a way....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not saying we quit, but perhaps we need to concede that we can't make the arguments in a way that the government can understand. We have tried a variety of ways: we have tried the philosophical approach; we've tried a lecturing approach from the second member for Nanaimo.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) says we don't have an argument.

MR. LOENEN: It's hyperbole.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me say, without hyperbole.... Let me very quietly talk about what's at issue here. A group of people work for somebody. The pattern is that they either are given wage increases or they're not; they're given some kinds of security or they're not. They don't usually have any protection against dismissal or recall, no seniority lists — all of those kinds of things. If they feel they aren't making enough money, they go one by one, independently of each other, to the boss and say: "Please, I don't make enough money." Occasionally the employer might give them some or he might not give them some. By not making a decision, they've made a decision to do it independently. Individually they'll go to the employer.

Quite often the employer behaves in a way that forces them to start thinking about maybe banding together to approach the employer as a group. It's not the employer's business how the people who work for him approach him; it's their business how they approach him. It's not up to the employer to say: "You have to approach me individually, or you have to approach me as a group." That's for the people who are doing the approaching; that's their business and their right. All we're talking about here is trying to end up with law that preserves the right of those people to approach the employer in the way they see fit.

MR. LOENEN: They have that right.

MR. GABELMANN: They don't have that right. I cited the Labour Relations Board decision of last year that even under the current law an employer can undertake the grossest

[ Page 1409 ]

of anti-union activity and still be found not to be guilty. Now we're going to expand it; we're going to expand the language.

I don't deny the minister's point that this language applies to a whole variety of other circumstances as well. It does. It applies to union personnel. It applies to unions and to corporations. It applies to everybody, and in a variety of settings and circumstances. I think we agree with that. We're picking up on the one set of circumstances which we believe this is primarily aimed at. That's to make it easier — more legal, if I can put it that way — for employers to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. That's the effect on the lives of those people.

A guy or a woman who's got a job who feels that by talking to a union rep he or she might lose that job, and therefore lose the ability to feed the kids, is likely to back away from talking to the union rep. With the language that's being proposed now, employers or their agents will have the ability to go in, short of undue influence, whatever that means — and the minister has refused request after request to define what he thinks those things mean. He says we'll let the Industrial Relations Council make the decision about what those things mean.

We don't get that answer from minister after minister when we quiz them about language in other statutes. The answer isn't: "We'll let the courts decide what that means." The ministers tell us what they think the language means and what the intent is of bringing in the changes or the new law. But this minister seems determined to take a course of action in terms of answering that traditionally we don't resort to in this House: "We'll let the courts decide what it means." You must have some opinion about what those words mean; otherwise you wouldn't have used them. I'd like to know from the minister what he thinks about those two points that I've raised.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I guess in my attitude towards things, I had believed that I had given that answer about 25 times today. But let's look at clause (1) of section 3. I think that if the allegations being made by the members on the opposite side.... We probably would have repealed that particular section, which says: "An employer or a person acting on his behalf shall not participate in or interfere with the formation or administration of a trade union or contribute financial or other support to it."

MR. GABELMANN: I wish the minister was more familiar with this legislation. He correctly quotes 3(l) of the Code unchanged. He should go back to the changes that we're talking about in this section, which start out: "Nothing in this Act deprives a person of his freedom to express his views provided...." So section 3(l) that the minister just read doesn't count, because the amendment says that nothing in this act deprives a person of his freedom to express his views except as constrained in the remainder of the amendment. So you didn't need to amend 3(l). In effect, it's already amended by this change, because what will be the new 2(3) overrides 3(l). It seems the minister can't understand that.

Prince Rupert should have a moment.

MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, we've been debating this clause for a considerable amount of time. I think it's unfortunate that it has taken us this long to finally get an admission from the minister of what the clause really means, and the clause really means that an employer can play a role in terms of advising his employees whether or not they should form a trade union. Perhaps if that had been admitted at the outset it wouldn't have taken as long. You know, there's some concern about night sittings and the use of this House and time. We could probably speed it up if we were a little more candid in here.

Nonetheless, I want to turn to another section of 5, the one that deals with subsection (4)(a), which reads: "No person shall refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person...." It then goes on to list a variety of reasons for that. My interest is in the first part of that: "No person shall refuse to employ." Of course, that conjures up the ancient word which probably isn't used too much these days; it's called blackballing. Anybody who has been around for any length of time must be familiar with it and how it was used by employers as an effective tool to counteract union organizing. It's quite common. It's an insidious process...

AN HON. MEMBER: Unions use it.

MR. MILLER: Unions don't hand out jobs, Mr. Member.

...that in fact can be used against people to deny them job opportunities because they happen to believe that working people should be organized into trade unions. As much as it's not part of our fabric in the way it used to be, it continues nonetheless. I'm familiar with three or four instances where people were not given employment because they had a history of trade union activity. I'm familiar with a couple of cases where people were not given employment because their parents had a history of trade union activity. I wonder if that fails to impress the minister just as much as people losing their jobs because they tried to form unions has failed to impress him. Nonetheless, the clause is in there. Presumably it can be used to counteract the kind of situation that I'm talking about.

I wonder first of all if the minister has any thoughts. Is that why it is there? Can it be used in those kinds of situations? Could the minister amplify the reason for that proposed subsection (4)(a) in this amendment?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, certainly the amendment is intended to ensure that witnesses and other persons who may have to participate in proceedings before the new council feel safe to come forward and testify honestly, without fear of someone retaliating against them because of it. We think that's a very simple individual freedom that should be given to the individuals. The fear of being penalized for doing something that's within law, or having to participate in a hearing.... Individuals should be amply protected, and we believe this does protect them. It's meant to protect witnesses so that they have no concern of intimidation in coming forward in a case where it's necessary — again, freedom of expression and ensuring that there isn't discrimination against an individual because of a witness situation.

MR. MILLER: I don't really read it that way. If a well-known trade unionist applies for a job at a plant that's unorganized and is refused employment, even though he or she may have all the qualifications necessary to do the job, is there any redress under this clause? Can that individual then approach the council or the board and ask the board that that be investigated under this clause?

HON. L. HANSON: Well, again I think that they can. That's the reason it's in the act, and the reason that the later

[ Page 1410 ]

sections of the act do form a replacement for the Labour Relations Board. I guess, quite simply, the answer is yes.

MR. MILLER: Similar language is contained in the Human Rights Act, I believe, with respect to discrimination on the basis of race and a number of other considerations. Could the minister advise whether or not that clause in the Human Rights Act, which is really a parallel with a different set of criteria, has ever been used successfully by any individual in terms of that individual not being employed or not being hired?

HON. L. HANSON: I don't think we're debating the Human Rights Act, but I'd certainly be prepared to find out the past experience with that particular clause in the Human Rights Act and inform the member at some other time.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm just going to change the tack a little bit here. Rather than making speeches, I just want to ask a series of questions.

HON. MR. REID: Aye.

MR. GABELMANN: No, the answer to the first one is not aye.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It might be yes or no, but it's not aye.

Interjections.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, would you make your comments from your own seats, please.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to ask the minister whether or not he thinks the amendment will now allow an employer to call meetings so he can express his views regarding certification, decertification or collective bargaining during working hours.

[5:15]

HON. L. HANSON: It seems to me that the question is a little bit off the subject of section 5. It allows freedom of speech. My opinion of whether the employees would come to a meeting or not if the employer called it, I guess, is that it's up to the employees. If the circumstances of a meeting that was organized were unfair, discriminatory and the rest of the things, it would be found unfair. But I wouldn't suggest that this.... Section 5, to me, certainly doesn't empower the employer to call a meeting.

MR. GABELMANN: What we're trying to find out is whether or not the employer now, because he — and let's use "he"; employers increasingly in greater numbers are "she".... However, we are trying to determine whether or not, because of this freedom of speech, an employer can call a meeting during working hours and require attendance of his employees. The next part of the question is that if the employees don't attend, then they lose their jobs.

It's a very important element, because an employer will, given these new rights of freedom of speech, which are limited in a very narrow way, now have the ability to force his employees, who are perhaps in the middle of a certification or decertification drive, to come to a meeting on the employer's time and listen to what the employer has to say, because the employer has freedom of speech.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I fail to see the reference in section 5, or in any of the sections, that says it gives the employer the ability to mandate that employees come to a meeting to discuss certification, decertification or anything else. It simply ensures that there is an ability to freely communicate without using intimidation, coercion or undue influence.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Minister, that is not precisely what we are suggesting; we are suggesting, rather, that in some kind of certification or decertification process what might happen, as my colleague from North Island has pointed out, is a meeting ostensibly called for another purpose — at which, I should add by the way, attendance is obligatory or mandatory — at which time the employer might say: "Friends, I want to tell you about the situation the company finds itself in with offshore competition" — or some such thing. We're suggesting that because of the relatively few limitations on freedom of speech, or what my colleague called the narrow limitations on freedom of speech, in this legislation, that kind of approach by an employer, which is clearly going to have a tremendous impact on the decision made by those employees, will not be considered undue influence or intimidation or coercion or threats. That's the concern. We're back to the same point we've been making throughout; namely, that the moment you use a phrase like "freedom of speech" and then only impose restrictions on it that are as narrow as the ones presented here in section 5 as amended, you have effectively made it possible for precisely that kind of scenario to unfold. That's our concern, Mr. Minister. Would you care to respond to that?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister is still not responding, and maybe I can take a run at it from a different angle, so as to get the minister to perhaps explain a little bit. But before I do that.... At the very outset of my comments, when we started this, I talked about the extent to which the concept we are talking about on this side of House today has become an integral part of Canadian labour jurisprudence, and said that it stood in stark contrast to American jurisprudence on this, and that there was a fundamental philosophical shift in this section leading us towards the American way.

I know that yesterday one of the other members got into trouble for quoting at length, so I'm only going to quote one very short paragraph, about three lines long, from Paul Weiler's book. When he looked at this whole question of comparing the Canadian system with the American, his conclusion was: "The Canadian model of representation law does a much better job than its American counterpart in performing the task we should set for it: encouraging collective bargaining through trade unions freely and peacefully chosen by employees." I promised the chairperson that would be short, and it was. That was the end conclusion of his analysis of the differences between the Canadian system and the American system, looking at this whole argument as to whether or not the employer ought to have a say in the certification process.

I want to reiterate what my good friend from Prince Rupert had to say earlier on: if that point had been clarified

[ Page 1411 ]

for us two hours ago, we would probably have been on to another section. We've had to spend about two and a half hours trying to figure out exactly what the minister was trying to remedy.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that heckle; otherwise it would have meant at least another five-minute response, which I'm sure the members opposite don't want to see.

Nonetheless, it is now becoming abundantly clear, I would hope to the minister, that given the way in which people deal with this legislation and given the potential problems that we've tried to outline — in particular the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — and the cases we've cited, and given that this allows for a further incursion into that field, or a further assault on that philosophy that I talked about earlier on, and given the reasonable conclusion that this does not amount to freedom of speech but freedom of intimidation — I think that's a better way of putting it — will the minister now agree to place further limitations on that ability to intimidate, or, alternatively, let the section stand? Will the minister agree to that now?

HON. L. HANSON: Of course I can't agree to that, quite simply because it isn't a concern or a risk. I think that the member suggested that this would allow intimidation. Nothing in the act deprives a person of his freedom to express views, provided he does not use intimidation, which is a very clear wording and very simple. I'm sure you have the copy in front of you.

MR. SIHOTA: I do have a copy of the legislation before me, and clearly it talks about intimidation. But there are acts that I am sure will fall short of intimidation, as it will be interpreted under this section. On the other hand, there are acts that will come closer to the line and allow for comments to be made, much like the comment that the second member for Nanaimo, (Mr. Lovick) raised earlier, which, under the old legislation, would have amounted to a violation of the provisions of the act, but will not amount to violations of section 2(3) of this legislation. So what you've done, Mr. Minister, is expanded the field. Perhaps it was wrong of me to call it freedom to intimidate, given the actual language in there, but the point is that activities will now be countenanced or allowed under the legislation which were not allowed under the old legislation. This is a broadening or further incursion into the field.

If indeed the minister's comments are correct when he says that he has no aversion to people unionizing and that he wants people to engage in trade union activity and to be free to associate, in the language that I was using earlier.... If that is to be accepted, then it seems to me that in principle this section, which limits that freedom to associate, ought not to be allowed.

If I can rephrase the question: will the minister agree to changes in this legislation which would preserve the opportunity for people to associate, at least to the extent that they have been allowed under the existing Code?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, the simple answer is no, we won't consider changing it, because we don't accept the philosophy of the opposition that this is what it allows. We have a very different opinion. Certainly you're entitled to yours, and we're entitled to ours. We don't believe that what you're suggesting is true.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, I've tried to temper.... We've been at this now for about two and a half hours, and I've tried throughout to temper and restrain my comments and try to deal.... It's unfortunate that some of the members weren't here. But the Chair knows that, and I know the minister knows that. There has been a level to this debate that has been consistent with the view on this side of the House to try to elevate the reputation of this House. So I haven't gone out of my way to....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Here it comes. When it rains, it pours. When the members on the opposite side get an opportunity to begin to lower the esteem of this House, they'll do it. Here we go again, with the cheap shots and the rhetoric led by the Minister of Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) over there.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I wonder if the member could deal with the section of the bill that we're debating.

Interjections,

MR. SIHOTA: Here we go again, and I was going to confine my comments specifically to this section now. But the member opposite says: "Well, you've only got half an hour." Believe you me, we could have solved this problem two and a half hours ago if the minister had answered just the first question that I laid out about 3:15 this afternoon. It wasn't until 5:15 that we even got the answer.

I want the member opposite to be assured that it certainly was not this side that was trying to extend this debate. The record will show; Hansard Blues tomorrow will show quite clearly. I say honestly that I started to ask a line of questions, prefaced by a bit of an academic comment at the beginning, restrained as it was at that time, with the intention of trying to extract an answer. I had all sorts of answers, but the minister refused, in my mind, either to.... If I can be diplomatic about it, perhaps my questions were not framed clearly enough — if I were to blame. But on the other hand, it may have been possible the minister chose to duck, until the duck-and-cover routine didn't work and we got a straight answer.

[5:30]

Let's return to the comments of the minister, because I find it difficult to understand how the minister could be so oblivious of the potential harm that can be done under this section. We have cited existing case law from the Labour Relations Board which already gouges into that philosophical premise that I set out a couple of hours ago. It cuts into it deeper, not potentially but realistically, when one begins to understand how this type of legislation is viewed. The section that is before the House will be interpreted with the section that it is replacing in hand. Given the way in which we interpret these things, the only interpretation would be to broaden the field or to limit, as I would put it, the ability to further the freedom of association that we have.

I pointed out to the minister earlier that this is a fundamental debate that has on one hand — because of the way in which this legislation is cleverly worded — the concept of freedom of expression and on the other hand the concept of

[ Page 1412 ]

freedom of association. I have a lot of difficulty. It is a little bit like an election campaign. The minister keeps on saying that the employer can give valuable information to the employees. But the fact of the matter is that the employees are engaged in a campaign to determine how they want to structure their affairs. In my view, the employer ought not to intervene in that campaign. The employees, to take the converse of the proposition, do not tell the employer what to do during the course of the formation of employers' councils.

MR. LOENEN: Oh, but they do.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the second member for Richmond says that they do, and I'd be more than pleased to sit down at this stage, if the member for Richmond is willing to stand up and tell me where they do.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, I'll give way to the member for Richmond.

MR. LOENEN: Madam Chairman, this is a serious debate. I've listened to the arguments from across the way. They at last have told us exactly what they want: they say they want a limitation on free speech. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has told us that it is a legitimate limitation to say to someone: "You can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded, darkened theatre." To compare this particular section and the provisions of it to that kind of a classic limitation on free speech is frivolous and a distortion of what this legislation seeks to do.

We all recognize that there are limitations on free speech. But to ask that this application count as one of the limitations on free speech is unacceptable in a free, democratic society. What you're doing is saying to one side of the dispute: "You can't tell your story." You're saying to the employer: "You keep out of this. You have no business in your own business." That's what you want to have embedded in the legislation.

The people on this side of the House, Madam Chairman, are not afraid of telling the facts. I am more afraid of ignorance than of facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LOENEN: This is serious, and we mean what we say. We ought to recognize that, and we ought to recognize that there are good reasons why this legislation is before the House: because the people of this province are looking to this government to finally do something. We're doing it in a mode that is most serious and there is good reason for it, and don't say that it's not so.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, the member is right. The people of this province are looking for this government to do something. The fact is, they're doing nothing except reverse themselves and lead this province down the line with this type of legislation. It is regressive legislation.

Interjections.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. We're debating section 5 as amended, and the Chair would prefer that that is what we talk about.

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was simply responding to the kind of protracted puffery and sanctimonious unctuousness that has come from the other side. So if anybody wants to suggest that anybody is not in order speaking to section 5, I would suggest that it ought to be reversed to the member opposite.

MR. SIHOTA: I know that the members opposite want to get to their baseball game, but I do want to talk a little bit about what the member for Richmond had to say with respect to freedom of speech. Within that context I trust I am in order, because the section talks about freedom of speech.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not going to distort it. The member opposite unfortunately wasn't here for the earlier debate wherein we talked a little bit about freedom of speech; we talked about the type of speech that was allowed between employers and employees under the old Code. Does the member know that under the provisions of the old Code there was nothing preventing an employer from talking to his employees about a reasonably held opinion or a fact about a business? Nothing prevented that, and there's no restriction being placed here. But what the member does not understand, and where the ignorance lies on the other side of the House with respect to that member — I'm just using the language that he used a minute ago — is that the reconciliation between, on the one hand, freedom of speech and, on the other, freedom of association. It seems to me that the challenge under any legislation — especially labour legislation — is to be able to come out with an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and freedom of association. If the member opposite recognizes that there is indeed in this country the freedom to associate as well as the freedom to speak, then the legislation ought to allow that association to go on in a relatively unfettered way.

What we on this side of the House are arguing for is the removal of the restrictions that this section imposes on freedom of association. That's what the debate is about. So if you want to talk about the freedoms, let's talk about the appropriate freedom. The freedom in this case is the freedom of association. Do or do not employees have the right to determine their own destiny? That's the central issue. Do or do not employees have the right collectively, democratically, in a free society, to decide what they want to do, without influence from the outside? We say that they do. So the argument from this side of the House, Madam Chairwoman, is an argument that favours freedom of association, that recognizes that there are tensions between two freedoms, that strives to strike an appropriate balance between those freedoms, and that tries to provide legislation that serves all of the interests involved.

It is the intention of the people on this side of the House, when speaking within the context of section 5, to maintain some kind of balance and equity in labour relations in this province. The comments the minister has made over the last two and a half hours of questioning have demonstrated over and over again - and particularly in the response that he gave around 5 o'clock today — that there's an imbalance ingrained in section 5. It's an imbalance that, at the end of the day, tends to tilt the balance against freedom of association, trying to provide an employer the opportunity to give input on a matter

[ Page 1413 ]

that, really, in my opinion, he has no real right or special knowledge to comment on.

AN HON. MEMBER: In your opinion.

MR. SIHOTA: In my opinion, an employer certainly has the opportunity to talk about his business, but the point that the member seems to lose in all of this is that the employer owns the business, not the people. He can assert ownership over that business, but he cannot assert ownership over those people. We in this society moved away a long time ago from the master-servant relationship that existed in the feudal era and in the eighteenth century. We have acknowledged that people who are in working conditions have the opportunity to decide among themselves how they want to deal with their employer. That's the point, and that is called freedom of association.

This legislation — and in particular, in the context of this debate, this section — places limitations on that freedom of association. It does the very thing that the minister has said over and over again this legislation will not do: it tips the balance. It creates an imbalance in favour of the employer.

I ask you: what special knowledge does an employer have about how people should get involved in a trade union? What special knowledge does an employer have that ought to give him the opportunity to tell an employee: "This is how trade unions work? That knowledge is vested within the trade union movement. Employees who have legitimate questions about how much dues they are going to pay, what the democratic institutions are within a trade union, and what the constitution bylaws of that trade union are do not need to turn to an employer; nor should the opportunity to speak on that be provided to the employer, because that information is vested in parties other than the employer.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In terms of recognizing that freedom of association, which is quickly, from the actions of the member opposite, being whittled away in the mind of that member.... The member tends to pay less homage to the need to protect the freedom of people to associate than to the need to protect the people to engage in rights. So if there is a level of ignorance, Mr. Chairman, it operates not on this side of the House — because we recognize what the various tensions are — but on the opposite side of the House. That's the point here.

I asked the member for Richmond to give me an example, to give us an indication of situations where the employer would have some special information with respect to whether or not people should be allowed to engage in trade union activities. As I said earlier in this debate, I have not known one employer other than the minister from Kamloops and the minister from Surrey — the minister of refined culture — who has gone to the employees and said: "Oh, it is our opinion that you should form a trade union." Of course that's not going to happen. Surely the members opposite realize that, and surely they realize that these people should have the right to engage in the type of activity that they want to engage in, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: It may take the summer to....

MR. SIHOTA: It may take a while for that point to sink in, but I trust now that the minister sees the point.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just a few brief comments, because I don't think we can let that dissertation go unanswered. Surely we have seen the scraping of the bottom of the barrel now, when that member can associate section 5 of this act and interpret it to say that this side of the House is against freedom of association. I fail to see how anyone can make that type of connection. We've seen the desperation come from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann).... They fall back every time. How many times in this House in six years have I heard: "You can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"? I'll bet you I hear that every second act that comes up here. Whoopee! Isn't that wonderful? So they bring it out again; they've scraped that one.

Then the next favourite argument over there, Mr. Chairman, if you don't get the answer you want, is: "You people over here just don't understand." That's the next .... "You just don't understand." Let me tell you, Mr. Member from Esquimalt, we understand better than you think we do over on this side. I don't think there is a member on this side who would deny any employee of any organization any knowledge that he or she wanted before they sought their freedom of association, which no one is trying to deny them.

I want to read it again for you. The minister has read it to you, as he said, probably 25 times today. 1 want to read it for the benefit of those who might not have been here for the full two hours listening to this.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm going to read it — section 2(3). Just listen to this.

MR. HEWITT: Say it slow, so they understand.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm going to read slowly. Listen loud, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) would say. "Nothing in this Act deprives a person of his freedom to express his views provided he does not use intimidation, coercion or threats."

[5:45]

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a clarification. Do the rules of the House allow us to break into a chorus of "Pomp and Circumstance" when we listen to that? Are we allowed to sing as the member speaks?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member. That is a point of order in some respects, but it's a flippant one. It's a flippant point of order.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to be flippant, but it seems to me that this repeated iteration about freedom of expression is also flippant in the context in which it is delivered to us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, please take your seat.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I've sat here and listened to this catcalling and so on and so forth for too long this afternoon. I must tell some of you anyway that it's bad enough to catcall and to pass extraneous remarks back and

[ Page 1414 ]

forth across the room, but when you're not in your seats, that's absolutely out of order. There's no question about that.

Let me tell you something else, too. We do operate under a lot of rules in this House, and one of them that hasn't been mentioned for some time is one that's called tedious repetition when we're in debate, and the other one is called relevancy. I would suggest that a lot of the time this afternoon.... I can appreciate the point that's trying to be made or is being made by the Hon. members of the opposition. They have a job to do. But we have not been relevant throughout this debate, and certainly we're getting to the point now where 1 think tedious repetition comes into our comments.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with you that this debate has been tedious and repetitions. There is no question about that. The minister has answered their question many, many times. He has quoted the section that we're debating, which I just did. The problem is that members opposite don't like the answer they're getting. To say that they haven't been answered is just not true. The answer has been given many, many times. They just do not like the answer. The member for Esquimalt as much as said: "If you had given me the answer I wanted two hours ago, we could have finished this debate."

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the speaker suggested that what we were saying was not true, and I'm wondering if that is acceptable to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that I understand the member very well, but I think in the context that it was being used it would not really be considered unparliamentary.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, what I was saying, and what I intended to say, is that the members opposite contend that they don't have the answer to their questions. I contend that they have had the answer given to them in every way possible that the minister could do it for the last two and a half hours; they just don't like the answer. They just don't like it, so they're determined to badger the minister and get him to say it in so many different ways that finally they can twist the words a little and say: "Ah, finally now we're getting to what you mean." If they get him to repeat it that many times, sooner or later they're going to latch onto a word and say: "Now we finally understand what you mean." That's exactly what's happening here. They're going to badger this minister until, by misinterpreting what is said, they finally come to the conclusion they want. Even the member for North Island, who presents very reasoned debate, has a tendency to twist what is said over here. He very nearly said that I intimidated my employees and told them they shouldn't join the union, and nothing could be further from the truth — if you check back in the Blues, Mr. Member.

MR. GABELMANN: I wasn't talking about you; I was talking about somebody who owned a radio station.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Which I had just been talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if I may interject here once again — and far be it from me to limit debate; I'm here to see that as much debate as possible is undertaken and that we resolve our problems as we go along — we spoke about relevancy a moment ago, and we're dealing with section 5 as amended of this act, which deals primarily with, from what I've heard, freedom of expression and other things that are directly related to that. We speak about relevancy, and the Hon. minister stands up and speaks, and his remarks are not completely relevant. It's been the same back and forth across the floor. Let's deal with the amended section 5.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What I was really responding to was the suggestion from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) that section 5 of Bill 19 in any way restricts freedom of association, and that was what he said in his remarks. How he can construe section 5 as preventing freedom of association is totally beyond me. It allows people to associate fully informed, so that they can go to their associations — which no one would deprive them of — fully informed, having listened to comment from all sides, without intimidation or, as amended, undue influence or coercion or threats. I don't think there is a member — in fact, I know there is not a member — on this side who would deny anyone those rights.

MR. MILLER: I think I'm beginning to understand why labour relations will be in turmoil in this province under this legislation. It took us a good amount of time to finally discover that section 5 is there to allow an employer to discuss with his employees whether or not it is advisable to join a union. In that regard, when we talk about freedom of expression.... I touched on it earlier in terms of the weight that may exist with some people or some groups in terms of having more — a better ability at freedom of expression. I will use an example. Perhaps some members opposite might not like this one either; otherwise we may have it.

At the federal level we have an Election Expenses Act. That act limits the amount of money that can be spent by a political candidate in pursuit of office. In other words, it levels the playing-field. I am talking about....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I fail to see how the federal Election Expenses Act is relevant to this argument. I accepted your admonition, and I think that the member has strayed far from the meaning of section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please bring his point around to this section.

MR. MILLER: My point simply is that there are many things in our society that limit people's freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a central phrase in this clause, and it is therefore entirely in order to deal with the limitations that may exist in other jurisdictions and to bring it back in terms of discussing this one.

All I am trying to point out is that there are limitations on freedom of expression. Under the federal Election Expenses Act, what they have done is created a level playing-field. They have said that every candidate entering that contest is equal and has the equal opportunity to express his views, and that no candidate can have more of an opportunity by virtue of the fact that he has more money.

If we talk about the employers' ability to talk to their employees in certain ways, it seems to me that you have to recognize that they can have an advantage. One advantage,

[ Page 1415 ]

for example.... The minister could advise whether or not it is his opinion that this is a breach of this section. If, for example — because of the definition in the act, "person" — a person is an agent for a company, could a company hire a public relations firm and say: "I'm going to hire you to do my personnel work"? It seems to me that this public relations firm, because they are sophisticated and have the techniques and the wherewithal, would be able to do a much better job of conveying a message that the employer wanted conveyed. Would that act, hiring a firm to do that function for an employer, constitute the employer's using undue influence? Or would the employer simply be able to say: "No, I have simply hired this firm to conduct my labour relations"?

Those are the kinds of things. It took us a long time to finally get to the heart of this section, and now we are talking about applicability. The minister might want to comment.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a series of questions yet, but I just want to pick up on the level playing-field issue that was raised by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) and which in a sense has been the basis of our discussion all day.

There are two people competing. You've got a group that wants to bargain collectively and a group that wants to bargain as individuals. That's the debate. That's what organizing or decertification is all about. The only essential issue is whether they want to bargain independently or as a group. If the employer lines up with the group that wants to bargain independently, there's no longer a level playing-field. The employer has all the argument, all the ammunition and all the marbles simply because the employer can, while it's still non-union, effectively control whether or not those persons have jobs.

The burden of our argument is that in the debate between these two groups of employees, the employer has undue influence in a way that goes beyond the language of this statute as it has been interpreted in various jurisdictions, given the new language we're debating that nothing in this act deprives a person of his freedom to express, except as constrained by the following words: intimidation, coercion, undue influence, etc. What we hear from the member from Richmond is what we've been trying to get from the Minister of Labour all afternoon, and that is the government's position. The government's position clearly is that it is not undue influence for the employer to express his or her views about whether or not there should be collective or individual bargaining.

In this debate, the philosophy that comes from that side of the House has been more clearly expressed by others than by the minister. But the minister hasn't denied it. The view is that it is not undue influence for the employer to intervene in that discussion. That has been, I think, the burden of this whole debate. We say it is undue influence because the employer has incredible opportunity to influence. We would call it undue; that side of the House says it's not undue; and that's the essential, apparent difference in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue a Labour Relations Board decision on a related issue. It's a 1979 decision, but I'll save that for 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.