Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1992

Volume 6, Number 22

[ Page 4249 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I hope that the members of the Legislature will give a very warm welcome to a number of visitors from the Hospital Employees' Union, who are seated in the galleries and are very valuable partners in our health care system.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to welcome someone in the gallery today who was part of the former administration before we ended up with a socialist government: Bruce Strachan.

R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure to introduce another constituent from Fort St. John: the city manager of Fort St. John, Colin Griffith. Would the House make him truly welcome.

Hon. T. Perry: Although I haven't spotted him yet, I'd like to join the welcome to my predecessor as Minister of Advanced Education. I have a hunch that he may be quite happy that he's a columnist these days, but I'd certainly like to express a warm welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome an active constituent from New Westminster, Michael Gibbs, and a friend, who are visiting in our gallery today. Will you all join me in welcoming them.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, in the visitors' gallery this afternoon we have Don and Dorothy Wrigley from Burnaby-Edmonds. Don is the returning officer for Burnaby-Edmonds, and for those who aren't aware, he's actively involved in the restoration of the carousel from the PNE, which I believe was built in 1912. He's been doing an awful lot of volunteer work on that carousel. Would the House please make him welcome.

D. Mitchell: Today we have in the precincts and in the House Mr. David Wolsk and a number of other representatives of the Victoria Vocational College, a training school for physically and mentally disabled adults. Unfortunately, the school had to close its doors recently due to lack of government support. The representatives are here to, hopefully, get support. I hope they can get it, and I hope that all members will welcome them to the House today.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I just heard from the member opposite -- as I came in late -- that members of the Victoria Vocational College are here today. That college is in my riding, and on behalf of this government I too would like to welcome them here today, and assure all those who are obviously deeply interested that the government is doing its utmost to try to find some way to resolve this very difficult issue.

The Speaker: Perhaps a timely reminder to all members about the guidelines for introductions.

Oral Questions

SPENDING CAPS FOR MINISTRIES

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Finance. On January 8 of this year the Minister of Finance put out a press release that introduced spending caps for his ministries. We notice that in his rookie year his learning on the job has cost the taxpayers $1 billion in excess of a $1.8 billion deficit. Could the minister tell us why he did not insist that spending caps in this year would be established and maintained by his ministries?

Hon. G. Clark: Of course, spending was capped in the last budget. The rate of growth of government spending was cut in half from the previous Social Credit administration. I want to make the point that we have suffered a serious revenue shortfall, and we are taking action now to bring spending in as close as possible to the budgeted numbers.

G. Wilson: The doublespeak that comes from this minister is quite incredible. I might point out to him, since this is a blame-the-Socreds day and not a blame-the-federal-government day, that in the first quarter this government spent $350 million more than even the former government spent in the same period last year.

So my question to the minister is this: on Monday this week the minister said, when he was addressing a speech to the Hong Kong-Canada Business Association, that increased taxation is unavoidable. He said that 98 percent of this year's budget was going to be placed on all ministries next year. Will the minister tell us today that he will commit to those words and put a firm cap on government spending to avoid the promised tax increases that he's now threatening the already beleaguered taxpayer in British Columbia with?

Hon. G. Clark: The member opposite is incorrect in his assertion of my remarks. What we said was: the status quo projections for next year have been capped at the status quo, minus 2 percent. That is the maximum that the ministries can request. It does not mean that they have been approved.

I want to reiterate what I said. Spending is completely in control; it is on budget. This is a factual statement, hon. Speaker. Spending is in control and on budget. There is a revenue shortfall as a result of certain decisions made by the federal government, with the result that the economy is weaker in the rest of Canada; and as a result of the miscalculation of our share of personal income tax. Over the next few months, as we move into the next budget year, we are taking measures to deal with the spending requests by ministries. I want to reiterate: government spending growth was cut in half from every year of the last three years, and in the coming budget it will be cut again.

[ Page 4250 ]

G. Wilson: Once again we get a lot of doublespeak from this minister. The minister should surely know that if the revenues are down, he shouldn't be spending at the rate he is, if he doesn't have the dollars to commit to that spending. Furthermore, my question to the minister is that he is quoted on November 25 in the Vancouver Sun as saying that he is going to essentially reduce the deficit and get our provincial finances in order by cutting, it says, 1,400 positions. He then goes on to say that the 1,400 positions he intends to cut will not result in a single layoff. Can the minister tell us, then, if we're already spending $1 billion over a $1.8 billion record deficit, how he thinks the people of British Columbia should accept the fact that he's not laying off a single individual? How does he expect to save any money at all in next year's budget, other than that which is protected in already wildly exaggerated expenditures?

Hon. G. Clark: The Leader of the Opposition might relish the thought of thousands of men and women who work in the public service being laid off and out of work. What we have done, hon. Speaker, is freeze 1,100 vacancies which will not be filled over the course of this year, and that is to minimize the kind of human pain that comes with layoffs and outright unemployment for individuals. What we have done instead is freeze a certain number of vacancies; we will not fill them.

I want to remind the House and, again, the Leader of the Opposition, that he wants us to give $25 million more to doctors, more money to education, more money to college instructors, and now he stands up in the House and says we should lay off thousands of public servants. If we listened to that member opposite, the deficit would be far larger today than it is.

JOB CREATION IN B.C.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know how they can cut 1,100 jobs: they can fire all the NDP patronage appointments they made in the last 12 months.

My question is to the Premier. Last Monday the Premier stated: "As a matter of fact, 16,000 jobs were created in British Columbia...in the month of October." He stated that this was higher than in the rest of Canada combined. A Ministry of Finance official has reportedly surmised that this was yet another statistical error. Were there or were there not 16,000 new jobs created in British Columbia in October?

[2:15]

Hon. G. Clark: Members opposite have been referring to statistics which dealt with 11,000 jobs in one month. Statistics Canada information for one month is not a basis for judging the performance of the economy. What the Premier was referring to was not one month but six months....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, in order to proceed through question period in an organized fashion, members must respect both those who ask the questions and those who answer them so that the Speaker can hear both.

Hon. G. Clark: The facts are very clear. These are not one-month projections based on Statistics Canada. Employment in the first ten months of this year is up 1.5 percent from the same period in 1991. In the rest of Canada employment is down 1.2 percent. We should be clear about that. Look at the projections when you deal with the economy. The Conference Board of Canada says that next year there will be 3.3 percent growth; the Toronto-Dominion Bank says 3.9...

The Speaker: I hope the hon. minister is quickly concluding his reply.

Hon. G. Clark: I am, hon. Speaker. ...and the Royal Bank says next year's growth will be 4.9 percent. Let's deal with apples and apples and not apples and oranges. The reality is that we are outperforming every other region in Canada on employment.

G. Farrell-Collins: We're not dealing with apples or oranges; we're dealing with potato-heads. And once again we have the Minister of Finance doing damage control for the Premier.

Some Hon. Members: Withdraw.

G. Farrell-Collins: I unconditionally withdraw the statement, hon. Speaker.

The same Ministry of Finance official is alleged to have said that the referendum was a source for many of these new jobs. Is the Premier now leaving job creation in British Columbia to the federal government and referendum campaigns?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I don't know why the opposition would be so pessimistic about British Columbia. It's unbelievable that the opposition wants to catcall and be negative about the good news from British Columbia. We've heard some of the good news from the Minister of Finance, and I want to remind the opposition that retail sales in the first nine months of 1992 were up 2.1 percent, double the rest of Canada. B.C. urban housing starts increased by 42.6 percent. In the first nine months of 1992, over 29,000 other Canadians moved here from all over Canada. Why are they so gloomy and pessimistic about British Columbia?

G. Farrell-Collins: The reason British Columbians are gloomy about B.C. is because you're in government and we've got a $2.7 billion deficit, thanks to you.

My supplementary goes to the Minister of Labour. Perhaps he can advise the House and the people of British Columbia, particularly those workers at the Queen's Printer, which replacement workers printed Orders of the Day today?

[ Page 4251 ]

MATCHING-GRANT PROGRAM

J. Weisgerber: My question is the Minister of Advanced Education. Dr. Strangway warns that this government's betrayal of the matching-grant program could cost the province $160 million in private sector grants. Is this minister prepared to put his job on the line today to ensure that the government fulfills its commitments to the matching-grant program?

Hon. T. Perry: I thank the hon. member for his question. The former government made many promises that it knew, or ought to have known, it could not keep. One of those promises, which it may or may not have intended to keep, was a long-term commitment to a matching fund. Let me clear up any misunderstanding, if anyone has any. It's an excellent program, which has encouraged philanthropy from British Columbians and people outside British Columbia.

The present government, faced with a very difficult financial situation, took the decision to reduce our deficit beyond what it might have been and borrow less in New York, London or other markets. The Legislature approved the budget in the normal parliamentary manner, which was cut from $20 million to $10 million this year. That's a matter of public record. It has been since March 26 of this year. The decisions for next year are yet to be made.

I can assure the hon. member that I'm a strong supporter of that program. I will argue the case for it as eloquently as I can. In the end it will have to be weighed against all of the other competing priorities, including the many spending demands made constantly by members of the opposition.

J. Weisgerber: The minister knows -- and more importantly, the universities in British Columbia and their students know -- that the previous government not only made commitments but kept them every year since 1989. The matching-grant program is directly responsible for $100 million in research and development at the universities. This R and D creates high-paying, clean jobs in British Columbia. How can the minister even contemplate abandoning that program? Was your commitment in the budget for real, or was it simply a con job?

Hon. T. Perry: I've already indicated that the $10 million committed in the budget was voted by the Legislature. That's a matter of public record.

I would like to express my confidence in the people who have contributed not only to the University of British Columbia but to the other four universities. I think they are large-minded people, not small-minded people. They made those donations and pledges freely, understanding the value of contributing philanthropically to the great universities of this province. And I expect and count on their generosity to honour those pledges. I think it would be very small-minded of me or anyone else to suspect that they will not honour the excellent commitments freely entered into of their own accord. I look forward to the universities of this province being the beneficiaries of that generosity.

J. Weisgerber: The universities expect you to live up to your commitment. The leveraging effect of the matching-grant program, by Dr. Strangway's own calculations, could bring $450 million in investment to this province. Is this government so shortsighted, inept or stupid as to abandon a $10 million or $20 million investment to jeopardize $450 million?

The Speaker: I'd ask the minister to answer the part of the question that's within his administrative jurisdiction.

Hon. T. Perry: It's a matter of common knowledge that from 1975 until 1991, under the Social Credit government, the real funding in real dollars to universities and colleges decreased dramatically, by about 20 percent. That government was an enemy of the colleges and universities of this province. It had contempt for intellectual achievement. It took a few small measures to redeem itself in its last few years. Hon. Speaker, we have the complete intention, as I've reassured the Legislature, of honouring our commitments.

G. Wilson tabled a letter in the interest of freedom-of-information legislation.

Hon. T. Perry: I rise to offer an abject apology to the former Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. I incorrectly identified the former minister as Mr. Strachan, when in fact it was the hon. member for Matsqui. As the hon. member well knows, the former minister's mug, that of the former former minister and that of the former former former minister, as well as my mug, rest on my coffee mug, because we all share copies of that mug. Therefore I apologize freely to the hon. member.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual report of the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation for the '91-92 fiscal year.

I might just take this opportunity to acknowledge the role of Mr. Doug Mowat, who was a former member of this Legislative Assembly. He was a member of the board of directors and made very valuable contributions. His contributions will indeed be missed.

COST OF NEW BRIDGES
IN KOOTENAYS

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I rise to answer a question taken on my behalf by the Premier from the member for Okanagan-Vernon on the question of some $500,000 being spent on bridges leading, in the member opposite's words, "to nowhere." I would like to advise the House that the Bonanza bridge serves the north end of Slocan Lake: ten to 12 residences, forestry operations, access to Valhalla Park as well as to forestry recreation sites. The Cody A and Cody bridges provide access for recreational users to a historical ghost town, to the Cominco mines and to logging operations. They also facilitate mineral exploration.

Under a previous...

[ Page 4252 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: One moment, minister. The Speaker cannot hear the minister's reply to the question taken on notice. Please continue, minister.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would thank the hon. Speaker for silencing the din of iniquity.

The bridges being replaced in order to make them secure and safe for public traffic are bridges that were left to deteriorate under the responsibility of a previous highways minister.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

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

[2:30]

On the amendment to section 8.

C. Serwa: I rise to speak to the amendment on section 8. Section 8 concerns the right of the employer to communicate with the employee prior to certification. The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon has indicated by the amendment his particular concern with the restriction of section 8 that the communication can be held only with respect to the employer's business.

The intent of the amendment is to expand the dialogue that would then take place between the employer and employee. In listening to the response of the Minister of Labour with respect to the amendment, I am getting the distinct impression that the minister finds offensive the right to freedom of dialogue between the employer and the employee on any aspect of the matter other than something directly concerning the employer's business. Would the minister reaffirm that it is his view that it is imprudent and improper for the employer, as the legislation states, to refrain from dialogue outside the employer's business?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, just picking up the debate from yesterday with regard to the question asked by the hon. member, the position of the government is reflected in section 8, which does provide "the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business."

Secondly, it should be noted, referring to the conversations yesterday, that I will address the issues raised by the member for Okanagan-Vernon as well during the course of debate. I'll see where we go with the debate. I understand that he wanted to make some additional comments, so I'll withhold comment on what he had to say.

C. Serwa: The minister is a lawyer and certainly familiar with the adversarial, if you wish, judicial system that we enjoy in Canada. It is clear that in this system there is an unlimited opportunity for both perspectives. It seems to be unreasonable to deny the opportunity to hear from both perspectives -- the union side as well as the employer's concerns -- concerning aspects that may interfere with business or relate to the union. It seems to be more than a privilege -- a right, certainly in Canada -- to hear clear information. There may be some bias in it. It may be from one side or the other side. But I have confidence in factual information that would encourage and enable an employee to make the correct and prudent decision. If that is withheld, you're denying the employee the opportunity to make an appropriate and correct decision.

The intent of the amendment is to facilitate the interests of the employee by enabling the employer to dialogue with the employee, rather than finding fault with interference. When we speak about section 9, the intimidation or coercion factor is held forth. Perhaps the minister will respond to that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I refer the hon. member to the comments I made yesterday, recorded in Hansard, because I don't see that much is served by repeating what's already been said during the course of this debate. Nothing in this act prohibits employees from securing what information they want with regard to the activities of a trade union.

C. Serwa: That is certainly what I would like to see happen. It appears that the amendment was brought forward because section 8 specifies that the employer will be unable to expand on anything greater. The amendment allows that expansion without contravening section 8. If the minister means what he just related to me, surely the minister would then adopt the amendments to section 8 in order to spell it out clearly.

Hon. M. Sihota: There's no need to spell anything out clearly. I'm not sure if the hon. member heard me clearly. I said that nothing prohibits employees from securing whatever information they want with regard to a trade union. But there are restrictions, for reasons that I amplified yesterday, on the employer's freedom to communicate to an employee. That's restricted to matters relating to a "fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business."

That restriction is there for all of the philosophical arguments that I put forward yesterday in the House and which, candidly, sharply mark the difference of philosophical origins between your political party and mine. That's stating the honest truth. In many ways that is what drives this debate, and I amplified on that yesterday. I would refer you, therefore, to the comments that I made in Hansard yesterday.

C. Serwa: I wouldn't elevate this concern to a philosophical difference, hon. minister. Surely an individual has rights, and certainly an employer must have rights. The clear intent is to make certain that dialogue between the employer and the employee is open and free-flowing. The intent of the legislation appears to prohibit that, and that's not a philosophical 

[ Page 4253 ]

opinion. It should be a right. Free speech in Canada should be a right, and I fail to understand the reasoning of the minister in striving to restrict that dialogue. What it does is allow a technical difficulty, and it is perceived as interfering with the collective process or the right to certify -- and it is clearly not.

Whether the employee directly solicits the information from the employer or the information is given freely in open conversation, there should be no restriction on freedom of speech in this country.

Hon. M. Sihota: It clearly is a philosophical issue. I pointed that out yesterday. I still think it is.

There are limitations on the freedom of speech of an employer for the good reason -- the reason having been philosophically argued for years -- that an employer ought not to unduly interfere in a decision that is fundamentally a decision of employees. Secondly, there is no restriction on the rights of employees to secure what information they want with regard to the constitution, bylaws, policies and practices of a trade union. There's nothing here that prohibits that.

If an employee wants to get that information when someone comes around for a certification drive, they can get that information. There's nothing to fear here, hon. member. You have to rely on the intelligence of employees -- which I seem to have a greater faith in than you do -- to go out and secure the information they want. If they want information, they can get information. But there are limits to what an employer can say, for all the reasons that I amplified upon yesterday and which are points that I philosophically agree with.

C. Serwa: I guess we're going to waltz around the mulberry bush a little while. I again indicate that they are not philosophical points whatsoever. I have the highest respect for the intelligence of employees anywhere -- there's no question of that -- but I have a great deal of difficulty with the intent of this legislation, which restricts the free flow of information from whatever source to any employee. That's clearly what the minister is doing, and that clearly is why the amendment is required. There is no question of it in my mind -- no question whatsoever.

What will happen in this particular case is that if there is dialogue outside of the single identified area of the employee's business, there will be charges laid of improper procedure -- or whatever happens -- in the certification process. Clearly, if anyone is to make an accurate and absolute judgment, like the judge and jury system.... A group of peers make the final judgment, but they hear both sides of the issue.

This type of early western frontier justice is clearly irresponsible and uncalled for. There is no question of coercion or intimidation. It is free speech and an exchange of information, and I resent anyone stating that it's a philosophical view that you can't hear one side. I think it's a right in this country, won and fought for by people of this country for Canadians. And here the minister, with a stroke of the pen, is willing to scratch that, to scrub it. Canadians have fought and died in two world wars for this particular right, and the minister is willing to compromise that position, along with other things.

Yesterday I read in the newspaper of Ken Georgetti referring to union organizers being perceived as thugs by the general public. There are obviously other connotations of employers, but by and large, all people, whether they're in the employer's side or the union side, are responsible individuals and capable of discussing in a fair, accurate and objective way, from their perspective, the merits of their particular concern. The minister's father used to be engaged in the retail business in furniture and television sets. The reality is that in sales you always speak about the strength, the merits.... You're a salesman, and you sell the positive attributes of your particular point of concern. If you fail to go to a competitor's store.... That's where you will learn of their strong points and perhaps the weak points of the information that you've got. That should be a right of individuals prior to certification: testing the waters and getting objective, fair and accurate information from all sides. It's so basic. It's so responsible and sensible that I can't see a minister standing up in this House and saying that it's a matter of philosophical difference. Information is not a philosophical difference.

A former member of the House, Mark Rose, gave me a piece of paper once, and it was a quote from Edmund Burke that said: "Evil things can only happen when good men remain silent." We know what can happen when good men remain silent, like fascism in Nazi Germany. In this particular case we have to be able to hear the voice of reason from whatever perspective. It's the age-old argument about the difference in opinion on what an elephant looks like when one person is looking at the front end of the elephant and the other person is looking at the back end of it. Because it is a very major and important decision, surely as God made green apples, the employee should have the opportunity to pull information from every perspective prior to making a decision. I cannot see how the minister, being a lawyer and being familiar with our judicial process, can fail to appreciate the importance of adopting this amendment.

D. Schreck: As we face yet another stalling motion by the opposition on this amendment, it's important to clarify for the speaker from the third party just what philosophical difference exists on this clause and on this amendment. The question is: to what extent should an employer have the right to essentially intervene in the activities of the union? To what extent should the employer be able to influence organizing activities, decertification activities, ratification activities -- the essence of the functioning of the union?

There are those who argue that the employer should have no right to intervene. I recall, as a manager -- as I have been for most of my professional life -- appearing before Paul Weiler in the chair of the Labour Relations Board in the early 1970s, under a Labour Code that provided less room for the employer to communicate with employees than is provided in section 8 before us today. There are those who would go to the opposite extreme and say that the employer should be virtually 

[ Page 4254 ]

free to intimidate employees out of joining a union or into decertifying, or to unreasonably interfere in a ratification process on a collective agreement.

[2:45]

What we have before us is a careful balance of the employer being able to supply facts without going so far as to intervene in what is the proper, democratic rights of the employees in conducting their own affairs. There is clearly a debate on where that range of employer participation should take place. But at the end of the day, no one is questioning that the employer can communicate. The question is: what are the limits of communication? What is proposed in the statute before us is a reasonable limitation -- that is, the employer can communicate reasonably held fact. What the opposition is essentially arguing for is the ability for the employer to go beyond expressing reasonable fact into directly interfering in the internal matters of the union. That, hon. Chair, is a philosophical difference which we must oppose.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the hon. member on the government side endeavouring to expand on the so-called philosophical difference and why freedom of speech can be taken away. I think he has made a case, though not a very good or effective one, but I do appreciate the hon. member for conveying that information to me.

Hon. minister, in this amendment -- and again, from the input that I've heard -- it appears all right for the union to interfere in the rights of an employer without any reservation or restriction to say anything that they would say. When we talk about fair and balanced regulations and legislation, fair and balanced in the acceptance of responsibility, I fail to understand why this is considered interfering in the rights of a union.

Information is of absolute importance and has to be a right of all of us here, as British Columbians and as Canadians. The matter of interference.... We can talk about coercion and intimidation, and we will do so in the next section, but it is clear that there has to be a sense of responsibility and a sense of balance. The bias of this information is such that it is abundantly clear that that balance is not there. The union has all of the cards. They are calling the game, and they are calling the shots. The employer appears to have no rights whatsoever, and the employer -- as I enunciated with the illustration of, say, television sets -- should have the opportunity to speak about areas of his knowledge or his concern with respect to the union.

I can't understand how we can stand here in a legislature engaging in freedom of speech, and so willingly constrain freedom of speech in this particular case. I am fundamentally confident of the ability of the employee to assimilate the objective facts and make a decision with respect to his choice and his future. I have confidence in the employee. The hon. minister of the government appears to have no confidence in the employee and appears to think that the only way the employee will make the appropriate decision is if the information is given from only one side. I cannot accept that; I cannot buy that. It will take the minister a good while to convince me of fairness, balance and equity when he's cancelling the right of speech in Canada.

D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, the member from the third party has just said in debate that it's okay for the union to interfere in the rights of the employer, and shouldn't that be balanced with the right of the employer. I presume he then implies it's okay to interfere in the activities of the union. It's that conceptual framework that poses a fundamental philosophical difference between us.

The union carries out, through democratic decision-making, the will of the employees. If the employees choose to be represented by that bargaining agent, it is reasonable for the employer to make the employees and the union aware of hard facts. It is not fair, in my mind, for the employer to send a letter home to the spouse of each of his or her employees saying: "If this collective agreement is not ratified, I'll close down, and your partner will lose his or her job." That sort of thing happens, hon. Chair. It's not reasonable, in my mind, for the employer to say: "Unless you do things my way, I'm going to move to Mexico." I believe it is reasonable for the employer to lay out the financial facts of the company. It may even be reasonable for the employer to make more financial information available than is customarily the case, so that the employees, the union and the employer can work in partnership to create wealth and help the company advance. But it is unreasonable to give out partial or incorrect information in a propagandizing and intimidating fashion. Section 8 in the act before us prevents that sort of unreasonable interference in the internal activities of the union and the unreasonable intimidation of employees, and it essentially provides the philosophical difference between the two sides of this chamber.

When the member opposite states that it's okay for the union to interfere in the rights of the employer, I would say we see things differently. I do not see the union interfering in the rights of the employer; I see it representing the employees in a democratic fashion to protect the rights of employees, in the same manner that any professional or management person takes for granted their rights before the court. The rights that independent professionals or management personnel enjoy by having the resources, through common law, to go to court are essentially many of the same privileges that less well-off individuals enjoy through collective bargaining. That is the alternative to the courts for the middle class or poor people. The employer should have no more right to interfere in that decision-making process than he would have to interfere with a professional or management person exercising his rights in a judicial forum.

I say that there is a fundamental philosophical difference, and that is: what is the balance of power? What is the relationship to be? Is it to be a war, as I hear the opposition characterizing it, between the union and the employer? Or is it to be a democratic decision-making process for the employees, with minimal interference from an outside party, with a labour code doing everything it can to help both parties work together harmoniously to create wealth for this province, rather 

[ Page 4255 ]

than going to that opposition model of unnecessary strife and warfare between the parties?

The stalling motion is a philosophical difference between opposite sides, and it is nothing more than an attempt to go to an adversarial model of industrial relations rather than a cooperative model.

C. Serwa: It's really interesting when we use flowery language and talk about philosophical differences, when in actual fact we're talking about nothing philosophical at all. The reality is the fundamental difference between a concept of fairness and unfairness, and balance and a sense of justice. That's what we're really talking about here at the moment. In spite of the concern of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale with the position that our Labour critic has brought forward, it appears to me that the resistance and unwillingness to accept this amendment shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with the bias of the minister and the government in power at the moment. It shows me that there is something fundamentally wrong with their concepts of justice and fairness and unfairness. If those basic items are matters of philosophical abstraction, then I have a great deal of difficulty sitting in this Legislature with a government that does not understand fairness, unfairness or justice. That's what appears to come out.

I'd like to give to the hon. Minister of Labour a couple of examples of a situation which may occur -- which will probably occur. The employee who is considering becoming certified by a union.... Fundamentally, all of this discussion has to be not with the union bosses or the union organizers, but with the employees, the workers who are going to become certified or decide not to become organized. That has to be the objective of this whole exercise -- not something that simply facilitates unions.

But let's say, for example, that we have a union.... There recently was a case in British Columbia where the head of a union was charged and, I believe, prosecuted for converting union funds for his own benefit. If the employer is aware that that is occurring and has heard that it is occurring, surely there is some responsibility on the part of the employer to convey that. I'm very confident that that particular union or union boss is not going to inform the employee that they're cavorting around the country on his money, are misappropriating funds and not paying taxes on them -- but that happened recently.

Obviously, an instance such as the Teamsters organization that Hoffa ran in the United States was a severe problem. It's a matter of reality and not conjecture that horrendous situations occurred in the Teamsters in the United States. Certainly any employer who is aware of that should be able to counsel an employee. After all, we in this Legislature are supposed to be concerned about the individual worker, the employee who is contemplating this particular step -- and it appears that it is not being contemplated.

Other things may happen. Union officials may have criminal charges pending against them. If employers are aware of that, surely they have an incumbent responsibility to convey it. Why should you tie yourself to someone who is going to be unable or unfit to actually represent you? That is part and parcel.... It seems clear -- you understand that, hon. Chair -- that if you're doing a selling job, you will sell on the positive attributes. But you won't do the complete sell, because it's pretty hard to be your own devil's advocate. The reality is that if we're afraid of freedom of information in British Columbia, we have really severe problems in the union concept and perhaps in the government of the day. I cannot understand how freedom of information or access to that information can be dismissed so casually in labour legislation.

D. Streifel: It's out of order. Freedom of information doesn't apply to labour legislation. Give me a break.

C. Serwa: Well, hon. Chair, the member here on my side is saying that freedom of information doesn't apply, and I have a great deal of difficulty with that type of statement. But it's not untypical of the comments that are coming from the government side of the House, and that's what concerns me. We have legislation brought forward that denies the public interest, denies public safety and denies any responsibility to the free market. We have a great many things that the minister has absolutely refused to take into consideration in this, and now we're adding to it with denying freedom of information to employees.

What happens in another situation that I'll describe.... Let's say it's a relatively small metal fabrication firm in the interior of the province -- it might be in Prince George or in Hudson's Hope. Surely the employer should be able to talk to the employee about his concerns with respect to a particular union.

[3:00]

I can clearly see what's going to happen with the agenda of this government. It is designed for big government, big unions and big employers. That employee in the remote part of British Columbia will soon be out of a job, because the union agreement with the large operation in Vancouver will be such that they will be unable to continue business. That will be good for big business because they will beat down and eliminate all the competition. The reality is that that employee, who has in a way been victimized by certification, loses his job and the employer loses his business. Those are my express concerns, and I would certainly like to hear a valid response.

When there is an inhibition in this freedom of speech.... It's marvellous that in a legislature in the Westminster parliamentary system we should be debating whether or not we should allow freedom of speech in British Columbia.

D. Schreck: I very much welcome this opportunity to engage my friend opposite in a fundamental debate on principle on a particular clause within the labour code. I suppose that some of my friends opposite would say it's not hindering freedom of speech to say that people cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. If such restrictions are not philosophical perhaps this debate is not philosophical, but then perhaps words 

[ Page 4256 ]

have lost their meaning. As I give meaning to words, when we talk about the reasonable limits on an employer's ability to interfere in the internal workings of a union, that is a philosophical question. Whether we call it philosophical or not, it is a matter on which labour legislation must rule.

My friend opposite gives some examples, such as Jimmy Hoffa and a rather unfortunate breakaway union -- some would call it "rat" -- in British Columbia, and uses those as examples to say that because there are some bad players in fringe unions, that should justify direct employer communication and interference in the internal workings and communications of a union. I would suggest that if there is a difference of opinion within a union, if two individuals are fighting for the presidency or leadership of that union, it is quite inappropriate for the employer to bankroll or side with one of the parties. For the employer to get engaged in the internal workings of a union changes that union from an association democratically controlled by the members of that union to a front for the employer. Some would say that part of the problem encouraged under Bill 19 in this province was the attempt to assist some organizations to pretend that they were representing employees when in fact they were fronting for the employer.

Hon. Chair, there is a fundamental philosophical difference here. The members opposite in the third party.... I don't know to what extent the official opposition is siding with this view of the world. Some of the debate I have followed indicates some sympathy, but it's not always consistent. I look forward to hearing more of the debate and having these points clarified. It is truly a question of -- in whatever legislative framework we have -- where we are going to place the limits of what is reasonable. We say that it is reasonable for the employer to convey statements of fact. It is not reasonable for the employer to interfere in the internal workings of the union, to back one presidential candidate over another candidate for election within that union or to intimidate or coerce the partners of employees or the employees themselves. The employer should have some reasonable constraints, so we know it is the union that is speaking for the employees, not some propped-up group of employees backed by the employer that is overruling the democratic rights of the balance of the employees.

At the end of the day, part of the philosophical difference is that we believe that we should create a climate where employees and employers should work together to create wealth in this province. We should move away from this adversarial model that arms the employer with weapons to smash the union or interfere in its internal affairs.

C. Serwa: I enjoyed the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale giving the Minister of Labour a bit of a respite, because it is a heavy load.

The matter before us is one of the most important issues that has come up over the last period of years. The member referred to what he perceives as some shortfalls in Bill 19, although he didn't elaborate.

I don't see this as a high school ho-ho or shallow debate. The implications of this legislation for the province are very great indeed, and I believe the minister recognizes that. I suggest that perhaps the majority of government members, of the executive branch of government, fail to realize that. It appears that while Georgetti fiddles and the government of the day dances to his tune, the economy of British Columbia will burn. That's my fundamental concern with this. The concern, too, is not with the unions' upper echelons, the big union bosses, the moms and pops at the top echelons of the organization; my concern is with the people, the jobs, the economy and the future of B.C.

A great many fallacies that have been brought into this subject of section 8 and the amendment to section 8 will not withstand strong public scrutiny. At the end of the day, the decision on the part of the public will be the one that ultimately counts. But a number of areas concern me, particularly the restriction on an employer's freedom of speech. What happens if the union supports social causes that a potential union member will not and cannot support? What happens if some of his funds are sent to encourage revolutions in some other country? What happens if his union fees are spent in the promotion of abortion clinics, for example, and he doesn't have the ability to say anything once he becomes a union member? Coercion and intimidation are coming to the fore once he becomes a union member.

His one option prior to taking that step and prior to being able to evaluate the depth of that step is to have access to all information. Yes, information is biased. Whether you read the Vancouver Province or the Vancouver Sun, an editorial bias is always exhibited. But an individual has to have the opportunity to access all sorts of information from every quadrant, and then that individual, with their God-given ability, will make what they consider the best possible decision. I am vitally concerned that the restriction of freedom of and access to information will prevent that.

The other day I listened to part of the debate on this section. The minister was asking: does the Legislature feel that a potential union member will be working in isolation? He couldn't believe that. I'll tell you that they do work in isolation. They are not going to talk to each other.

I'll just move away emotionally from that scenario into one that I have seen played many times by property-purchasing authorities, whether they're soliciting easements or actually purchasing properties. For illustration, the technique is simply to say: "Everybody else has signed up except you." Eventually they find somebody who cracks and signs up, and then they start to use him: "Well, Joe has signed up, and Sam has signed up, and Mary has signed up. What's the matter with you? Aren't you supporting your colleagues out there?"

They're working from a point of ignorance. It's not from wilful ignorance; it's because of wanting the right to privacy. This is a personal decision. It's not a joke; it's not humorous. I'm certainly going to continue to speak for the rights of individuals in society. Individual rights are something that this government tramples on very 

[ Page 4257 ]

readily. In this particular case, we're trampling on a greater right. The minister has to appreciate what we're doing. We're eliminating the right of freedom of speech in this section, and that is not to be tolerated.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, this provision does not eliminate the freedom of speech of employers. The section is clearly entitled "Right to communicate." The section says that nothing in this code deprives a person -- which includes an employer -- of the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business. For the hon. member to suggest that somehow freedom of speech is being denied to employers doesn't stand up to scrutiny when one looks at the wording of this section.

The hon. member also knows that no freedom is absolute, and that there are restrictions on all freedoms. As I said in the House yesterday during the debate, we've always traditionally placed limits or parameters on freedom of speech. In American courts, one of the great American judges -- I can't remember exactly who -- said that freedom of speech does not mean the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. We've always recognized that there ought to be limitations on freedom of speech. Whether it be with pornography, on one end of the situation, or with being able to use profanities or with labour law, which is what we're dealing with here in the House, the extent of those limitations varies with the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

In the area of labour law there has been a lot of debate historically as to whether or not and to what extent an employer should be able to express any opinions with regard to an employee's decision to seek certification or to become involved in a trade union. There are some who have argued -- as I said yesterday in the House, trying to paraphrase something that Paul Weiler said some time ago -- that there really ought not to be any opportunity for an employer to say anything about a decision by employees to seek certification. In fact, I think it was Mr. Weiler who once said -- I'm trying to paraphrase him here again; he's one of the more learned and well-respected writers and educators in the area of labour relations -- that an employer has no more right to tell employees whether they should engage in certification than an employee has a right to tell an employer who ought to be the vice-president of the company.

In other words, I think the argument that historically has been put forward is that certain issues are within the realm exclusively of employees to decide as individuals and then make a collective decision as to whether or not they wish to seek certification. Other decisions are left solely up to management. That's one view that people hold.

Therefore it was not surprising that during the course of the consultation, which I've talked about innumerable times in this House, we received a wide array of opinions with regard to the right to communicate, on this issue in particular. Indeed, there were submissions from unions, for example, which ranged from requiring absolute neutrality to an absolute prohibition on the ability of an employer to express an opinion. On the other side of the coin, there are representations by employers asking for full rights as opposed to restricted rights, and trying to reduce the breadth and scope of that restriction.

The panel obviously had to deal with those conflicting issues in this matter, recognizing that it is a hotly debated matter within labour relations, and historically always has been, as I think the debate that we've had for the last few hours today and yesterday has demonstrated. It goes to a sort of outlook that people have on the world.

[3:15]

The panel, which as the hon. member knows consisted of representatives of both business and labour, unanimously chose to reject the argument that there should be an absolute prohibition on the right of employers to express opinions, and chose instead to proceed with the section that now finds itself in the legislation, which the hon. member seeks to amend, through his party -- namely, a section that says: "Nothing in this code deprives a person of the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business."

The panel accepted the fact that an employer could make representations in that regard, in that realm. It also accepted, to an extent, the fact that an employer really has to accept the fact that a decision to unionize is a decision that ought to be made by employees and to be made freely by those employees. The panel also made a conscious decision in the determination of this issue to not place any restrictions on the employees' ability to inform themselves of the facts -- any facts -- regarding a trade union. And there's nothing in this code that places those kinds of restrictions. So the balance was struck.

The hon. member may not find comfort in that balance, and that's fair enough. And I think it's fair to say, as I said candidly yesterday, that this is a philosophical issue -- which it really is, hon. member. I've heard your protest with respect to my use of that language, but I think it really is a philosophical issue. And because of the nature of that philosophical issue, it's been resolved in a particular way with the panel that we've established. I have my personal views with regard to that matter, which I won't get into. But I will say this: I'm prepared to accept what the panel has come up with, because I'm prepared to recognize that in a society such as ours, no rights are absolute.

So I would ask the hon. member to temper his comments to some degree, if I can give him that advice -- and I know he always takes my advice in more than a gratuitous fashion -- and recognize that a decision has been made. From the perspective that I come from, it's a fair and balanced decision. I respect the right of the hon. member to take issue with that view. After all, that's what this chamber is all about, and that's what debate in this House is intended to do: to further the public discourse with regard to difficult matters such as this. But to the extent that it's been studied, and at this time in history, with regard to this legislation and to the philosophical view that this government brings to labour management relations, we find comfort in the 

[ Page 4258 ]

position that is here. I respect your right to disagree with me, and I know where you are coming from, as I said yesterday to your colleague from Okanagan-Vernon. But I do think that for those reasons, we will not entertain the amendment that is put forward, because I don't think it fits.

I'm not going to bore the House by reading findings and jurisprudence with regard to the matter. I've got a couple of cases here which I think state the case quite well. If we get into an extended debate, I will do that. But I might as well be upfront with the hon. member at this point, that as eloquent as he may be with regard to his points, we have made a decision which we're comfortable with philosophically, and it is reflected in the legislation.

P. Dueck: I would also like to enter in this debate for a short time at least. Much has been said in the last number of days about Bill 84. In this particular section, where we talk about freedom, we talk about the very basics of human rights. I believe one can't skip over that easily and say there are safeguards in this section.

I can only speak from experience, and when I look at what has happened in the past, we try and make the employer an enemy and the employer looks upon the employee as an enemy. I think that is wrong. I think they must work together to be successful. If an employer is not successful, neither will the employee be successful. We're sort of drawing a line between them and us. Not only that, once a union has in fact been established, very often it is said you now work for the union. I absolutely disagree with that. You still work for the employer. Let's make that very clear. You're not working for the union, although the union is representing those people with the employer. But you're not working for the union. You are working for that employer, and it's only at the expense of the employer or with the success of the employer that there will be an employee.

My colleague across the floor mentioned something about intimidation. It's true; it works from both sides. Somehow we have to try and eliminate that or at least try and control it, because there is intimidation by some employers. There's also intimidation by employees or union organizers -- very much intimidation. We've talked about this. The Minister of Labour especially has again and again said "the intimidation of the employer." Well, I want to tell you that when we take away the secret ballot, that's when it becomes so important that information gets out, because now it is all one-sided.

You talk about balance. You're taking it completely to the other side, and it's very unbalanced. I know of an employer whom they were organizing -- and I'm telling you facts now. I'm not going to mention names or even the town. They're not from my community, but I know the individual very well. He had roughly 15 or 16 employees. He wasn't paying union wages, but he also wasn't paying minimum wages. He was paying a fair wage.

Well, the union organizer came in with much high-handed information on how they could double their wages overnight, so they should join and be certified. The employer told his employees.... They had, incidentally, a very good working relationship, except for one individual. They had worked together for many years. They were happy; he was a good employer. I know him personally, and he thought his employees were great.

They came to work for certification. So he called the employees in one night and explained exactly what was happening on his part. He told them that if he had to raise his wages -- he was walking on a very fine line -- he would have to close the shop. Well, that individual went to the union organizer and said: "He's interfering with certification." And they came out and were going to lay charges -- as a matter of fact, I think they were laying charges -- of interfering with the certification process. He said: "Look, all I was saying was that I want to save my business, but I also want to save the jobs of the employees."

They did go ahead. They had a secret ballot, mind you, but the union organizer worked one on one. He got them all to agree. They unionized. And what happened? The first contract came along, and he said: "I'm sorry, folks. I have to shut the door." They couldn't believe it, but he shut the door. And the one individual that was so hot to join the union? He laughed and said: "Well, we sure fixed you." The others cried and came to him: "Will you open up the shop again? We'll gladly go back for the same wages."

That's what I mean about information. Had that employer been able to talk with his employees more openly, and say: "Look, I'm not kidding you. I'm not trying to fool you. This is true. I cannot operate. It's a small manufacturing business, and I will go under. And before I go under, I'll shut the door." And that's exactly what happened. But to then raise the point that "We really did it. We told them you cannot do that. We can organize. We're now in business...." That business shut down, and that was the end of it.

What I'm trying to say is: let's be very careful that we don't swing that pendulum too far the other way and then have businesses closing. I'm particularly speaking of the small businesses, not the large ones. They don't worry me, because they've got enough resources, enough capital. If they go under, generally someone is there to help them -- the government or somebody. They help them again and again and lose that money too. I'm against all these government subsidies.

But the small businessman who started up on his own and borrowed money is trying hard. He's working night and day; he's working twice as hard as any employee. And now with this section he's going to be restrained. He can only say certain things, and he dare not get involved in the process at all, because he will be sued. Yet all he wants to do is say: "Look, fellas, we've got a good thing going. Maybe in a year or two we will be better off and can pay higher wages." But no. The union takes great pride.... I'll take that back. Some union organizers take great pride in threatening, "You'll see; we'll win," and very often they do win. We don't want that. I don't want that, and I'm sure you don't want that either, Mr. Minister.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we're very, very careful with this labour law, because what 

[ Page 4259 ]

everyone is saying on both sides is that what we're trying to achieve with some other sections in this bill we are not going to achieve. If you think we've had labour trouble up to this point, some of these clauses in here will really set it off, and I'm very much afraid.

I'm at the age now where I don't think I'll start another business, so it doesn't matter to me personally. But I'll tell you that there are many, many small entrepreneurs. Would you believe I already know of some construction companies that are cutting way back because they are afraid of what may happen? It's not even in place. It has not even been voted on, and they're already cutting back. A lot of subtrades are saying: "We're not bidding, because what will happen if a contract comes about where we must then join the union?" There's a lot of fear out there.

The minister can look with a smile on his face, but if he was in the real world, where I've been for the last 40 years, he would realize that it's not that funny. It is really serious stuff, and you'd better start thinking it over. Ask the people. Go around and ask the people. Not the big companies and these people who were on this panel. Ask the ordinary people and union people. Just go around and ask: "What do you think?" I'll bet you won't find anyone except a real hothead union guy who wants his will and no other way. The others will say it's going too far.

Hon. M. Sihota: I listened with great interest to the comments from the hon. member, as I always do from that hon. member. I've enjoyed working with him in this chamber since 1986, and I think he served the province very well when he was a minister of the Crown. He presents his case in a very effective way during this debate, although he may have strayed a little bit from the section that's before us. Given his stature, I think he's entitled to do that every once in a while, and he did do that.

I want to respond to the points that the hon. member raised. Let me start on this point, because I think this is where the hon. member started from: it is true that it is absolutely essential that employers and employees work together. Nothing is more important, to my way of thinking, than that there be a dovetailing of interests, some cohesion, some cooperation, because with all that comes productivity and pride, and those are the intangibles that give your product -- whatever it is -- an advantage over somebody else's. In a highly competitive world, those are the kinds of intangibles that make it a little easier for you to compete. Often, because overheads and wages are often similar, those types of intangibles give you the ability to survive in a marketplace which isn't there for others. I understand that.

The hon. member has certainly been involved in business far more than I ever was. But having listened to what the member for Okanagan West had to say, he's right. I grew up in a small business background, and I understand those long hours. Certainly in terms of my business experience in setting up my own practice, there's a pride that comes from those long hours and from seeing your business flourish. I know the sense that I used to get when I walked to my law office in Esquimalt. I remember the days when I started out with one person as secretary, and now I look at everything that's there.

[3:30]

I appreciate the points that the hon. member makes with regard to the need to work together. Indeed, this legislation endeavours to do that, and it encourages that kind of fundamental change in attitude. It encourages the change that takes us away from the adversarial and confrontational relationship that we've had between labour and management, and it encourages them to work together. I am confident all hon. members would agree with me that that kind of attitudinal change is absolutely essential in this province if we are to be able to compete in the economy that we find ourselves in. Through the joint consultative committee provisions and other provisions noted elsewhere -- which I can't talk about because it would be out of order, but certainly we will highlight them when we get there -- we're trying to force the parties to work together. We encourage them to do that.

Certainly through the process of developing this legislation -- which I won't get into either -- which was based on them working out these solutions and then coming to us as a government and saying, "Here are the changes that we can live with," we thought that would be a good way to bring about a change in that attitude, by getting them involved in the drafting of the legislation and by accepting all the provisions that business and labour could agree on. Fortunately, for our case, that was 160 out of 164. We think we've taken the first steps toward bringing about that fundamental change in attitude. So I agree with you there.

I also agree with a comment that you made, quite candidly.... I am certainly concerned about any variables that may arise to intimidate people into taking actions they would not want to take. That's why the section that we'll be dealing with next is in the legislation. I believe that the hon. member made reference to unions using strong-arm tactics to get people to do things they wouldn't want to do. Intimidation, coercion or threats don't really have a place in our society. That's not the way in which we in a free society think people should make decisions, and that's why we have section 9 in the legislation. It applies to any person; hence, it would apply to a trade union as much as to an employer. So I hear you on the intimidation issue, and it has been dealt with. It is also dealt with in sections 10 and 12 of the legislation, which place certain requirements of discipline on the part of trade unions.

It is also true that sometimes employers are not fully apprised of their responsibilities or fully cognizant of the law. It is true that there may be situations when an employer unwittingly -- to use the example that you used -- says something to employees that they don't realize is contrary to labour law practice. I think we all understand the old rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but we also understand that people are not up to date with regard to the law. As my own experience has shown me in terms of clients I've had to deal with, they may run afoul of the law without realizing that what they were doing would run them afoul of the law. It is important that people be aware of their rights, and employers should be.

[ Page 4260 ]

For all of the reasons that I went into with the hon. member for Okanagan West, there have been restrictions placed on the rights of an employer to communicate certain facts, and they're in there. As they are placed in there, they are not oblivious to some of the comments you made earlier about intimidation. Accordingly, I'm sure that the board, when it makes its determinations, will be doing that.

One of the things that would trouble anybody is misrepresentation. It may be easy to get someone -- in fact, it may not be against the law -- to sign a union membership card by saying that their wages are going to double, their benefits are going to triple and there will be milk and honey all over the place. But you have to understand that the real test of a union comes during the course of that first contract in terms of whether or not they are able to deliver on those representations they made to the employees during the certification effort.

From my own gauging of these issues, unions have come to understand that it's not in their interest to make wild representations about what may or may not be achieved. They understand fully that if it's not achieved, then come the first vote on the first contract, they may not get the support they want. Having expended a lot of energy, they may now find themselves with a unit that becomes, as they say, hard to service. In his consideration of this issue, the hon. member should be mindful of that fact and also mindful that no employee wants to lose their job.

No employee group is going to make such wild demands at the table as to result in a business ceasing its activity. Most employees value their jobs. Most employees understand that their prosperity is linked to the viability of a particular business. Most people understand that, and because they understand that....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member said no. You're using one fact pattern -- or maybe several -- and maybe some myths. I'm endeavouring to counter what I believe are myths out there.

You see, workers benefit and prosper as the economy and businesses benefit and prosper. There's an interdependence there that I don't think is lost on most working people. I don't think some of the fear that's been tossed about in this House.... I'm not accusing the hon. member of doing that at all; I want to make that clear. But some of the fear that's come with this debate is unwarranted. From my own experience and observation -- and I'm sure the observation of all members opposite, including the good member from Prince George, who would now seek to heckle after having been kind enough to give me a letter from one of his constituents in Vanderhoof to which I just responded today.... I may have to change the response now.

An Hon. Member: Intimidation.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's intimidation; that's right. All those nice things I said about you in the House the other day.

In any event, I just don't think fear has its place in this debate. These are very difficult issues of public policy, including the issue from which I have wandered. I should have stayed on it. Employer free speech is a very difficult issue of public policy. I don't think anyone proceeds with the development of public policy lightly. We're aware of the cross-pressures that operate in society. I think we're all united in terms of the goal that we want to achieve, which is a prosperous economy where workers and employers do well, and where there are high wages, high levels of employment and high returns and dividends to operators, be they small or large. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between ourselves and members opposite in terms of the role that trade unions can play in achieving those goals.

I won't go into further dialogue with regard to the role of trade unions. But I would commend to the member opposite the introductory 20 pages of the panel's findings, which talk about the relevance of trade unions in the economic situation that we find ourselves -- a highly competitive world -- how they can assist and what role they have played in terms of developing high employment economies with high wages and good returns for business. If he were to take the time to read that evidence, I think he would come to the conclusion that I have, which is that if done properly -- and I would argue obviously that this legislation seeks to do it properly -- we can achieve the goal that all of us desire, regardless of our philosophical differences. I think this legislation sets the framework and the platform for doing that, and I think this instrument of public policy will take us to the future as it must do.

If it has shortcomings or failings, then it is the obligation of government to reconsider some of the public policy initiatives that we took. But at this time this is the way to go in terms of our analysis of the issue. I would concur with the hon. member in hoping that we achieve the goal of having the parties work together, getting us away from our adversarial relationship and making sure that the remarkable potential of this wonderful province is met.

L. Fox: I listened with great interest to the minister's presentation over the last 15 minutes. I know that in the minister's family background there certainly is business experience, and I know the minister recognizes the difficulty of operating even a non-union business and making a success of it.

I listened to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale suggest that we should not judge all union organizers by the actions of a few. I suggest the same principle should be applied by this government to the employers. We should not judge all employers by the actions of a few. I have not heard a lot of substance in terms of actual incidents where there has been a substantial amount of harassment by employers of employees during negotiations to form a collective unit.

I speak in favour of this amendment, because I think it brings the pendulum back to the centre. It allows employees an avenue to find out the true facts about the corporation or business for which they work, plus it allows them a contact to speak in confidence to in order 

[ Page 4261 ]

to find the full truth about the union that is seeking to organize them.

Hon. Chair, I've been in sales all my life, and I know from my experiences that there are many salesmen who sell products -- call them widgets, if you will -- and talk only about the strengths of that widget and do not ever indicate any weaknesses. I submit that some organizers may in fact practise those kinds of principles. I would suggest that if employees do not have the opportunity to do their homework outside of that particular organizer, they would not know if that union is in a position to represent their principles or represent what might be in the best interests of the corporation and the employees. It would appear to me that if we were really concerned about the individual, we would not limit any opportunity of those individual employees to explore what might be in their best interests and what might be in their fellow employees' best interests.

As the member for Okanagan West said earlier, this particular amendment would allow individuals to find out whether or not any of this union's dollars might be going in areas which they, given their beliefs, could not support. Those kinds of issues, by and large, by those people of principle.... Those questions would be asked of an organizer. But the question has to be whether or not those questions would be answered truthfully by the organizer. These are the issues that I think we've really got to be concerned about.

The minister earlier suggested that the true test of a union is when it develops the first contract. I would agree with that in normal circumstances. However, what this legislation does is virtually limit the ability of even a new business going through this particular process to do business. Other clauses here limit the opportunity for that business to bring in replacement workers. It narrows what the management classification would be. That first contract may very well be the contract that puts that business out of business. That is of extreme concern to me, and it is something that every employee looking to seek membership in a bargaining unit should be aware of.

[3:45]

I have seen the incident with respect to the Canadian Tire store in Prince George, and I know the difficulties that both employer and employees went through in that situation. But I also respect the fact that the process eventually allowed it to happen. Had this legislation been in place as we see it right now, I submit to you, hon. Chair, that that business in Prince George would not be in existence at this time.

The minister also suggested earlier that no matter how much argument the opposition puts forward, this is his philosophical approach. This represents his ideals; therefore he is not prepared to endorse this very legitimate and realistic amendment. That concerns me somewhat. Once again in this chamber we're playing to the tune of the unions, rather than looking at what's in the best interests of the individuals in the workplace.

Interjection.

L. Fox: No, I didn't read that. It just came automatically.

Interjection.

L. Fox: I'm concerned that the minister takes it extremely lightly. This is not light.

Interjection.

L. Fox: I am not reading a speech.

I am extremely concerned. It's close to my heart, being a businessman. I know the effects, and I know what's being put before businesses today. There is hardly a business out there that has much of a bottom line, if any. When you look at the.... I spoke the other day about the effort that a small business man has to put out in order to start his business and for the first five to ten years. He mortgages everything he's got. He puts everything at risk in order to supply jobs and opportunities not only for himself but for others in his community. It's that employer who is taking the risk, and we should respect that. We should respect that if there is going to be a collective bargaining unit within a business, all parties should be involved in that process.

I have never worked for a union, nor have I ever owned a business which had a union, but I have been involved in negotiations with unions at both the school board and the municipal level, and I know the expertise that the employer has to develop in order to deal fairly and protect his interests with respect to his particular business or, in those cases, the taxpayer. Most small business people will not have the expertise, nor will they be able to afford the expertise to put their case forward, so it has to be done in a collective way, where we're involving communication among all the affected parties. If we expect that the IRC, or whatever we call it now, is going to look after that employer's interest, we're fooling ourselves, because that employer by and large will never get to the point where he can afford to go there.

With that being said, hon. Chair, I really wish the minister would reconsider the amendment put forward as a very friendly amendment to the process, and then we could go on and build the economy of British Columbia.

W. Hurd: I am pleased to join the debate in support of this amendment. I'd just like to seek clarification from the minister on a couple of points. They were raised earlier by the hon. member for Okanagan West, who was questioning whether the employer would have the right, without this amendment being in place, to communicate directly with the employees in a situation where the employees have the option to join a couple of unions, and the employer has information that might assist the employees in making an informed decision. Without this amendment, would it be the opinion of the minister that the employer would be restrained from communicating that information to the employees?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says that he supports the amendment. It may be that even with the amendment, there may be a prohibition with regard to this issue. But let me say this, as I've said to the member 

[ Page 4262 ]

before: I'm not going to get into hypothetical situations with regard to this section. The Labour Relations Board will be dealing with the interpretations of it, and I'm not going to fetter its discretion at this time.

W. Hurd: I find that response somewhat curious, because I had an opportunity last night to reread the annual report of the Industrial Relations Council, and I noted that in 1991, "...the division continued to refine and enhance its computer-driven database containing compensation information on all active collective agreements within the province," which I assume has been a real initiative of the Industrial Relations Council. If the employer were able to access that information about collective agreements in the province, wouldn't there be a problem here with the employer being unable to communicate that information in the workplace with respect to collective agreements that they've won previously, to possibly counteract misinformation that might be given out by the union seeking to certify the workplace?

Hon. M. Sihota: As the hon. member knows full well, nothing in this act prohibits employees from securing that very information, should they wish to secure that information.

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask the minister another question relating to the activities of the job protection commissioner in this province, who may be called in by the employer to try to save the business, which is happening all too frequently in this province. Can the minister assure the committee that without this amendment, the job protection commissioner would not be restrained in any way from communicating information from the employer to the employees with respect to the financial situation of the business, or any other piece of information that the employer may want to communicate relative to the survival of the business in the event of a collective agreement being negotiated or a union being certified, or to the expectations the employee might have with respect to wages and benefits? Would the job protection commissioner be in any way restrained from doing his job, which is saving the enterprise?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member shows a remarkably appalling lack of understanding of this section and a lack of understanding of the job protection commissioner's job. I'm not going to dignify that kind of silly question with an answer. I suggest that the hon. member, who could take the time, should go over and read what the job protection commissioner does. He should find out what kinds of situations people get themselves involved in, and he should determine on his own whether or not the job protection commissioner is in a position of having to deal with certification issues. It's just a ridiculous question, hon. Chair.

W. Hurd: Well, Mr. Chairman, we're talking here about the free flow of information and the ability of employees to make a reasonable decision about whether or not they want to certify the workplace. Surely information that might be accessible to the Industrial Relations Council or the LRB could be potentially misrepresented by the union in the workplace. If the employer were to learn of that misrepresentation, you're suggesting that he would have no right to communicate that information to his employees.

This minister assumes that every union is created equal, and that every piece of information they might push out to the employees during a certification drive is accurate. As the hon. member for Okanagan West has pointed out, that simply isn't so. If he were to look at the cases that were before the Industrial Relations Council last year, he would realize that there have been allegations of misinformation in the workplace by both parties. So I find it rather astonishing that he would suggest that the questions are out of order, and that a simple amendment to this section of the act -- a reasonable amendment proposed by the third party -- would not eliminate those possibilities.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I didn't suggest that whatsoever. I suggested that the hon. member should inform himself of certain facts. If he were to be blessed with that intelligence, he would realize that the question he's putting forward in this House really has no relevance to this section.

C. Serwa: First of all, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the minister for the courtesy and the quality of his response. Even though I object to the direction the minister is coming from, I really appreciate the quality of debate that is in progress this afternoon. I think that's the type of quality we should strive for, so I'm very sincere and genuine in my appreciation.

My concern comes probably more from an interior perspective than from the southern portion of Vancouver Island or the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Perhaps my perspective and my concern are from the recognition that labour legislation has to be consistent throughout the province of British Columbia. But the environment that it applies to is very inconsistent, and that's a fundamental concern of mine. So when I raise these issues -- I recognize the minister's reluctance, and he has made it abundantly clear that he is unwilling to accept the amendment that I'm speaking to -- I still want to reinforce and enhance the understanding and awareness of the issues that are significant and form the basis for my concern. The reality is that the interior of the province is confronted with a number of additional challenges over the densely populated areas of the province. When we look at consistency of wage scale and all of those other issues, we have to also take into account the inconsistency in the cost of freight. Materials coming in and going out of the area increase costs. So the concern is about small businesses that are unable to effectively handle or accommodate in terms of their cash flow the type of consistency required under this legislation.

We talk about freedom of information, and I know the minister is very sympathetic to that. It's fundamental that prior to an employee in the interior of the province making a decision, he really must understand, 

[ Page 4263 ]

from all perspectives, precisely what he may or may not be getting into. It may be to his advantage to join a union and become certified, or it may not be to his advantage. It may depend on the union that he may wish to become certified with.

I appreciate the comments of the minister -- and he was right -- that there are limitations to freedom of speech. He enunciated some of them. Certainly hatemongering, racism and the call of "Fire" in a crowded theatre are the types of things for which there are restrictions and responsibilities. But this type of freedom of information and freedom of speech, which the government has supported aggressively, doesn't come anywhere near that type of concern. They are apples and oranges. Even greater than that, they are worlds apart in degree of concern. We can handle freedom of information. The minister is right when he indicates that we do not want coercion or intimidation involved in this. I understand that, and we in the Social Credit caucus understand it. But we have difficulty with restricting equality and the type of information that is coming out.

[4:00]

I refer again to a comment, and while it's not quite appropriate in this section, it's something that is not being diminished in this legislation. As a matter of fact, we are concerned that the bias may be heightened. There, once again, is the difference in perspective concerning the ability of the employee to get information from different sources before he makes the decision.

In the course of debate -- and we're only on an amendment to section 8 -- we've seen a number of things vanquished. I have a great deal of concern, and I think the minister honestly has a great deal of concern, with the things that we have seen vanquished and abandoned. Individual rights have been lost. We have public safety, which is a non-issue as far as responsibility is concerned. We have the public interest, which has been divorced from this legislation. We have divorced any responsibility to or recognition of the free market economy. And today -- much to my regret, and I sincerely think to the regret of every member of the Legislature -- we are hitting free speech right on the head.

I honestly believe that the minister has to reconsider the implications of the loss of free speech and a responsibility to the workers' information and knowledge. He must re-evaluate his assessment of their ability to make a quality judgment based on quality information. That quality information has to come from a number of perspectives. As I've said before, all of it will be biased to a greater or lesser extent. But no one can have confidence in a decision made only with information coming from one side. I recounted at a much earlier stage the danger of that. The danger I mentioned was western frontier justice, where a fellow was charged with cattle-rustling and brought before the judge. The prosecution attorney made his case, and the judge said: "We'll hang him in the morning." Then the defence lawyer jumped up and said: "But, your Honour, you haven't heard my side of the case." The judge said: "It doesn't matter; that would only confuse me." In remembering that, I would suggest the minister reflect.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On section 8.

W. Hurd: With respect to section 8, the ability and freedom of the employer to communicate to the employee, I wanted to.... When we were debating the amendment to this section earlier, I raised the point of the collective bargaining information system, provision for which has been eliminated in the current legislation. It's somewhat troubling to me, Mr. Chairman, that in reviewing this act there appears to be no other time to bring this point up than under debate on section 8. I was particularly impressed with the amount of work by the Industrial Relations Council that has gone into assembling the kind of information that would be of use to both employers and employees in the workplace. It's an on-line computer system that gives access to all current compensation information and active collective agreements in the province. I find it rather troubling that this requirement under the act to file that type of information with the Labour Relations Board has in fact been eliminated in the current legislation and would really impinge upon the ability of the employee to communicate or be communicated to by anyone in the workplace as the information system becomes more and more out of date because there's no requirement under the act for information to be updated.

[4:15]

I think it's rather interesting to look at the kinds of services that are going to be eliminated, the kinds of services that would assist employees in gathering the information they need to make informed decisions about certification in their workplace. The Industrial 

[ Page 4264 ]

Relations Council has published Collective Bargaining Information Monthly Summary, which talks about the highlights of recent settlements, gives information on work stoppages in the province, and lists expiring contracts and all arbitration awards. I note here that the division has also been active in ensuring that parties to collective agreements provide copies of the agreement to the council, as mandated by the act. There are almost 4,000 agreements on file at the council's library. No longer being required under the current act to be forwarded will mean that the collective agreement library would soon fall into disuse, as more and more agreements are signed but might not be filed.

I certainly wonder -- and this is my question to the minister -- why this requirement to file collective agreements with the Industrial Relations Council, which under this act would be the LRB.... Is he concerned that this valuable on-line computer program, which has been eliminated in the current act, will have the potential to deprive a person of the ability to communicate or to receive information which might assist them in making enlightened decisions not only as to whether they want to certify but as to which union they might want to be involved with in their workplace? Because, of course, the information is also part of the 4,000 collective agreements, as to whether the representations being made in the workplace are accurate.

When we're dealing with small employers, where the workforce may be relatively young, I am sure that the individual employees wouldn't be aware of this particular service available through the Industrial Relations Council. So I wonder if the minister can provide us with a reason, in view of the fact that he feels strongly about certain aspects of employee communication in the workplace, why this provision to provide information to the collective bargaining information system in the IRC has been eliminated in the current act.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member obviously has not taken.... It's frustrating, because I thought I made the point earlier to the hon. member. I guess I'll have to make it again: there are provisions in legislation which the hon. member should inform himself of which allow for information to available, to be filed and to be released to the public.

W. Hurd: The minister hasn't even addressed the issue. The issue is that under the past act there was a requirement for that information to be forwarded to the IRC. The fact remains that that provision has now been eliminated, so employers or unions may not be required to forward that information. I can't understand for the life of me why the IRC would have invested so much money in this system, bringing it on line, to allow it to fall into disuse merely because there's no requirement under the current act for the information to be updated. Surely in the spirit of open communication and freedom of information, the minister would see the wisdom in requiring employers and people involved in labour relations to keep this collective bargaining information system going.

Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Chairman, I have tried to be as polite as I possibly can to this member, but let me tell you this: the member should pick up his copy of the labour code, which is before him, and read section 51 of Bill 84. Do I have to spell it out for him? Then he should pick up a copy of the Ministry of Labour Act and read the provisions there in terms of our responsibilities. Then he can decide whether he wants to humiliate himself by coming back in front of this House and asking that kind of question.

W. Hurd: The minister's response, when it comes to freedom of information and the ability of an employer to communicate, is about what we would expect.

Perhaps the minister would welcome the opportunity to advise the House about the relative advantages of the collective bargaining information system and to assure all those people who are going to be entering the brave new world of labour relations under Bill 84 that they will be able to access this information and that it will be current. Then there would be no need to continue to pursue this line of questioning. If he can make that assurance, we can proceed.

Hon. M. Sihota: We are dealing with section 8 of this bill, which says: "Nothing in this code deprives a person of the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business." That's the section that's currently before this House for debate.

This question is irrelevant to the concern that the hon. member expresses. But, fair enough, if he wants to know, and if he wants to step outside all the boundaries of the rules in this place and jump ahead to various sections and not inform himself about other sections, yes, we recognize that we have that obligation, and we are absolutely committed to furthering it.

D. Symons: I have some concerns also, and these were somewhat expressed earlier by members of the third party, regarding the rights of the employer as far as this particular section goes. I'm thinking that there could be a situation -- and again, this could probably happen in smaller companies.... It says in this particular section: "Nothing in this code deprives a person of the freedom to communicate." But suppose we have the situation where a group of employees are approached by a union organizer who speaks to each employee individually, as is often the case, and gets them to sign cards, and at no time is the employer aware that a certification process is taking place among his employees. They reach that magic 55 percent, and that now means there's automatic certification. You can see that what I'm talking about here ties in with section 23. At that point there would be automatic unionization of that particular establishment. According to my reasoning here, the employer would not have had the opportunity of conveying to his employees the concerns he might have regarding that unionization and how it may affect the job situation of that company.

I'm wondering if you can somehow assure me that an employer has to be informed that there is a certification movement going on among his employees. 

[ Page 4265 ]

How would he have the opportunity to avail himself of this thing that seems to give him the right? A right after the fact isn't a right at all.

Hon. M. Sihota: Earlier on we had a very civil debate in this House with respect to a very difficult issue: employer free speech. I listened with interest to the comments of the member for Okanagan West and the representations of the Social Credit Party with regard to this issue. I must commend them for raising issues in a timely and effective fashion. I've also said the opposite with regard to the Liberal opposition.

We are now into the fifth or sixth day of debate on this issue. I'm sure the hon. member must understand that the purpose of debate is not fulfilled if we simply repeat matters that have already been canvassed in this House.

I just want to tell the hon. member that your leader raised this very issue yesterday in debate, and prior to that your critic raised this very issue in debate. In both cases I took the time to respond to their concerns. In fact, if memory serves me right, the member from Surrey-White Rock, who has now left the chamber, also asked questions with regard to this issue. Now for the fourth time I am being asked to deal with the issue. I am going to refer the hon. member to Hansard yesterday. If he has any difficulties as a consequence of what was said in Hansard yesterday, I will be happy to amplify on any of the issues that were not raised in Hansard yesterday.

D. Symons: I'm sorry, I did not hear those responses to the questions. I will look in Hansard. I would ask, however, due to my concerns here, whether it may be possible to allow section 8 to stand down until after we consider section 23. After section 23, then we will know whether my concerns have been addressed properly regarding section 8. So I would ask the minister's pleasure in letting section 8 stand down.

The Chair: Hon. member, that is a matter that is up to the minister or the members to decide upon, if the minister wishes to consider your request.

Hon. M. Sihota: We're not interested in standing down section 8 while we get to section 23, but I will concede this to the hon. member. If he's not satisfied with what was said in Hansard yesterday, he, and hopefully he alone, can ask me questions with respect to the issue he's raised when we get to section 23. I'll give you that latitude when we get to section 23. I will give you my undertaking that I will not object procedurally to your raising this issue at that time if you're not satisfied.

L. Stephens: I have just one short question. With regard to "statement of fact or opinion reasonably held," would that include a statement by an employer such as myself if I said: "if my employees unionize, I will be out of business in six months"? Would that be regarded as a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held?

Hon. M. Sihota: Those kinds of representations have been made from time to time. The Labour Relations Board has in the past looked at those issues and made determinations with regard to those types of issues. There is ample jurisprudence on that type of issue. Given the fact that they rise so frequently, it would seem to be wrong for me to fetter their discretion in the future by making a comment in the House now as to whether or not I think that constitutes a violation of section 8. It is not out of the realm of the kinds of issues that do arise, and based on the appropriate fact pattern, we have allowed the board to make a determination as to whether or not it would offend section 8.

L. Stephens: Given that this is a new code and given the jurisprudence and the rulings of the previous commissions and boards on this type of question, would the minister give some assurances that these types of questions and his reference to natural justice would apply?

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's a delight to see you in the chair again doing your usual conscientious and very efficient job.

I should say that natural justice provisions deal with the responsibilities of trade unions with regard to their internal matters; for example, trade union discipline. These issues deal with employers and their ability to communicate. I think the member, through her nodding, recognizes the distinction there.

[4:30]

Section 8 approved on the following division:

[ Page 4266 ]

On section 9.

L. Hanson: I know that the minister has had a brief rest during these calls for division, and I know that this will put him in a mood to accept the amendment that I intend to introduce to section 9.

In today's economy, more than ever is riding on the decision of an individual to join or not join a particular trade union. The result of that makes it very important that we increase and elevate the information and ensure that the standard of information provided to the individual, when they are making the decision as to whether or not they should become part of a union, is of the greatest quality. We must ensure that the information is accurate, straightforward and not biased either for or against the joining of a union.

The minister who has consumer affairs as part of his title is well aware of the consumer protection legislation we have in place that covers the purchase of any number of things, and I even remember the minister standing in the House and suggesting that he was going to pursue some individuals or businesses which had provided false information to the potential customer. If I can liken the individual's decision as to whether they should join a union or not join a union to the decision to buy an automobile or something as everyday as a vacuum cleaner, that individual is entitled to information that is accurate, factual and acceptable.

The title of section 9 says, "Coercion and intimidation prohibited," and it reads that a person shall not use coercion or intimidation of any kind. We don't believe that the prohibition against the use of coercion goes far enough. We believe that the wording would allow a situation where coercion and intimidation could be used. I suggest that the decision of the individual to become a member of a trade union with a view to certification of that union as a bargaining unit for their employer is one of the most important decisions that the individual will make. Unlike buying an automobile or a vacuum cleaner, the decision will likely affect that person's life for as long as they are in the workforce. While you can trade in an automobile or a vacuum cleaner, once you have joined a bargaining unit for certification, you live with the conditions that brings. While sometimes the conditions it brings are less than totally acceptable or desirable, quite often they provide some benefits. But the point is that the individual should have the right to and the benefit of all the knowledge they can possibly get to make that decision.

Our amendment to section 9 simply says: "Nor shall any person make false or unreasonably held statements of fact or opinion with respect to a union or an employer's business, or misrepresent a material fact with respect to a union or to an employer's business in order to induce a person to become or to refrain from becoming or to continue or cease to be a member of a trade union." I would officially move that, as it stands in my name on the order papers.

On the amendment.

L. Hanson: Mr. Chairman, the fairness of the requirement for the people who are trying to convince an employee to join or not join a union is such a simple fact in our democracy that we see it as absolutely without question that it should be available or be a protection for the individual against any coercion or intimidation under those circumstances. I ask you: does the fact that coercion and intimidation are sometimes used by both sides of the equation -- those who are trying to promote the certification or unionization of an employer and the employer and management having some concerns about that happening -- not justify the use of anything but real, proper and reasonable facts about opinions of what the result would be? We believe that this amendment to section 9 would ensure that. I'd like to hear the Minister of Labour's opinion as to what this amendment would accomplish.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, it won't accomplish consumer protection, if that's what I heard the hon. member talking about at the beginning. It's a clever way to introduce the whole issue by using some language which tends to, I believe, follow the language of the Trade Practice Act.

We at this point will study what the hon. member has raised in his amendment; I will grant him that. But our preliminary view is that it is unnecessary, that the coercion and intimidation prohibitions found in the legislation are adequate, that they attend to the wrong that we are seeking to redress. The prohibition has been in place in the legislation since 1954, someone was telling me, so it's a little bit older than I am. It was deleted in 1984. It seems to me that the language found in section 9 deals appropriately with the issues that we've identified.

L. Hanson: I guess the minister will come back with a difference in philosophy and a difference in ideology when we get into more detailed questions, but by the same token, I'd like to ask a simple one of the minister. Does the minister honestly feel that there is a serious prohibition against the making of a false or unreasonably prejudicial statement? Is that protection there now for both employer and union organizer? Is that prohibition in the act, and if so, where is it adequately covered? Could the minister tell me where the amendment that we have made is duplicated, and where it is adequately guaranteed that that won't happen without the inclusion of this wording?

[4:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think it is elsewhere in the legislation.

L. Hanson: I'm sure the minister is going to come back again with the suggestion that it's not needed, because the fairness of the workplace automatically creates an atmosphere in which these sorts of things don't happen. But I can suggest to the minister that I know of a number of cases where it would be perceived that intimidation was used. We now have legislation in place that says that if we as MLAs are perceived by reasonably intelligent people as having a conflict of interest, then we are guilty. I have some examples where there were calls to homes late at night during an 

[ Page 4267 ]

organizing drive. I have examples where huge people -- huge in stature -- came to the door, which appeared to be a deliberate move. I've been told about statements such as: "Your name will be mud in this town if you don't sign a certification card." I have heard of statements being made as simple as: "The boys won't like it if you don't sign this card." I've heard of statements like: "Everyone has joined but you." I think the individual has a right to be protected from all of these things.

The purpose of the amendment that we have brought forward is simply to ensure that that doesn't happen. I can't believe that reasonable people, thinking about the real issues that we are talking about here today, could have any opposition to such a simple amendment that would give that basic guarantee to the individual. I believe the Minister of Finance is going to respond.

Hon. G. Clark: The reason the amendment is not acceptable is that it's not required. I draw members' attention to the section itself. It says: "A person shall not use coercion or intimidation of any kind." All of the points mentioned by the member are completely covered by the existing section, section 9. So your amendment is superfluous. It's redundant. The concerns you have about coercion and intimidation and making that an offense are all covered by this section to either join or not join a union. I think you're just filibustering, frankly. This amendment isn't required and is more than adequately covered by the existing section 9.

L. Hanson: I can certainly assure the minister that it is not filibustering. I would suggest to the minister that if there is a possibility of any of this happening, as we suspect very seriously there is, intimidation or coercion may be used. If there is the slightest possibility that that might happen, I'm sure the minister would agree that this wording is much stronger than the wording in place there.

The minister is using the argument that it's not needed. I've made some remarks about our having lots of paper. We do have the ability to print it, which really wouldn't put much of a burden on the B.C. economy, and I know the minister has a concern about that. Would it not be reasonable to put this amendment in place in order to be absolutely positive that none of that happens in the process of certification and signing up members? I don't think you can have enough safeguards, security and protection against that happening. It's too important to the individual's rights. It's too important to the process. It's too important to what we consider to be the rights of the individual, which I might add are being sadly neglected by the majority of this bill. At least a prohibition against coercion and those sorts of tactics would not only prohibit the organization from doing that but also the employer, because the definition of a person includes both.

So my position and my party's position -- and I suspect the opposition would subscribe to this -- is that it is such a fundamental right of the individual that too much protection can never be put in place.

Hon. G. Clark: I just want to comment. I have before me a decision by a noted labour relations practitioner named Ed Peck. I know that you know Ed Peck. This decision was in 1979. At that time the words in the Labour Relations Code were identical to the words we're debating here. Mr. Peck says: "The language serves to overlap and reinforce certain prohibited employer conduct already identified" -- and this is exactly the same in terms of the restrictions on the ability of the employer -- "however, it is not confined to the regulation of employer conduct but is directed at coercion or intimidation by any person. By definition of the code, person includes both employers and trade unions."

Here we have the then vice-chairman of the Labour Relations Board interpreting the old code in the strongest possible way. I submit to you that if you read this case, you will see that it is very strong language that outright prohibits any coercion or intimidation from an employer or from a union. It's consistent with what we had in the past, and the case law that interpreted what we had in the past interpreted it in the strongest possible way. So there is no need for adding further words to the strongest possible language. In fact, I would submit that the amendment the member is proposing, which talks about false or unreasonably held statements, serves to narrow the definition of what in this code is very strong, broad and tough language. Mr. Peck said that in 1979. I agree with him. It's the one time I agree with Mr. Peck very clearly. It was in his decision in 1979, and I would submit that it is not necessary to have this amendment.

D. Streifel: It's a pleasure to join this debate on one of the areas in a labour code that is most used during the processes of negotiation and certification.

The former Labour minister -- the hon. member off to my right down here -- was talking about...

Hon. G. Clark: Way right.

D. Streifel: Way right -- far off to the right down here. ...coercion and intimidation. I like to think that this section 9 lives up to a very valuable principle everywhere we go in life, and that's certainly the KISS principle. As such, the amendment that has been put forward by the hon. member -- the former Labour minister -- serves no better purpose than to confuse and narrow a situation. I'm actually inclined to define the KISS principle for those who aren't familiar with it, but I think I'd find myself in the situation of having to withdraw a few words that aren't necessarily parliamentary. But I'd like to carry on a little bit here.

The former Labour minister made a comment that the vast majority of the provisions in this code serve to ignore individual rights. I disagree with him and hope he would consider retracting those statements, because the vast majority of this code is indeed his own work when he was the Labour minister.

When we talk about coercion and intimidation, the language in this particular code forbids anybody from entering into coercion and intimidation. The hon. 

[ Page 4268 ]

member far off to the right made a comment about late night calls. He must have been reading a recent decision of the Industrial Relations Council as it pertained to the Canadian Tire situation in Nanaimo, when so many late night calls were delivered by the employer to the membership and so many acts of coercion were delivered by the employer to the membership there. In fact, the union involved received only the second automatic certification ever granted in the dubious history of Bill 19.

If you look at the charges and actions that have come before the Industrial Relations Council and the former Labour Relations Board, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find charges brought against a union under this clause, because the fact is that it seldom happens. It seldom happens in the image that the hon. member off to the right would like to leave with the public -- that of a huge goon showing up to sign up the diminutive prospective member of a trade union.

In fact, it goes the other way. What we have, again, is a situation -- and I would suggest maybe Canadian Tire in Prince George on a three-winter-long strike.... There were insidious acts of coercion and intimidation practised on the strikers there -- such minor little incidents as bullets in their heating barrel. They'd get there in the morning to fire up the barrel to keep them warm on the picket line in a Prince George winter, and in some instances they had to run for their lives because people had put bullets in the barrel. I think that's fairly significant and strong intimidation and coercion, and the board at the time felt so as well.

I think of coercion and intimidation situations. The last picketer at Slade and Stewart down on Terminal Avenue may have felt that he was coerced and intimidated when he didn't wake up because he had a knife in his ribs. Those are the types of coercion and intimidation that are still practised today. If we could say that they were gone with the turn of the last century, maybe we wouldn't need language like this in a collective agreement. But as they do exist today -- as they exist now in Port Alberni with the K Mart strikers and as they existed in Comox with the medical clinic strikers -- we definitely need a clause in a labour code to protect all people from the practices of coercion and intimidation, as this one does. It protects them all, in unclouded and uncluttered language that, in my opinion, renders the clause, as it reads now.... The offered amendment would leave the clause unintelligible and unworkable.

L. Hanson: The member obviously hasn't read the section or the amendment. As near as I can understand it, it applies to everyone. It applies to both the employer and the union organizer. He started telling us about where some employers had done such terrible things. There has been a lot of that. I hope the member is not suggesting that we are condoning any of that. There was a really difficult situation in the Northwest Territories with the mine explosion. None of that should happen by anyone, whether it was a union organization, an employer or anyone else. All we're doing here is trying to ensure that it doesn't happen. But if it does happen, there should be an ability for the Labour Relations Board to deal with it swiftly and clearly.

I listened to the argument of both the Minister of Finance and the last member. It reminded me of the article I read in the newspaper in which some individual was trying to suggest that a democratic right to vote was some impingement on their freedom. It was turned around. The argument I have just heard from the Finance minister and the member are just about as believable.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Finance. I assume he's the acting Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour has left the House and is not participating in the debate anymore. That's typical. The amendment that's being brought forward by the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon is, I think, given in all sincerity.

I look at section 9 as it stands now in Bill 84 and then I look at it with the amendment offered by the member to my left, and I see a difference. I see a difference regarding coercion and intimidation, which in my mind seems to be very strong language, as the minister mentioned. In his argument regarding the decision by Ed Peck, he merely stated that applied to both the union and the business, whichever it may be. I see perhaps a touch of reality in the amendment in that it deals not necessarily with what one would think of as intimidation or coercion, under the strong language that the minister mentioned, but with misstatements of fact, misleading statements that would cause confusion, or a lack of accurate facts for an employee to base his decision on.

[5:00]

D. Streifel: Wrong section.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member wants to get up and engage in debate, I'd be glad to have one with him.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. Please direct your comments through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume he will do so.

In my mind, I see a difference between the words "coercion and intimidation" and the wording in the amendment being offered, in all sincerity, by the member for Okanagan-Vernon. I think it tends to add something to it. It doesn't tend to narrow it; instead, it tends to offer another category that wouldn't really fall within coercion and intimidation but would still have an effect on those employees trying to determine whether or not they want to become certified and which union they'd like to be certified by. We want to ensure not only that they're not coerced and intimidated but also that they have accurate facts on which to base their decision.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't want to repeat myself except to say I support, and I think the government can generally support, the intent of the amendment. There's nothing wrong with the amendment in the sense that 

[ Page 4269 ]

you're trying to deal with it, but if members read section 8 in conjunction with section 9.... Section 8 says: "Nothing... deprives a person of the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business." The next section says: "A person shall not use coercion or intimidation of any kind that could reasonably have the effect of compelling or inducing a person to become or to refrain from becoming or to continue or cease to be a member of a trade union."

This is very strong and unequivocal language. Obviously it's open to interpretation by the Labour Relations Board. It has been interpreted in the past in a very broad way, and I think all members of the House would hope it would be again. So to add another paragraph which deals with misstatement of facts is, I think, just redundant. It may have the potential to restrict that clause by taking a general statement against coercion and intimidation and adding one relatively narrow in terms of misstatement of fact or opinion. It really just confounds it. It's cumbersome. It doesn't do what you're suggesting.

This section in my view is broad enough to encompass it. That's how it's been interpreted in the past, and the amendment as you suggest it is not required -- even though I don't have any hesitation in saying that I personally support the intent of the amendment. But in terms of our legislative counsel, our panel, all the review, the jurisprudence and the Ministry of Labour staff it's simply not required.

G. Farrell-Collins: I look at section 8 and section 9 together as one set of legislation, in that section 8 grants the rights and says what you can do, and section 9 sets the limits on those rights. The Minister of Labour has spoken about that a number of times in the House.

I see that in section 8 it says a person has the freedom to speak on issues relating to the employer's business. Section 9 deals with coercion on behalf of any person in any form whatsoever, whether that be the union or the employer. What we're missing here is the fact that statements made about the trade union, about what the trade union can do for the employees, what the effect of the trade union will be on the employees.... Let's leave the employer out of the picture altogether. Let's look at the union going to these individual workers and saying: "We want to represent you. Here's what we can do for you and this is why you should join this union." Without using intimidation, without using coercion, there's a loophole here that would allow those people to misrepresent what they can do for those employees. I think that that loophole needs to be addressed, not for the sake of the employer but for the sake of the employees making their determination as to what the benefit will be to them of the certification drive.

I'm sure that that's the area the hon. member is trying to close and tighten up, and I think the minister agrees that that hole exists and needs to be dealt with in some capacity. Unfortunately, the amendment for section 8 wasn't allowed. I would tend to agree with the minister. There probably wouldn't be a need to put it in section 9; but seeing that there's been no change to section 8, it's now incumbent upon us to put that provision into section 9 to ensure that that type of scenario doesn't occur.

Hon. G. Clark: We disagree that there is a loophole. No one came forward and suggested there is a loophole; there was no loophole criticized in the early seventies and eighties. All the way through the seventies and eighties, when this kind of language existed, we didn't see any representation criticizing it. Your suggestion today was never put forward by anybody.

The problem we have is a semantic one. You're suggesting that there might be a loophole and a way of fixing it. We disagree with the premise. There is no loophole. This is a broad prohibition against coercion and intimidation. It's consistent with everything we've had in the past. It's been interpreted that way in the past, and we have no reason to believe it will be interpreted differently in the future.

When you take section 8 and section 9 together they cover all the events that the members have criticized. Everything the members have said they're concerned about is covered by the existing language in this bill.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a final question to the minister. It is his intent and the intent of his government, in bringing forth this legislation, that section 9 would include misstatements of fact on behalf of a trade union made to prospective employees who may become certified in that union. I'll repeat it for the minister because I notice he was chatting. If I'm reading the minister correctly, the intent of this government and the minister is to ensure that the words "coercion" and "intimidation" in section 9 include misstatements of fact made to prospective union members by union organizers.

Hon. G. Clark: What we said was that they shall not use coercion or intimidation of any kind. That, however, is a matter for interpretation by the Labour Relations Board. This is a law, and the law is interpreted by that council. We can be guided by the interpretations in the past, and they've been interpreted very strongly. When you combine that with a certain freedom to communicate a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held....

Again, "reasonably" is not a definitive test; it has to be argued before the Labour Relations Board. Those two clauses deal with both sides of the equation: the right to communicate reasonably held opinions and facts and the demand not to have coercion or intimidation. I think all members agree on that; we're just perhaps not agreeing on the method of getting there.

Our view is that these are more than adequate, but they are subject to tests on each particular case and fact pattern before the Labour Relations Board.

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe we're finally coming to a fairly clear understanding that maybe we're not in as much disagreement as we originally thought. In fact, the minister does feel that coercion or intimidation of any kind would include the types of things that I and the member for Okanagan-Vernon brought forward. 

[ Page 4270 ]

That is the intent behind the legislation; therefore that's his reasoning why, in his opinion, no amendment is required. This includes those types of things, and there's really nothing to worry about then.

D. Streifel: I'm interested in the debate today, and I'm also interested in the Labour critic's obvious lack of knowledge of how labour legislation is applied and why we need a broad scope, as this clause indicates. As we all know and as any lawyer would know, within criminal law the application of the law is "beyond a reasonable doubt." We lose that when we get into labour jurisprudence, and the test in labour jurisprudence is "within a balance of probabilities." So in fact, if something "probably" happened, in labour jurisprudence it is deemed to have happened. That's why the broad application of this particular clause has been accepted by the board.

Yes, it does apply to both employers and unions in its application. Again I suggest we do not need the narrowing effect that the amendment would have on it. We need the broadest application possible so we do connect and collect all those who would practise coercion and intimidation, whether from the employer's side or, if it may ever happen, from the union side.

G. Farrell-Collins: It may be true that I don't have the labour background of the member or numerous other members of the NDP caucus whose only job, in the case of the Minister of Finance, or their whole career, in the case of many other members of the Democratic Party, was with a labour background.

I don't have that bias. I come to this with an open mind and with a range of experiences in a number of areas. But that doesn't preclude one from understanding the concepts in here. If the member is insinuating that every other member of the public and every other member of this House who doesn't have the same type of biased labour background he has doesn't understand this labour code, then I would say the member is greatly mistaken. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a wide variety of people in the public can understand this section. They can understand the intent behind this amendment. I'm sure all reasonable people in this province listening to this debate would understand the rationale behind the amendment, and I think the vast majority would seek to support it. To state that because we don't have that bias we somehow we don't understand labour law, I think, is completely erroneous.

D. Streifel: Actually, I'm rather enjoying this today -- my biased opinions here. My background has been somewhat in labour, and I guess proudly so. I had one of these lovely jobs at one time in my life where I loaded hide boats down on the waterfront. I didn't like the numbers of maggots on the bundles of hides. I went on to loading flour boats on the waterfront, and then I got a clean job loading packaged lumber.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, my point deals with relevancy to the amendment on section 9. The member had four opportunities to engage in second reading debate, and I notice that he didn't.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The point of order is to be directed through the Chair.

I trust that all speakers will remember that we are in committee stage on the amendment to section 9 and that relevancy will prevail at all times.

D. Streifel: Thank you for the direction, hon. Chair.

As I was saying, in response to the hon. Labour critic, who suggested my biases, I felt I may have to clarify that for the House. I do have a great deal of respect for the public in that the general public.... The Labour critic has stated that he joins the general public in his lack of knowledge of how labour law and labour legislation is applied. I was only offering a clarification. As this becomes a public record, it is dangerous to narrow the scope of this code, because it fails in its intent to protect the public and those that would then become a part of labour legislation if this amendment then follows through.

I was offering that forth, in all good respect for the Labour critic, to assist in his education on labour matters, because he is sadly lacking in knowledge of how labour legislation is applied and the intent and the direction that this clause is going in.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll try and restrict my comments as much as I can to the amendment on section 9.

While it's true that I'm not steeped in the NDP dogma, as the member opposite is, I certainly don't think it precludes me or anyone else from understanding labour law and the jurisprudence that applies to it.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe it's the only attribute he has and the only one he can be proud of. I have several that I'm proud of, not just one.

An Hon. Member: Listening.

G. Farrell-Collins: I listen sometimes, that's true.

The amendment, I think, is offered in all sincerity and merely goes to try and clear up the loophole that we've described. I am satisfied with the Minister of Finance's comments that it's the intent of this government that section 9 includes, where it says, "...coercion or intimidation of any kind," misstatements of fact on behalf of an organizer as represented to prospective employees, and I think that as long as that's the intent of the government, I don't have any problem with it, and I don't imagine that other members will.

[ Page 4271 ]

[5:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On section 9.

C. Serwa: My question to the Minister of Labour on section 9 is: who determines whether coercion or intimidation has occurred, if the perception is such that it has occurred?

Hon. M. Sihota: The Labour Relations Board.

C. Serwa: On what basis does the Labour Relations Board deem that intimidation or coercion has occurred? For example, will the knock on the door at 11 o'clock at night by two burly union organizers be deemed intimidation?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, it's a pleasure to see you in the chair; I know you always do an outstanding job.

If there were two burly organizers trying to sell you a Social Credit membership card, now that might be intimidation or coercion; otherwise, I don't know. I don't know if that situation would or wouldn't be, hon. member. It would depend on the fact pattern, and the Labour Relations Board will deal with issues with regard to any of those kinds of examples.

I haven't checked this, but someone was telling me that, interestingly enough, there have been few, if any, cases of coercion or intimidation on the part of trade unions; that contrary to the sort of movie myths that are out there about trade unions, my understanding is that there haven't been any cases of coercion and intimidation. In fact, I was told that there were none. That should give the hon. member some comfort. I'll double-check those facts, but I have it from a very reliable source -- an hon. member in this House. But there really haven't been that many trade unions doing that, in any event.

C. Serwa: It seems that the broad-brush approach here allows great latitude that is subject to the interpretation of the board. If the board is selected, as they will be, by appointment and with the indication of bias that there is in the drafting of this legislation, how is one to conclude that the board will in fact be fair and balanced in their assessment of what constitutes coercion or intimidation? That fundamentally is a real concern of mine.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm told there might actually have been some cases of trade union intimidation. I have it from a more reliable source than the first reliable source I had.

Secondly, I'm sure the hon. member didn't really mean to suggest there was bias in this legislation, and I'm confident he would agree with me that the legislation is fair and balanced.

But in a more serious vein, it's very important that the people who are selected for a labour relations board have the support and the respect of the labour relations community. If you don't do that, and if you play the game of bias, then you run into all sorts of problems. If those who are subject to the board don't have respect for the board and its decisions, it really questions the rule of law -- if I can put it that way -- with regard to this administrative tribunal that we've established under the Labour Relations Board.

We've been quite careful with the appointments we've made to date in terms of consulting with both labour and business, employers and employees, in trying to extract people who have a high degree of respect and some good credentials in that regard. When we look at some of the appointments we've made -- Mr. Lanyon and Mr. Foley have been well received -- I think we've met that standard. It would be an error on the part of any administration with regard to the Labour Relations Board to wander from that practice.

L. Stephens: We're speaking about section 9 here, coercion and intimidation, and perhaps the remarks of the member for Mission-Kent earlier this afternoon would qualify as coercion and intimidation. However, I have a question for the minister: 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. M. Sihota: First of all, with respect to the hon. member for Mission-Kent, I have never known his comments to be anything but gentle, intelligent and wise. Hon. member for Langley, I'm not too sure what you were referring to, but that hon. member presents his case rather well. I cannot believe that his comments would in any way amount to coercion or intimidation. I could go on further, but I won't.

With regard to the comments of the member for Langley, I think that question would have been more appropriately put in debate on section 8. It comes up in the context of section 8, I believe, as opposed to section 

[ Page 4272 ]

9. But as I said earlier, I don't intend to fetter the discretion of the Labour Relations Board by making those kinds of definitive statements with regard to any hypothetical behaviour.

L. Stephens: Unfortunately the minister was not in the chamber when the member for Mission-Kent made his remarks. Perhaps he'd like to read Hansard and decide whether or not the member's remarks were in order.

One other question. Could the minister give some indication here as to what is and isn't acceptable in this code? If an employer is asking a question or making a statement of fact or opinion -- again, in either section 8 or 9 -- that if employees were to unionize the company would be forced to go bankrupt, are statements like this acceptable or not?

Hon. M. Sihota: I listened to the words of the hon. member for Mission-Kent as I was in my office, and the television was on. In fact, they were so wise and well spoken that I could hear them resonating down through the halls as I made my way down to the office.

With regard to the question, the question would be more appropriate under section 8. It is a section 8 question as opposed to section 9 -- and section 8 has been passed.

[5:30]

D. Symons: I just wanted to ask a question again on the degree of coercion we have here. I'll just comment about a letter I have here, where the fellow explains that he was met by the union organizer and taken to a pub and treated on frequent occasions until he signed the card. He says further on, referring to the union organizer: "He did the same with many of my co-workers. In fact, almost all of the signatures were gained under the influence of alcohol." I'll be talking about this letter in more detail later on in section 23. That may be a nice way to go if you're going to have to be coerced. At what degree are we going to say that that becomes intimidation or coercion? Where do we draw the line in here?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the hon. member should be mindful of the fact that there are other provisions in this legislation that will allow someone to withdraw their signature on a card. So on sober second reflection, someone could withdraw their card.

On the degree issue, that would be a matter, quite honestly, hon. member, dealt with by the Labour Relations Board. They will take a look at the behaviour, determine the degree to which it offends the section, whether it offends the section and whether it amounts to coercion or intimidation. Those kinds of determinations are best left in the hands of those that we entrust to interpret the legislation.

D. Symons: I thank you for that answer. I'm not too sure I'm comforted by it, however, and I'm wondering if you might be able to set a legal limit, as you do for ICBC, on the consumption of alcohol when signing a union card.

Interjection.

D. Symons: My question wasn't totally in jest, because I have concerns about what this limit will be, what constitutes intimidation. It seems to me, by comments made by one of the other members of the third party, that we're not going to be too sure that that Labour Relations Board is going to rule on these things, because they're appointed by a government that has a particular bias that shows up in this particular bill here, and we have concerns. I would dearly love for you to say that that committee would be appointed or the board would be appointed by a non-political rather than a political arm of government so that we might have people in there of various persuasions. We're seeing here that we've had ministers and members of the opposite side refer to this philosophical difference between the current NDP and the third party. The Liberals don't have that same philosophical difference. Nevertheless, we have these. We're not quite sure where this government is going to get a board that will end up being neutral in these issues. Therefore I really do have a concern.

Where can you say this line will drawn? Will knocking on the door by two burly men at 11 o'clock be a problem? Will taking people out and giving them drinks to sign...? You say that they can withdraw. You dismissed my question by saying: "When they sober up, they can take their name off again." But will the minister assure me that the date on which that certification will go through will be known to all so he'll know when he has to withdraw his card?

Hon. M. Sihota: The question with regard to data certification will be dealt with when we get to that section. I'll deal with it then.

With regard to the biases of the panel, I addressed that question when it was asked by the member for Okanagan West. I reiterate that it's very important that these appointments enjoy the confidence of the people who are subject to the legislation. Therefore you would erode respect for the Labour Relations Board if you were to proceed with making appointments of individuals who did not have the skill base necessary and the confidence of the system to make the appropriate decisions.

I note that all of the appointments that we have made to date have been applauded by the labour relations community, so I think we've met that high standard. I also note that we have maintained several of the people from the previous administration who were on the board, and I'm sure that some of those will continue to serve. I also note that to provide a measure of independence, which I think is important, they have not been given short terms. The terms are approximately three years, so they actually have the opportunity to be free of that kind of influence. I know of no minister who has ever suggested to the board that they should make decisions of a particular type or not. The hon. member should find comfort in the fact that there is that acceptance on our part, and it certainly was the practice, if I may say so, of other administrations as well.

With regard to providing additional comfort on the section, the previous section 5 of the 1984 legislation 

[ Page 4273 ]

had that provision. It's interesting to note with regard to that section that the panels interpreted the wording of section 5 and concluded that it did not require a subjective intention to coerce or intimidate but rather, the operative words could reasonably have the effect that required that the activity would likely have a coercive or intimidating effect. That might provide the hon. member with a little bit more comfort.

C. Serwa: I appreciate that this is a very important section, and I regret that the amendment was not considered to expand this particular section.

Perhaps the minister could provide me with a little bit of background information with respect to the historical use of this particular clause. How often has it been used in the past four or five years? Has it been initiated by employers, employees or the union in the past five years? It would really assist me to assess the impact and magnitude of this particular section if I had some indication of numbers.

I am concerned with the potential for abuse of this section, although I heartily concur with the section's intent.

Hon. M. Sihota: The section actually didn't exist the past five years, because the previous Social Credit administration had amended it. It existed from 1954 to 1984, but the Social Credit administration of Bill Bennett and subsequently the Bill Vander Zalm government chose not to have this section in.

There was a section that prohibited trade unions from being involved in coercion or intimidation tactics. There were 17 cases in 1987, 11 in 1988, eight in 1989, 19 in 1990 and 12 in 1991.

C. Serwa: Could the minister identify who had actually initiated the cases? Although the legislation was somewhat different from the indication of the minister, was it initiated by the union, by the employer or by the employee?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know. The statistics aren't broken down that way. If you wanted to, you could go and research it yourself or have that exemplary research staff.... I'm sure those remarkable research resources you have can provide you with the information. I'm sure it's important; if you would really like it we could probably see if we could secure it, but I doubt if that would be the wisest use of taxpayers' dollars.

C. Serwa: My questions are based on a sense of fairness and balance. While again I applaud the intent of this particular section, there is concern on my part that the union will in fact have a tendency to utilize this against employers. So the questions were directed to see if the minister feels that in fact there will be a semblance of balance.

I would like to know from the minister whether he believes that it will be the union which will initiate actions under this or whether it will be the employee. What is the potential for the employer to initiate actions? Perhaps a little bit of conjecture.... I know that's on dangerous ground, but I would like the minister's opinions on it.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think that provided that someone has standing -- standing's always an issue....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm glad I'm delighting the Minister of Finance with my comments.

I should mention that I'm sure all hon. members -- if I may digress for a moment -- will be pleased to learn that the Minister of Finance celebrated his 35th birthday on Sunday. I forgot to mention that the other day. And all I would say to my brother pit bull is that he may be younger than me by a few years, but he's got far more grey hair than I do.

An Hon. Member: He's got a bigger deficit.

Hon. M. Sihota: But his deficit is shrinking. He's doing a marvellous job in that regard. Not that I would describe him this way, but others have described him as one of the most right-wing Finance ministers in Canada.

The Chair: Order, please. Relevancy?

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, I got carried away.

Nothing prohibits an employer or an employee or a trade union, as long as they have standing, from bringing forward these cases. I would suspect and expect that anybody who has a complaint and has standing would do so.

C. Serwa: The last question I have to the minister deals with the right to appeal. Should a controversy arise, is there an appeal procedure for following that process?

Hon. M. Sihota: Decisions from an administrative tribunal's appeals lie in the provisions of the Judicial Review Procedures Act, which allow for appeals on arguments of law and occasionally arguments of fact. It's actually a very convoluted area of law. In terms of the substantive issues, sometimes it is difficult to get an appeal on those issues because of the wording of that act.

J. Tyabji: Seeing the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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