Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1992

Volume 6, Number 24

[ Page 4289 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the chamber Dr. Jane Wright, president of the Victoria Medical Society, and a number of other members of the medical society who are here with us today and have been meeting with members. I ask the House to make them welcome.

R. Kasper: In the gallery and precincts today I've had the pleasure of guests from the Sooke area, young students from grades 4 to 10 who were winners of the Canada 125 essay contest sponsored by the local paper in my community. They are: Shannon Ramage, Brianne Szadkowski, Eden Britton, Rachael Manion, Lisa McLaughlin, Kyle Sabell, Megan Oleson, Nevada Reddon and Melinda Jolley. Will the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: Today in the House we welcome a group of very talented educators from Vancouver-Langara. I've heard high recommendations about them from their students. They're from my riding, and I'm delighted to have them here. Would the House make them welcome.

Hon. A. Edwards: It's always a pleasure to have visitors from my riding; it doesn't happen very often. I have four people in the gallery today, two of whom are here to receive their 25-year service awards with the government. I would like the House to help me welcome Harman and Bev Delyea from Fernie and Fred and Lorna Jackson from Cranbrook.

L. Fox: It is with great pleasure this afternoon that I introduce to the House a group of 11 students from Nechako Valley Secondary School in Vanderhoof and their two teachers, Mr. Jack French and Ms. Judy Wigmore. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from the salmon capital of the world, Port Alberni, are 45 grade 11 students and their teacher Mr. Chase. I ask the Legislature to make them welcome.

L. Reid: I would like the House to welcome today some very committed British Columbians who are visiting: Dr. Ron Youngash, Dr. John Fitzgerald, Dr. John McCaw, Dr. Patricia Crow, Dr. Luis Martinez and Dr. Vicky Foerster. They are accompanied by Dr. Jane Wright. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

J. Pement: It's indeed a pleasure for me today to introduce to the House a famous member of our constituency, who is also well known within these chambers, Cyril Shelford.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have the double pleasure of introducing people from the fine city of Kamloops who are here for the 25-year award of the fine Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I would ask the House to welcome Pat and Bill Wood, Pauline and Vern Thomas and Pauline's mother, Mary Maksymiw, from Vernon.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the gallery today are Don and Darlene Carlson and their son Christopher from Portland, Oregon. They are acquaintances of the Premier, who is unable to be here today to introduce them. Would all members please join me in making them welcome here today.

W. Hurd: I'm privileged to welcome to the precincts today 15 grade 10 students from Earl Marriott Secondary School in my riding, accompanied by their teacher, Marielle Haack, and several adult chaperons. Could the House please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

PRINTING OF ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. L. Boone: I rise to clarify an issue around Orders of the Day. Hon. Speaker, I have been advised that under the standing orders of this House, the Clerk of the House is required to prepare, on a daily basis, Orders of the Day. Those orders contain all the proposed questions for the consideration of the House and are set out in accordance with the standing orders. The Clerk of the House is an officer of the Legislative Assembly and does not work for the Queen's Printer or the government. In fact, the Clerks of this House are employees of all members of this Legislative Assembly.

The production of the order paper, on a daily basis, is a function of the Legislative Assembly and is not the responsibility of either the government or the Queen's Printer. The Legislative Assembly, as a customer of the Queen's Printer, has used their services for the purpose of printing Orders of the Day. As those services are not currently available, it must be obvious that in order for the assembly to continue its function, an order paper must be produced in accordance with the standing orders. This is the current status of the matter, and I trust that it will put to rest any misunderstandings which are currently abroad. In no way has the current labour law or Bill 84 been abused.

J. Tyabji: It is the opinion of the opposition that there is a difference between production of a document and printing of a document. When we are using one service for printing a document, and that service is not available because of a labour dispute, that is an issue that should be dealt with, keeping in mind that it is a labour dispute. We feel that our comments made with regard to this yesterday are still very applicable and that this does not answer the questions that were brought up yesterday.

[ Page 4290 ]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Advanced Education, who says that his government cannot find funding for post-secondary education in B.C. Yet it seems to be able to find tax dollars to create new positions and pay Bob Williams $112,000, Dick Gathercole $101,000, Thomas Gunton $110,000, John Pollard $75,000 and Johanna Den Hertog $62,000. My question to the minister is this: what does he say to students surviving on $6,000 loans and Kraft Dinners, when these NDP hacks are feasting to the tune of half a million dollars? Isn't this minister ashamed of his government's record on advanced education?

Hon. T. Perry: If there was a question there I couldn't hear it.

KELLY DOUGLAS SHUTDOWN

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the minister responsible for small business. Last week Kelly Douglas in Prince George announced that it was closing its doors and moving to Alberta. This shutdown will cause the loss of 65 direct jobs and up to 40 indirect jobs in the Prince George area. When is the minister going to admit that this government's taxing policies and the new labour code are encouraging small business to move out of this province?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Kelly Douglas announced during the reign of the Social Credit government that they were going to shut down at some point. The member begs to differ with me, but I happen to know from employees who work there. You also need to know that the company has been unionized for quite some time.

L. Fox: I guess this is a blame-the-Socreds day for the government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Continue with your question, hon. member.

L. Fox: The minister's answer is going to give very little comfort to the people of Prince George and the people who lost their jobs.

My supplementary goes to the Minister of Agriculture. The food producers in northern B.C. have historically sold up to 80 percent of their production to the Kelly Douglas company. Now that this company is moving to Alberta, what is he going to do to assure the northern producers that they will continue to have a market in which they won't be competing directly with the subsidized produce from Alberta delivered into their area by a former B.C. company?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm very pleased you brought that up, because I think that if Kelly Douglas is half as intelligent as I think they are, they'll soon be back here. We launched a program in Victoria last month in nine stores under Thrifty Foods, with 24 British Columbia companies, and the results were nothing short of spectacular. The average increase in sales was 168 percent. There were an average of 27 new listings in those nine stores. We have virtually every wholesale outfit in British Columbia lined up except one. They're all waiting to get on board. It's working perfectly.

L. Fox: A final supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. I concur that the program on Vancouver Island has had some success, but that is very little comfort to the producers of northern British Columbia. If this government continues the way it's going with respect to taxation policies and the labour code, we will soon not have any produce grown in British Columbia so that we can have a made-in-British Columbia policy.

The Speaker: That was not a question, hon. member.

LANGARA COLLEGE DISPUTE

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. The government promised that educators would get the respect they deserve. They also promised that you didn't need an inside track to get fair treatment from their government. Yet we see that the BCGEU settlement of 5.6 percent, compared to zero percent for Langara, breaks both these promises. How can the government justify almost 6 percent for one of its biggest union supporters and zero percent for others -- on the backs of students?

Hon. T. Perry: The Langara Faculty Association is currently engaged in negotiations with Vancouver Community College, and it would be inappropriate for me to intervene in those negotiations. There is such a thing as constructive silence, and I'm going to enjoy it today.

J. Tyabji: I think it's amazing that when we're in the House, the minister is very reluctant to speak, yet we read his comments about Dr. Strangway in the paper.

My next question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Did this minister expect the contract to come up? And if he did, where is his contingency plan? What did he have in mind?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, there is a whole series of such contracts coming up for discussion, and we continue to monitor them. The bargaining is done between the colleges and the faculty unions, and that's the way both parties would like it to remain.

VICTORIA VOCATIONAL COLLEGE

L. Stephens: My question is also to the Minister of Advanced Education. The minister has once again demonstrated his callous indifference to the students of 

[ Page 4291 ]

British Columbia with the closure last Friday of Victoria Vocational College due to a $225,000 shortfall in their budget -- thanks to this government. The minister is now saying that VVC is attempting to blackmail him. Can the minister indicate what the college has done to constitute blackmail?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I indicated to reporters who questioned me yesterday that the use of the word "blackmail" was perhaps an unfortunate exaggeration, and I withdrew it at the time. Some members of the fourth estate decided to print it anyway, and to the extent that that's offended the college I'm delighted to apologize to them.

The issue is that both my ministry and another ministry which sponsors students at that college have honoured our contracts. We pay for spaces on a fee-for-service basis, a higher fee for the students at that college than at most of the alternative educational and training opportunities in the region or elsewhere in the province. We have honoured our commitments to the letter. We are continuing to work in the best interests of those students.

The Minister of Social Services and I met with representatives of the students and their parents yesterday. Staff from both ministries are working today and will be meeting with the students on an individual basis tomorrow. We are in contact with Camosun College to explore the opportunities for an alternative program there, and we'll continue working to make sure that the students and their families are looked after.

L. Stephens: Again to the Minister of Advanced Education, if the minister expects Camosun to make room for the students, is the minister considering increasing funding to Camosun?

Hon. T. Perry: Let me first make clear.... One of my colleagues felt that I perhaps didn't completely answer the hon. member's first question. The government has not closed Victoria Vocational College. The college has found it difficult to live within its own budget after receipt of the funding commitments made by the provincial government. We've honoured those commitments.

If it turns out that a suitable solution at Camosun College requires additional funds for that college to deliver a new program, yes, I and my ministry will be delighted to examine that possibility.

MATCHING-GRANT PROGRAM

D. Symons: My question is also to the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. I would like to know how and when last March the minister informed the president of UBC, Dr. Strangway, that the matching-grant program was at risk, thereby allowing the minister to imply that Dr. Strangway is not now telling the truth?

Hon. T. Perry: I guess it's my day. The last time I examined myself, I wasn't cracking under the strain.

The hon. member has given me an opportunity to indicate through you, hon. Speaker, to hon. members that if any comments I have made have given offence to Dr. Strangway or anyone else in this field, then I certainly regret that. He and I are well familiar with each other's credentials, and I hope we will continue to maintain a very constructive relationship.

The facts of the case are the following. The president was informed in a general way as a normal courtesy prior to the release of the provincial budget that the government's financial difficulties were compelling and that in the examination of priorities, we might not be able to fund the matching-grant program at the full $20 million. When the budget was released in the Legislature on March 26, a letter was sent to Mr. Ken Bagshaw, chairman of the board of governors at the University of B.C. -- and one to all other university board chairs -- outlining the details of the provincial budget as they affected UBC and emphasizing that because the previous government's commitments to the matching fund not been funded, they could not necessarily be honoured.

It was made clear in the estimates debate, following questions from the official opposition critic of Advanced Education, that the matching fund commitment had been reduced in the present year's budget from $20 million to $10 million. I believe it was June 2, 1992, if members would care to refresh their memories.

The Speaker: I must ask the minister to conclude his comments.

Hon. T. Perry: There were numerous other informal and formal discussions, both in the interval between March 26 and June and subsequently, including as recently as late October in a face-to-face meeting with President Strangway in his office at UBC.

D. Symons: Supplemental to the minister. In the government's election platform the NDP claimed that education was a priority for them, and yet we see example after example of where this is simply not true. Now we discover that the NDP is looking into cancelling the matching-grant program. Just where does the government think universities are going to get new money in order to maintain -- let alone increase -- current levels of service?

The Speaker: Before the minister replies, in view of the enthusiasm during today's question period, I will allow one more question.

Hon. T. Perry: I can't resist wondering where the hon. member would wish the government to get more money, since he doesn't favour tax increases and he favours increased spending in every department.

The increase in the grant to universities and colleges in this province was the second-highest in the country this year. The capital spending commitment for expansion in universities and colleges, totalling roughly $300 million, is the largest in B.C. history. That capital, under the normal capital programs of the ministry, is negotiated directly with the colleges and universities and 

[ Page 4292 ]

meets the priorities identified by each of those institutions as decided by their boards of governors.

The decisions on the need to reduce the commitment to the matching fund were made with regret. The future of the matching fund has not been decided. I indicated to the House yesterday and on other occasions that I hope very much that it will be possible to continue it. That decision will be made during the normal course of development of the budget.

In the meantime, let me take the opportunity to emphasize, as I did yesterday, that the province and its post-secondary institutions continue to benefit from the generosity of many donors, from the $5 contributor right up to the individual who contributes $10 million, and we look forward very much to their ongoing generosity.

C. Serwa: This must be Get the Minister of Advanced Education Day. It's a new day in the House.

Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education indicated that only small-minded people would consider withdrawing their commitment to the University of British Columbia under the matching-grant program. Talk about small-minded and short-sighted, hon. Speaker. This government and that minister supported the withdrawal of Bill 82, which is costing taxpayers $300 million over the next two years. This minister supported the fixed-wage policy, which is costing $200 million over the next short while, and the BCGEU settlement, which will cost $150 million. Will the minister consider standing up to the Minister of Finance, and putting his job on the line for the matching-grant program and advanced education in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Perry: The Minister of Finance and I are accustomed to standing up for the people of B.C. We learned that skill together on the other side of the House, although I admit that I'm his junior -- senior in years, junior in experience. We'll continue to stand up together for the people of B.C.

[2:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On behalf of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, I have the honour to present the 1991-92 annual report of the Pacific National Exhibition and their financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1992, in accordance with section 13 of the Pacific National Exhibition act.

K. Jones: I table Orders of the Day and Votes and Proceedings printed by replacement workers instead of the staff of the Queen's Printer.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

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

On section 10.

W. Hurd: I noted with some interest the comments from the hon. member for Okanagan West this morning pertaining to section 10, and I know the minister will recall that he received a submission on section 10 from the Christian Labour Association of Canada, whose views do not seem to be reflected in the unanimous agreement of the labour review panel. I think it important to read into the record some of the concerns that the Christian Labour Association has expressed about this particular section of the bill.

They are particularly concerned about the repeal of section 5(2) of the old act, which permitted the council to determine whether a union-imposed penalty was fair or reasonable. As the minister well knows, they are also concerned about the repeal of section 5(1) of the act, which protected individual members from termination as a result of being expelled or suspended from membership in the trade union. They also express some concerns and serious doubts about the wisdom of what appears to be allowing unions to be accountable only to themselves. Their particular concern relates to the bylaws of the unions.

I wonder if the minister recalls this brief, in particular some of the examples that the Christian Labour Association cited. Where individuals are convinced that union bylaws discriminate against them and they have redress under natural justice, can he advise the committee whether they are now expected to appeal those union bylaws through the court system? The concern is being expressed by the Christian Labour Association.

Hon. M. Sihota: I do recall meeting with the Christian Labour Association and discussing their concerns with them. I'm well aware of the fact that they submitted a brief outlining their views to the panel. Interestingly enough, I know that the Social Credit Party submitted a brief. I don't think the Liberal Party did, despite their interest in labour relations matters, but if they did, I'm sure they can advise the House.

In any event, with regard to the Christian Labour Association of Canada, I know that during the course of their presentation they indicated that they would like to see changes to the employee definition section. They expressed some concerns, as the member obviously notes, with respect to union membership and sections 4(3) and 5. They made comments with respect to union discrimination as well as other issues, such as certification, union raiding, decertification and disputes resolution, if memory serves me. They raised a wide variety of issues.

We are currently on section 10, which deals with one aspect of their concerns. In light of what I had to say this morning about natural justice, I believe that we have adequately addressed their concerns about discrimination through the provisions of sections 10(2) and 10(1).

W. Hurd: I appreciate the minister's remarks, but I didn't really hear any representation with respect to the concerns raised by the Christian Labour Association that specifically related to the union's laws and bylaws. I recognize the minister's devotion to the concept of 

[ Page 4293 ]

unions into which life is breathed on a wide, democratic basis.

As the member for Okanagan West indicated this morning, there are areas of concern, as far-fetched as the idea might seem.... I read the brief by the Christian Labour Association. Were a union to establish a policy of conducting all its membership meetings on Saturday, coupled with the obligation that a member be fined or expelled for failing to attend at least 75 percent of the meetings, one could understand how this might impact strongly on Seventh Day Adventists or other religious groups that might not be able to make the meetings on a Saturday. The concern being expressed by this association is about situations where union bylaws might be discriminatory in some way.

This association is situated in my riding. I want it clarified that they are now responsible for appealing those union bylaws through the court system rather than taking them to the Labour Relations Board. Can the minister clarify that point for the Christian Labour Association?

Hon. M. Sihota: I would encourage the hon. member to read -- which I guess he hasn't -- section 10(2) of the act, which prevents the union from acting in a discriminatory manner. If members felt that the union had been acting in a discriminatory manner, I guess they could always make an application to the Labour Relations Board.

G. Farrell-Collins: I took some time this morning to just sit back and listen to the comments of the minister and the member for Okanagan-Vernon as they related to his amendment, and I really gave it a lot of serious thought. Over the lunch hour and just previous I made a few phone calls and did a bit of research of my own into the minister's arguments, the principles of natural justice and how they would apply under this section. I really did do a fair bit of soul-searching on it, a bit of analysis of it, and I talked to a number of people.

Despite what the minister has said.... As I said, I listened very carefully to his arguments on natural justice and the quotes that he brought forward today. I think the minister has given us some very strong assurances that the principles of natural justice do include fairness and reasonableness, but only as they relate to procedure. I have to sit back, think about that and ask: is it enough of a guarantee? Is the fact that you're providing for fair and reasonable procedures in the event of a dispute between an employee and the union that represents them good enough? In my opinion it's not.

In going through this legislation and looking at the section very carefully, I think it's true that the provision for natural justice is an improvement over what was there before, but it's not a complete improvement. We've been around this debate, this bush, a few times. On one hand, the minister has improved the section by adding the application of natural justice, which is a procedural recourse to the employee, but at the same time has removed the provisions for the fair and reasonable test as a substantive recourse to the actual case that may be brought against the union member -- or the union members against the union that represents them. So there is a distinction there -- it's a very clear distinction -- between the substantive and the procedural. In fact, while the minister has improved the procedural, he has eroded the substantive provisions of this section.

With that in mind, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 10(2) be amended to read:

(2) No trade union shall expel, suspend or impose a penalty on a member or refuse membership in the trade union to a person, or impose any penalty or make any special levy on a person as a condition of admission to membership in the trade union or council of trade unions

(a) if in doing so the trade union acts in a discriminatory, unfair or unreasonable manner, or

(b) because that member or person has refused or failed to participate in activity prohibited by this code.]

On the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: As I said, it was with a great deal of thought and serious consideration that I chose to move this amendment. I did give it consideration and actually at one point this morning considered not calling the amendment, given some of the arguments that the minister had made. But as I said, on further reflection and analysis I decided that, in fact, there is a gap in this section that needs to be filled.

I'm not sure if it was intended by the minister, in bringing forth the changes that he has to this section in Bill 84, whether or not he was.... I don't think it was his intention necessarily -- it may not have been his intention -- to erode those substantive provisions of the section. He may have felt in his own mind that the principles of natural justice would apply in some substantive way, but that's clearly not the case. I think that as we've worked through this argument for the last day or so, and as we worked through arguments previous to this that dealt with natural justice, perhaps the minister has come to the realization that there is no substantive protection here. It's merely a procedural protection.

[2:45]

In my discussions with people -- some lawyers and some practitioners who deal with this on a regular basis -- they still hold true to the concerns that we don't have the substantive provisions that were in this section once before and which actually provided some real guarantees to the employees as to fairness in relations between the union and the employees -- not just as far as they relate to the procedure of bringing forth a case, a complaint or a dispute and having it resolved, but also in the way the regulations of the union are run.

To say that it's somehow fair and reasonable because the majority of the people vote in favour of a set of regulations is unfortunate. There are times when all people, even with the best of intentions, may bring pieces of legislation or rules to their own association or organization -- or non-profit societies for that matter -- with the best intents and purposes, but a crisis or conflict arises between a member of that society and the group, or a member of the trade union and the trade 

[ Page 4294 ]

union itself, and one sees all of a sudden that the provision that's there, which perhaps was brought in with all good intention, actually does treat that individual or group of individuals -- perhaps a local within a union -- in an unfair and unreasonable manner.

I think it's important -- in fact, it's very important -- that those individuals or that local have the recourse through this act to ensure that any unfair or unreasonable provisions within the parameters of the constitution or the rules of operation can be dealt with in a different way and not just allowed to continue merely because a majority of the people have voted on them. There really has to be that recourse for individuals. There really has to be that provision beyond a sense of broad-ranging discrimination, which the minister talked about. In all sincerity, there really is a need in this legislation for the provisions and the tests that would be brought about by the words "fair and reasonable," and that's why we are proposing them in this section.

J. Tyabji: Obviously I rise in support of this amendment. I think it's a reasoned amendment. I think that the minister would be serving the people of the province well to accept the amendment, and that the bill would be much better. Further to the comments that we've all made in the House today, I don't know that we need to restate them to any great length, except to say that obviously "unfair and unreasonable" is an improvement over "discriminatory." "Discriminatory" has too narrow a focus, and I'm sure that's the minister's intention regardless. Certainly if that is his intention, then we are trying to help him out with this amendment in our usual manner as constructive opposition.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, in the presentations that we heard earlier today I believe we have struggled on both sides of the House to try and find a fair understanding, for the community at large as well as for ourselves, of the intent and the understanding of the bill. One of the struggles that we've had -- and I put this before the minister -- is that he has put forth the question of natural justice, which is meaningful to him in legal terms. But one of the concerns I would put forward to him that we've been struggling with is that most of the people involved either as employees or employers, within or without a union, are not dealing in legal terms. It's important that we have the legal terminology there; I'm not disputing that. But it's important also that we have a terminology so that average people can pick up this bill and look at their rights. Particularly in a section like this, which is looking at the internal affairs that have to deal with each union person, people should be able to pick up this bill and understand it in plain English.

Hon. Chair, this government has taken a particular tack in many of its presentations and publications to try to put them in plain English that people in the community can understand. This is a concern that we have in this section, as in others: that the intent of the minister, which is well meaning and perhaps comprehensive, is not the intent that you can get from simply reading the act itself. We need to get the fairness of that intent across to the average reader.

I am in touch with someone who is having a problem in the particular union of which this person is a part. This person is at odds with the employer and with the union, and does not know where to turn. Even if one was to give him this act, it would not help him deal with that situation. As we've argued back and forth -- and the hon. minister has had to go to the library stacks and bring out the legal volume to explain what natural justice is -- not many people carry around a volume of legal terminology that they can refer to, and not many people would go down to the public library, where that terminology might be available, to refer to it.

I would urge the minister to accept the terminology which would enable the people to understand. After all, this should be a document of the people, not of the legal profession or even of the Legislature. I'm sure if they used the people's language, it would still be legal.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[3:00]

On section 10.

G. Farrell-Collins: I imagine we'll be voting fairly quickly on section 10. I don't know if everybody is going to run away or not.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. Will members please leave quietly so that the committee may continue conducting their business.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess NDP stands for Noisy, Disruptive Politicians.

The Chair: Order, hon. member!

G. Farrell-Collins: Just joking, hon. Chair.

[ Page 4295 ]

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Nanaimo is upset. It was intended as a joke. I'm sorry he has no sense of humour.

The Chair: On section 10, hon. member. Please address the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: With regard to section 10, as I said, we've given it a fair bit of consideration and thought. While I agree that the provision of natural justice as a procedural means of recourse to all union members in this province is a good change, I am quite dismayed -- as are many of my colleagues -- by the fact that the test for reasonableness and fairness, as far as it relates to a substantive provision, is not in the bill. As a result, we, perhaps with some regret, will have to vote against the section, despite the good provisions that are in it as far as natural justice. The fact that the other sections, the substantive provisions, are no longer in the bill forces us to vote against it.

P. Ramsey: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

P. Ramsey: I'd like the members of the Legislature who have remained here to join me on this occasion. It's the first time I've had the honour of introducing some people from a school in my riding. We have some people here from Kelly Road Secondary and their teacher, Mr. Paul Barber. They've come to examine the Legislature and look at post-secondary education possibilities at the University of Victoria. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Section 10 approved on the following division:

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

V. Anderson: As we look at section 13, which is procedure for fair representation of complaint, we notice that in the previous sections of this bill the minister was attempting to present a new approach and a new understanding. He has attempted to say, particularly in relation to natural justice, that they were creating a new awareness of possibilities for people to receive the justice that they deserve. In this particular section they have put forward some protections -- and I emphasize some -- for individuals in the workplace from the trade union and from their employers. However, the protections that they have put forward are only against the actions that are covered by the code itself.

As we know, in many actions that take place in our lives, the technical or legal regulations are not always the main problem. The main problem may be one of misunderstanding, of different jurisdictions or of communication.

In other areas this Legislature has seen fit to create the position of the ombudsman, so that when the regular systems break down and communication is not adequate to look at the root causes of the difficulty, there is the opportunity for this to met and countered.

There are many difficulties that people face in dealing with situations -- not only difficulties with the employer or with the decisions or actions of the union, but also difficulties with the actions of the labour board itself, the ministry or the departments of government.

These actions leave the individual unable to cope, because most employees are not in the position financially, physically or emotionally to take on whatever system happens to be turned against them, even if that system has turned against them by accident and not by design. It's very difficult for an individual who is cut off and has the feeling of being ostracized to begin to put forth the opportunities they need.

[3:15]

There needs to be in place some kind of opportunity for people to have their voices heard, to express themselves and to get others to join them. They need to find someone who will stand on their behalf as their advocate and make sure that the circumstances are looked at from all sides and all positions and are dealt with fairly, so they can be heard and feel that their needs have been considered.

We realize that in the code that this is attempting to replace, there was the opportunity -- although not proclaimed -- for the ombudsman position. I'm sure the fact that it was in the act had a detrimental effect, because people were aware of something they could have called on. Even in the explanations of that position, the concerns and items that needed to be taken into consideration were clearly described. In the activities of the Labour Relations Board itself, they would know that these conditions were there. They would be able to take these positions into account in their considerations, and they would be able to operate as if they were there and these positions were in place. The 

[ Page 4296 ]

very fact that this opportunity was there and could have been proclaimed when the need arose was a very important position.

It is important that we express to the people of this province and the individual worker, however humble or great their position might be, that there is an opportunity for their positions to be heard, clarified and fairly dealt with. As we have seen in this particular act thus far, there are difficulties in the definitions. We have seen difficulties in the purpose of this act and each of the clauses we have dealt with in some detail; there is a lack of clarity as to the well-being of employees, particularly within whatever system they may work.

It is important that we take the concerns of these people seriously. As I indicated earlier in this discussion, the individuals who came into my constituency office and who I came to know in their circumstances even prior to becoming a member of the Legislative Assembly were those people who had gone through the system that was available to them. They had tried to deal with the appeals that were put before them and found that they got caught up in the bureaucracy. Because of the bureaucracy, not necessarily the evil intent of any person, there was no hope for them to resolve their circumstances. Not only was this a crisis in the individual person's life, but it became a crisis in their family life for their children, spouse and all who were closely related to them. It became a crisis within the community itself, for many lost their employment opportunities and their self-confidence, and many were forced into the other government support system when they should have been given the opportunity to clarify their situation and renew their lives.

In this act there must be an opportunity for these people to come through whatever difficult circumstances they find themselves in and have an opportunity and a channel by which they can proceed after a breakdown in employment, after a confrontation with the union, the employer, the Labour Board or the government to find a way to bring the pieces back together again. They must have some kind of help available to them in those circumstances. It seems to me that unless we put that kind of concern, thoughtfulness and opportunity into place, we are simply dealing with rules and regulations, not with the lives of people. It's the lives of these people that we must be concerned about, and who this bill is here to serve -- not that people must be dictated to or have to conform to the laws within the bill itself.

Naturally the laws need to be legal, and we have to take them into account. But when we discover in actual circumstances that the laws or the regulations are unjust, and when the people who enforce the regulations admit that what they're doing is not for the well-being of the people for whom they are doing it, they have no choice, because that's what the regulations say.

Time and time again, hon. Chair, in dealing with the social services system, people have been unable to get their needs met and have come to the point of a tribunal. In the tribunal they have sat down with the representative of the government and with their own advocate, and they have looked at the picture in total framework. Time and time again the representatives of the government have had to say that not only do we have to act upon this law, but we have to act upon the interpretation of the law -- namely, the regulations that have been passed down to us. Time and time again in that tribunal all three members -- the representative of the government, the representative of the individual and the neutral chair -- have read the act for themselves and have discovered that the regulations by which the workers were to operate in that circumstance did not meet the needs, and the act itself begged to be interpreted much differently. Time and time again the very actions, which technically were decided upon according to the regulations and the rules when they were reviewed in the common sense of an interrelated dialogue to look at all the issues in question, were overturned. Those judgments were upheld, and they received the compensation and the justice they deserved.

That kind of opportunity is not given here in "Procedure for fair representation complaint." The material that follows does not cover the circumstances that need to be covered. They cover in part what relates to trade union actions or employers' actions; but they do not cover the actions of the labour board itself and its decisions, nor do they cover the actions of the bureaucracy of the ministry in which they are so often caught.

Therefore, hon. Chair, I would like to make an amendment to section 13, by the addition of the following subsection (3):

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall appoint a person to be called the labour ombudsman, who shall hold office during good behaviour for a term of five years, and for additional terms the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoints, and be paid the remuneration the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council determines."

Hon. Chair, there's an extra copy for the hon. minister, if he would wish to receive it.

"13(4) The labour ombudsman has the power to investigate any decision or recommendation made, or act done or omitted, relating to a matter of administration, including the merits of a policy, and affecting any person, by (a) any board, commission, council or other tribunal under this act or any other act administered by the minister, or any branch or agency of the Ministry of Labour...."

The Chair: I should have advised the member that under standing orders his time has expired. Would the member please take his seat.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I have no difficulty with the hon. member making the amendment. I'll speak to it in a second whether it's in order or not. There's certainly no need for him to read it. We do have a copy of it now. It goes on for some five pages, I believe. I don't think it's necessary to have it read if it's filed. I'd like to raise a procedural issue, but....

An Hon. Member: He has the right to read it.

The Chair: Hon. member, it is customary to table your amendment -- and the member is permitted to 

[ Page 4297 ]

make a statement. The minister indicated that he is prepared to accept the amendment without a decision with respect to it being in order or not. There has been intervening debate. This would allow the member to continue if he would like to speak to his amendment.

V. Anderson: This particular amendment is very similar to that which has been a possibility in the last two labour bills in this province. I believe it was originally introduced in the labour bill presented by the then NDP government in 1973. Some of the comments that were made about it at that time are particularly appropriate. I quote from Hansard on the validity of this particular amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. Before we get into an extensive speech on the amendment, perhaps it would be appropriate for the Chair to determine whether or not the amendment is in order. I would at least like to have the opportunity to put to the Chair the argument that it is not in order.

Section 13 lays out a procedure with respect to complaints made under the provisions of section 12. It does not deal with any matter that in any way relates to complaints about the Labour Relations Board or the ministry. The purpose of the amendment goes far beyond the scope of section 13. It is not relevant or tied in with section 13. It deals with a new topic. The bill has been debated in principle already. At that time I believe the hon. member did raise this issue. But from a procedural point of view I cannot see how it has any relevance to the duty-of-fair-representation provisions as they are contained in the findings made by the board. This goes beyond the duty of fair representation and talks about the powers of the ombudsman to review the legislation. "The ministry, any board, council or other tribunal that is established under this act, any act administered by the ministry, any branch or agency of the Ministry of Labour, or any officer, employer or member thereof...." So it goes well beyond the scope of this section, and I would argue that it's not relevant.

[3:30]

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. member, under your section 13(3) you make reference to the need for an ombudsman. Of course, as all members know, any matter that involves an expenditure by the Crown has to come in the form of a message from the Lieutenant-Governor. On that point alone the amendment would not stand the test of being in order, and I would so rule that it is out of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's perhaps unfortunate, I guess, that there wasn't some provision made in the bill for that type of representation. I think the words of the member for Vancouver-Langara were very wise and appropriate. All I can say is that it is unfortunate that there is not a provision somewhere in section 13 for that type of amendment, but so be it. That's the government's choice, I guess. We've raised our opposition and proposed our amendment.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your ruling and understand your particular reason for that ruling. But I would also urge the minister to reconsider, not the ruling of the Chair but the need for this kind of provision. I would urge that this kind of provision be made available as the act proceeds, because it could be made not in the fashion that it was presented here but simply by moving to add the concerns related here to the present Ombudsman Act. I would urge the minister to consider and discuss that, because there is more than one way of dealing with the essence of what is presented here so that these needs could be tied in and the needs of individuals could be met. Would the hon. minister be willing to look at items within this act whereby the concerns of people related to the ombudsman concerns would be addressed, perhaps by tying them in with the present Ombudsman Act, which is available for us to use?

I'd be interested, if the hon. minister is willing to consider that.... If so, we would know that's forthcoming, and we could be assured that that is not overlooked.

Hon. M. Sihota: On the need for an ombudsman, it should be noted that there is an act that deals with the establishment of the office of the ombudsman. The act allows the ombudsman to look into the affairs of the Ministry of Labour, as the ombudsman has done from time to time. The act also allows the ombudsman to make inquiries of the Industrial Relations Council, as it is now, and it will with regard to the Labour Relations Board in the future. The individual must first exhaust the remedies within this legislation before they can go to the ombudsman, but the hon. member can rest assured that the ombudsman has jurisdiction to take a look at the activities of the Labour Relations Board and the ministry. Therefore I would suspect that he would appreciate that that should provide him with a measure of comfort.

C. Serwa: Speaking on behalf of our Labour critic, the feeling in our caucus is that this section cannot be amended, because it is fundamentally flawed. There is currently an obligation on unions to reply to complaints from their individual members. Apparently this section removes that need for response of a union.

Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps I can just go back a bit. There are sections that require trade unions to pursue grievance arbitrations because they wish to avoid a fair representation challenge. Consequently, what happens is that grievance arbitrations which really should not be going forward do go forward, and because they do -- and they really shouldn't -- they first of all result in unnecessary cost and expense to both employers and employees. That's a good enough reason to not allow it. Second -- and I think this is an important point -- they also cause a lot of cases that really should not be going through that process to be a part of that process, and that tends to disease the relationship between management and labour. Management gets irritated that cases that clearly shouldn't be there are there, and labour goes through a half-hearted approach in terms of 

[ Page 4298 ]

representation because they wish to avoid a fair representation challenge. This clearly is not conducive to good industrial relations, and as I said, it results in additional costs for all parties.

All parties recognize that this was a problem under the previous legislation, and all felt that there had to be a fine-tuning of the balancing of the rights here: on the one hand, the right to make sure that the cases that should be heard are indeed heard, regardless of the cost factor; and on the other hand, the right to make sure that cases that are somewhat borderline or frivolous are not going forward, because they're not conducive to good industrial relations.

The process established in this section provides a fair and expeditious adjudication of fair representation complaints, such that trade union members will be adequately protected and unmeritorious grievances are less likely to be pursued. A number of submissions were made to the special advisers by employers or employer organizations, requesting changes to the administration of this provision to simplify the hearing process and reduce the necessity of employer involvement in disputes between unions and their members. I highlight that point, because the members should know that this was as much a thrust from employers as it was from employees.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

It's interesting to note that under the applications for duty of fair representation in the past, we were indeed seeing a considerable number of applications. Let me just bring that information to the attention of the hon. member. For example, in 1987 there were 81 complaints; in 1988, 105 complaints; in 1989, 79 complaints; in 1990, 94 complaints; and in 1991, 102 complaints. That's a lot of complaints, probably in the neighbourhood of 400 to 500 over that five-year period. But the number of orders granted with respect to those complaints were as follows: only 6 out of 81 in 1987; 7 out of 105 in 1988; 3 out of 79 in 1989; 1 out of 94 in 1990; and 4 out of 102 in 1991. So the percentage of the cases that were actually granted, that were deemed to be meritorious at the end of the day, was a fraction of the number of cases that were actually going before the board, and that tends to reinforce the point that I made.

Since there are obviously some cases that are meritorious, it is important that the procedure recognize that. That's why the prima facie provisions which appear in 13(1)(a) are there: to make sure the ones that are meritorious get through. In this way we can reduce some of the workload of the Labour Relations Board, have the cases come forward that ought to come forward, weed out the ones that disease the relationship and provide some cost assistance to all the parties.

I understand the reason that the Social Credit caucus may have difficulty with this provision inasmuch as it varies significantly from previous provisions. But I would hope that the hon. member now understands the reasons why we have chosen to proceed with it.

C. Serwa: I thank the minister for that information. In tendering that, it brings to mind the question of how many of those cases were initiated by a worker, with respect to the union representing that worker. I don't know if the breakdown in statistics divulges that. If it doesn't, it's still a substantial question.

Again, my concern here is with respect to the individual worker and the roadblocks that this section appears to put in front of that worker to develop and meet a lawyer's standard of a prima facie case before the union is required to respond. First of all, that is difficult, because only the union possesses the full information on how it handled the situation which led to the complaint, and it's not available to the worker in this particular case. So if we can focus on this element rather than simply on the employer, we should look at it from the perspective of the worker and the union.

The Chair: The minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair.

With regard to the question from the hon. member, all of the applications that I referred to were brought forward by employees. You can see that there are quite a few, but you can also see that quite a few were unmeritorious.

With regard to your comments about prima facie evidence, I don't think you should assume that because all the information is in the possession of the union, as you suggest, that would prevent a prima facie determination. Employees obviously get to put forward a prima facie case as well. I would think that given that these are somewhat employee-driven, the board would look at the prima facie evidence from both sides before it considers whether or not the case discloses such evidence so as to serve a notice of the complaint on the trade union. So I think it does provide the protection that you suggested it wouldn't.

C. Serwa: There seems to be a substantial diversity in standards here, where the union member appears to have roadblocks in front of him or her in this particular section, but those same roadblocks do not exist in the case of the union's position against employers. The union has a much stronger position, and it's not necessary to develop the same degree of a prima facie case. In our opinion, it indeed shows a substantial amount of bias toward the central agency or the central control of the union body.

Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. If you read 13(1), it says: "If a written complaint is made to the board that a trade union, council of trade unions or employers' organization has contravened section 12, the following procedure must be followed." In other words, it's not for a trade union to make the prima facie case; it's for an employee to make that case. Secondly, once that case is presented, then it causes the board to investigate. Thirdly, once the investigation has commenced, then their determination is made as to whether or not there should be a hearing.

[3:45]

That is preferable to the current situation where there is no prima facie opportunity to make the case, so 

[ Page 4299 ]

as to weed out the cases. Secondly, it means that an employee, under the current situation, would have to make their case without the benefit of a preliminary investigation and in front of the whole board as if it was a full hearing, with all the attendant costs. This actually assists employees, from that perspective, with regard to this provision.

L. Stephens: If the employees who may be putting forward this prima facie case are not skilled or have difficulty, would the minister provide counselling or assistance, as is done at Workers' Compensation?

Hon. M. Sihota: They are assisted, hon. member, by an investigating officer appointed by the board.

F. Gingell: I must admit that I didn't see anything in section 13 about an investigating officer. Is that a requirement set out by the regulations? Or is it in some other portion of the act?

Hon. M. Sihota: I refer the hon. member to section 14. I guess this is my frustration with the opposition. They don't always seem to do their research. Section 14 deals with the opportunity of the board to appoint an officer to inquire into a complaint. So if you read 14, you'll see that there's assistance provided.

F. Gingell: I'm just fascinated by this. The minister couldn't respond to the question until he had been advised by his assistant. I find your remark most uncalled for. You had to respond. You had to get advice. Anybody watching this House on Hansard television would see, hon. minister, that you have your own standards for your own behaviour and different standards for other people.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's a point of debate, but you're wrong. I'll tell you something else, hon. member, if you want to get into that kind of stuff. I've sat here for four days presenting example after example where your caucus has been able to do the necessary research. I've listened to your Labour critic suggest in this House directly that his research staff have been in frequent contact with the B.C. Federation of Labour.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. The member has already stated that he is bringing a point of privilege in that regard before this House. He's trying to go around the rules of this House to bring up his petty little concerns. He's acting very much the same way he did with the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce when they were here, when they called him rude.

The Chair: We are on section 13. I would ask all members to be relevant to that section.

Hon. M. Sihota: To make it clear, there's a section that deals with the procedure for fair representation complaints. It sets out a procedure that the most simple-minded people in British Columbia can read. It seems to me that the opposition cannot take the time to read one section and compare it to the next in order to come to an understanding of what's contained in the legislation. It has demonstrated over and over again it is one of the most ineffective and inept oppositions in the history of this province.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. The minister is clearly not relevant to the debate. If his opposition had been a little more effective, we wouldn't have had the type of government we had last time.

The Chair: Please, hon. member, address your remarks through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the Chair was fair, we'd be glad to.

The Chair: The rulings of the Chair are not subject to debate -- standing order 9.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could advise me on a very simple question, which I'm sorry I don't know the answer to. Would the panel that would be set up be a child of the board? Or does it consist of board members? Would it only consist of board members? Or would the board be authorized and empowered to appoint the panel from non-board members?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a panel of board members.

K. Jones: I rise on a point of order. There doesn't appear to be a quorum in the House.

The Chair: Will the House come to order. There appears to be a quorum now.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

C. Serwa: Point of order, hon. Chair. You asked if section 13 should pass. The minister is not even back in the House, and it seems to me that until the minister comes back in the debate has to wait....

The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a point of order, and the debate does not have to wait for the minister to return. The Chair has so ruled.

C. Serwa: Section 13....

The Chair: Hon. member, section 13 has passed.

Interjections.

The Chair: We can wait for the minister.

G. Farrell-Collins: Under the present act it's quite clear that as far as inquiries into unfair labour practices go.... Specifically, I'm dealing with the case where someone has.... For example, in subsection (4)(e), I believe, where it deals with the automatic.... Under the present legislation, when a vote takes place 

[ Page 4300 ]

it's quite clear whether or not the union has gained sufficient support in order to become certified. Under this section it allows, in the cases where unfair labour practices take place, further recourse for the board to make representations as far as certification for the bargaining unit goes. Under this act, of course, the right to vote has been removed, and perhaps the minister can explain what criteria the board would use in determining whether unfair labour practices had had a significant enough effect to deter 55 percent of the bargaining unit from signing the cards.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm a little perplexed at the question from the hon. member because it would....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Anything would perplex you, hon. member, unless it's stated in two words. With regard to the certification test that would be applied, those determinations would be made under the certification provisions, not under section 14.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I find it amazing that we sit in this House day after day asking the minister questions, and he totally misunderstands the question. He doesn't understand what we're talking about. He doesn't get the gist, and we have to go over it time and time again. Yet he has the gall to stand up and credit the opposition with not knowing what they're talking about. It's the minister who has a problem. I will repeat the question for the minister, because I'm getting really tired of doing this time after time.

Section 14(4)(f) deals with the case of certification where, if the Labour Relations Board -- or under the current legislation, the IRC -- feels that unfair labour practices have had the effect on the sign-up procedure of deterring employees or the union from achieving a 55 percent level of support, they can then certify the union despite the fact that they don't have 55 percent. Can the minister explain what sorts of criteria they will be using to determine whether or not that has taken place and to what level? How bad does it have to get before this subsection kicks in?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, now that the hon. member has made it clear he's dealing with the automatic certification provisions -- and takes some time to read Hansard and see what....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: It certainly was not clear before. He should go back and read his statements in Hansard, when it's printed, to satisfy himself that it was....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order!

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'm not going to get in the business of fettering the discretion of the Labour Relations Board or defining the tests that it will define for itself when it hears these matters. The hon. member knows that. He's heard me on several occasions saying that it's not the place of the minister through this chamber to set the tests for the Labour Relations Board. He knows that, and accordingly he should be mindful that his questions will elicit that kind of answer.

[4:00]

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, it's quite clear that many of the questions, both today and in question period on an ongoing basis, go unanswered.

Hon. Chair, it is important.... The Attorney General is here. I spent hours and hours and weeks and weeks reading through the debate on Bill 19, where the Attorney General and the current Minister of Labour asked very specific questions on specific sections in trying to determine the intent of the minister, who is now the member for Okanagan-Vernon, in bringing those sections forward. That went on for weeks, and the Labour minister participated in that; I read his comments. The Attorney General participated in that, and I read his comments. That documentation proved to be of some help to the practitioners in this field in determining what the legislation was.

So for us to ask these questions of the minister and have him merely shrug his shoulders and say: "It doesn't matter what I think...." He's bringing in the act and the legislation. It's incumbent upon him to explain it. It's incumbent upon him to state the intention and to explain why changes to the act are necessary. That's all we're asking; I don't think that's unfair. When the minister was in opposition, he stood up and did exactly the same thing for weeks on end; we are doing that type of questioning now. He understood the value of that questioning then, and I'm sure he understands the value of that questioning now.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm glad the hon. member took the time to read the debate on Bill 19. I'm sorry to see, however, that he didn't learn much during the course of debate. If he had, he would have appreciated the extent to which this legislation is fair, balanced and progressive -- by far a significant improvement over Bill 19. He would have gone back to the position that his colleague from Delta South articulated during second reading debate: that 95 percent of these provisions cause no difficulty to the Liberal caucus. You'd never believe that, because they've taken issue with every section that they've put out. It's also not surprising that the opposition, for all the reasons I've indicated before, is nowhere near as effective as we were.

The code in this case....

J. Tyabji: Point of order. The point of order is relevancy and tediousness. The minister is trying to distract us with half-truths and total....

G. Farrell-Collins: Political garbage.

J. Tyabji: Yes, exactly. Total rhetoric.

[ Page 4301 ]

The Chair: Order! The House will please come to order. I'll remind all speakers that we are in committee stage, section 14, and relevancy is a key here.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, it's easy to see that the opposition opposite is easily disturbed.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Once he settles down, I would draw the hon. member's attention first of all to the wording of section 14, and secondly, to section 132 of the code if he has some concerns as to the development of guidelines for the Labour Relations Board. Whether I do that or somebody else does that, could he please refer to section 132, and that will probably answer a lot of the questions that he seems to be frustrated about not being answered.

The code is changed with respect to section 14, hon. member -- and you know that, if you've read the debate on Bill 19. The test for ordering automatic certification as a remedy for an unfair labour practice committed by an employer during an organizing drive has changed. It is now whether the union would likely have obtained the requisite support for certification. I'm sure you have read that to be in section 14, as it has been quoted to you. In the existing legislation, as you know from having read the debates on Bill 19, as you've confessed.... For automatic certification, it's indicated that because of the employer's unfair labour practices "the true wishes of the employees cannot be ascertained...." You know full well that there's a change in language as a consequence of the redrafting of the bill. That change in language, as you know, is brought forward for several reasons. First of all, as you know, it is the product of agreement between labour and management -- i.e., a legislative provision that is before this House to which both business and labour agree. I think it is somewhat comforting for this government, and should certainly be worthy of applause from the opposition, that this kind of provision has the unanimous support of those who studied the legislation.

The standard in the current legislation, hon. member, as you may be aware -- or I'm sure, are aware, being a student of labour relations, as you confessed to today -- is confusing. Consequently these changes are put forward to put an end to some of that confusion.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will try to respond in kind, but knowing the very recent history of this House, I doubt I'll get more than 30 seconds into it.

Hon. Chair, the minister has to understand -- and he knows full well -- that it is the job of the opposition to go through this bill clause by clause, section by section, and to question the minister to find out what his intent is and the reasons for changes in this bill. It is not good enough for us to sit back and let section after section fly through this House without complete and thorough scrutiny, without knowing what those provisions mean and what the intent of the minister is. In my opinion, that is the job of the opposition. That is what we have been doing, and I think we have been extremely effective in doing so. If the minister gets upset, and if his temper flares up because he gets tired and he's perhaps overworked, I understand that, and I have patience with that to a certain extent, because I know he has a lot of work to do. But the minister must understand that we will be bringing in numerous amendments to this bill. We will be asking and questioning the minister on changes to the provisions in this code. Whether it takes two more weeks or two more months, we will go through this bill and do a thorough examination. His having temper tantrums, getting upset and defensive and going on the attack is not going to change that one bit. We will be here for as long as it takes. If he's going to get more and more tired, perhaps he'll question the wisdom of waiting until the last minute to bring this bill in.

J. Tyabji: Maybe I'll have a little more success trying to get some answers from the minister than our hon. labour critic. When I do ask these questions, I would ask the minister to actually try to answer them rather than going into personal attacks.

G. Farrell-Collins: He does that when he runs out of substance.

J. Tyabji: Yes, that's right. We would like a substantive answer.

With regard to section 14(4)(f), which is obviously what we've been talking about here, I don't understand.... This reminds me a lot of the section that takes away the secret ballot. What is actually being allowed here is people other than the employees -- and it's through a secret-ballot process -- going to certification. I don't understand why it's necessary to bypass the regular certification process. I would like the minister to tell me why he thinks this is necessary, rather than going the regular route.

Hon. M. Sihota: A couple of comments. First of all, it's necessary, as I indicated earlier, because the current standard in the legislation is confusing. Typically, the effect of an employer's unfair labour practice is to improperly influence the employees, making it impossible to ascertain their wishes. The new language in this section addresses the issue of righting the wrong created by the employer's improper influence. It is expected that the awareness of the risk on the part of employers will deter some unfair labour practice.

These provisions are not unusual. Those who have taken the time to study labour relations practices elsewhere in the country will be well aware of the fact that automatic certification processes are found in other jurisdictions in the event of an unfair finding. The Alberta code, for example, specifies that the board may certify a union as the bargaining agent to rectify a violation of the act. These kinds of provisions, including this provision, have been found in Canadian labour law jurisprudence for as long as anybody can remember, particularly with respect to automatic certification. They exist in Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, for example. If the hon. member wishes to get into it, I'd 

[ Page 4302 ]

be happy to outline what the tests are in other jurisdictions.

In terms of why it's a necessity, I think it's fairly obvious. In the event that there is an unfair labour practice through the actions of an employer, and where the board is of the opinion that the union would likely have obtained the requisite support had it not been for the prohibited action being taken by the employer, it should be able to proceed to automatic certification. It's not a particularly unusual or radical provision.

G. Farrell-Collins: I tend to agree with the minister to some extent that it's not a radical section or anything. It's fairly well understood. Perhaps it's not the best way. I can also agree with the member for Okanagan East on her point that it's not the most preferable way for a bargaining unit to become certified. The minister said also that the ideal situation is for the members of the bargaining unit to come to that conclusion on their own.

It is true that undue influence, coercion, intimidation and all those things that we've been dealing with for the last week or so occur from time to time on both sides. We have members of the third party say that it only happens in unions; we have members of the government say that it only happens with employers. The reality is that it happens to some extent on both sides. I think when everybody goes home at night, they realize that that's actually the case.

This does tie in with other sections, so it's important to bring it up at this time also. As the minister said, the ideal situation is for the members of the bargaining unit to make the decision of whether they wish to be certified. I think the overall goal of this legislation, particularly this section and section 23, should be to ensure that it takes place and that we arrive at some fair determination of the wishes of the people who are there and not have to revert to sections like this.

The proposals that we have made, and the proposals we will be making, all fit together. The intent of them, of course, is to ensure that individuals in the bargaining unit have the fundamental democratic right to vote, but in order to avoid those unfair labour practices that we all know exist on both sides, we should amend the other sections of this bill to deal with those in an effective manner without trampling on that fundamental right.

I understand the concerns of the member for Okanagan East; I understand the comments of the minister. I suppose subsection (f) highlights a really unfortunate section of any legislation that you put this type of thing in, but the reality is that you need something to this effect. It would be a much better direction for the government to leave in the vote for certification and clean up the unfair labour practices perhaps by shortening the time period for the vote or doing other such things. As the minister said, that is a philosophical difference between that side of House and this side of the House. The minister has chosen to do it by the use of cards and automatic certification; we choose to disagree with that. We think there are better ways of doing it, and we'll bring in those provisions when we form government.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

C. Serwa: I would like to move an amendment to section 15 standing on the order paper in the name of our Labour critic. I would like to move that the Labour Relations Code be amended as follows:

[SECTION 15, by the addition of the following section:

15.1(1) An express or implied provision of an agreement between an employer and a trade union by which the employer ceases or refrains, or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, buying, selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products or services of another employer or to cease doing business with another person is void.

(2) No employer and no trade union shall include in any agreement a provision that is, under subsection (1), void.

(3) A provision of an agreement is not void by reason only that it recognizes the right to refuse to cross a picket line or to otherwise refuse to assist in breaking a lawful strike.]

[4:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm just checking something from memory. The issue raised through this amendment would essentially have the effect of injecting into the debate the secondary boycott provisions. Earlier on during the course of this debate -- I believe it was section 6, but I could be wrong -- there was an effort made by the opposition to bring thjis debate into this stage of discussion of the legislation. I would argue that it is out of order. It is not relevant. It is beyond the scope of this provision to have this issue discussed at this time. I should, of course, point out that the issue was covered in second reading.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order raised by the minister opposite, let me comment on it also, much as he has. Clearly the section deals with "collective agreement may" -- and the key word there is "may" -- "provide for union membership." The amendment is brought in to deal with the situation where membership in a union may not in fact be optional, but may be imposed.

The secondary boycott issue as such was canvassed in second reading. This deals with a specific clause in a specific section that would stop that type of thing from happening. It quite clearly fits within section 15 as far as its provisions "may provide for union membership." If we're dealing with the fear of top-down organizing, I think it's incumbent that this type of information fits quite comfortably in section 15, and merely goes to perhaps draw the limits on what would be allowed.

C. Serwa: On the same point of order, I sincerely believe that the amendment is in fact in order. It's recognized that the critical areas here are not only what is said but what is left unsaid, and what is left unsaid certainly allows secondary boycotts. So it is quite in order. It does fit and it is appropriate to the section.

Hon. M. Sihota: On the point of order, the previous member makes exactly the point. He says that 

[ Page 4303 ]

something has been left out, and he seeks therefore to inject into the debate...

K. Jones: On a point of order, hon. Chair. The minister is taking part in a debate; he is not bringing a point of order. He is debating the question that's been brought forward.

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair will be the judge of the debate, and the Chair has ruled that if the minister has something to add to the point of order, the minister will add to the point of order.

Hon. M. Sihota: He's indicated already that there's something purposely not mentioned in this section, and because it is absent, there is a reason for that absence. He is now seeking to fill the vacuum and trigger a debate that raises issues which are not found in the context of this section.

The Chair: It is the decision of the Chair that we must deal with section 15 first, to either pass or defeat it. After having dealt with section 15, then we can deal with a new section, 15.1.

C. Serwa: On a point of order, I propose that the amendment be modified to include this as section 15.3.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the hon. member means 15(3), because 15.3 doesn't make sense. Can I just get a clarification? Are you saying that the amendment is in order as 15.1, or are you saying that you will rule on that after the House has dealt with 15(1)?

The Chair: We will deal with section 15 first -- either approve or defeat it. The proposed amendment on the order paper will have to be dealt with separately after that.

C. Serwa: On section 15, I approach this section on the basis of being a representative from an interior community. There is a great deal of concern with the type of latitude allowed under section 15 and with the withdrawal of a ban on secondary boycotts. I bring that into the case here because of the nature of the small one-industry and resource-sector communities. Everything in those particular communities could be unionized on the basis of secondary boycotting. This is clearly not going to be good or positive for those communities, yet section 15, as it is presently written, clearly allows that to transpire. Perhaps the minister would respond to that concern.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is seeking to do indirectly what he can't do directly through the amendment to 15(1). Underlying the debate on this and several previous sections has been the concern expressed by both opposition parties that the removal of the prohibition on secondary boycotts would result in a flood of top-down organizing, in terms of the comments that have been made. Even though I would argue that we cannot at this time debate the merits of removing this prohibition in committee, because there is no section to be debated, I think that before debate is concluded on section 15, I should say a few words with regard to the comment the hon. member raised about that form of organizing.

First of all, let me say that I am amazed at the degree of alarm which lies in the hon. member's question and which is being demonstrated by the opposition members. They would have us believe that unions are lurking everywhere, just waiting to pounce. That is not the case. Unions pride themselves on grass-roots organization and organizing because that is the only way they will have membership support when the going gets tough.

Prior to Bill 19 and the prohibition on secondary boycotts, there was precious little evidence of top-down organizing. It wasn't happening. It was not encouraged by the mainstream labour movement, and the hon. member should be aware of that. We don't expect the situation in 1993 to be any different, should this legislation pass. The government does not expect to see any change, in terms of the features of this legislation from the pre-1987 situation, should Bill 84 become law. We do not expect to see a flood of top-down organizing.

I will, as I've indicated earlier in debate, ask the Labour Relations Board to keep this matter under review and to advise me on an ongoing basis. Additionally, as I've already stated on several occasions in this House, the advisory committee, which I will be appointing under the provisions of section 3, will be required to advise me of any unanticipated outcome stemming from the removal of the prohibition of secondary boycott agreements. I think that should adequately attend to the concern of the member, both as a rural member and as a member who has raised some concerns in this House with regard to small businesses.

With that said, the hon. member should also know that this section that he raises in the debate has existed for some time now. It is not a new section. It has been the subject of debate even at the time that secondary boycott agreements were allowed in British Columbia, and therefore it ought not to cause him concern that somehow something which was not intended will occur.

I would therefore suggest -- I know that you're in dialogue, which is why I'm taking as long as I am in answering this point -- that questions with respect to secondary boycotts have no place in this debate. If the hon. member wishes to raise them afterward in 15.1, as he has proposed -- in the event that the Chair finds it in order -- we can then deal with the topic in further detail.

C. Serwa: What I would propose to do, if it wasn't clear, is to move the subsequent amendment that the amendment as proposed be noted as subsection (3), as the minister pointed out -- not as subsection 15.1.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I understand the hon. member -- he can just nod -- he's now moving an amendment and renumbering it 15(3)....

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, hon. minister.

[ Page 4304 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, is that what we're doing now? Is the hon. member now moving an amendment and renumbering it 15(3)?

I'm going to suggest something here, hon. Chair. I know that you are in discussion with the Clerks with regard to 15.1. If the Chair would like, we could recess for a couple of minutes.... It's not required? Okay, fine. Then I would just like to reiterate the points that I made earlier, in terms of my opposition.

This is an endeavour to indirectly do that which the hon. member knows he can't do directly. It's an endeavour to inject into this debate a consideration with respect to secondary boycotts. The government has chosen to lift the prohibition in sections 4.1 and 9.1. There is no clause, in a clause-by-clause debate, that would require us to have a debate on the issue. There was time in second reading debate -- and much of it was used during second reading debate -- to debate this issue. This proposal now would extend far beyond the scope of section 15, and I therefore submit that it is out of order.

The Chair: Hon. members, the amendment to make this 15(3) would be out of order, as it would be beyond the scope of this section, which is titled "Collective agreement may provide for union membership." Clearly that would not be in order.

[4:30]

C. Serwa: On section 15, hon. Chair, I cannot emphasize too strongly what the elimination of some words in a section will cause. The minister has alluded to it very well. The reality is that when the opportunity exists -- and I think the minister has to understand this -- with the current mood and the current bias in this particular legislation, whether or not the section appeared in a similar manner prior to this, the inclusion of the section with the exclusion of certain critical components will greatly change the impact of this.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

We have a great deal of concern with that impact within communities in the interior of British Columbia, where one-industry communities will be subject to certification simply because of the elimination of the recognition that there should be a ban on secondary boycotts within those communities. This is a very major and very important section, and the impact of this section on the majority of British Columbians is perhaps little understood, and perhaps the impact is not realized or appreciated in the context that will impact these particular communities.

Whether it's a single industry or whether it becomes public sector unions having the opportunity to negotiate and write in the types of situations where secondary pickets would be allowed, it will negate the opportunity for many small businesses in communities to provide, for example, services to government or to a major manufacturing plant such as a pulpwood mill, or perhaps a sawmill or mine. What will happen with this particular section is that all of a sudden the individuals who pay taxes and reside in that community will no longer be able to do business with these large unionized industries unless they become certified. That appears to be the intent of this particular section. I suggest that if this section goes through without the amendments, it will impact very greatly and very negatively on businesses within the community.

I recognize the minister's position and where he's coming from, but in all seriousness the effects of this, coupled with the subtle changes in other sections -- the other series of changes and the bias toward union movement created in this legislation -- will prove disastrous for small communities. The minister must respond, because that has to be a fundamental concern when we discuss the economic situation in the province.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have too much respect for the ruling of the Chair to get into a debate about secondary boycotts. It has been ruled by the Chair to be out of order, and the hon. member, being experienced as he is, is skirting the boundaries.

But I would like to remind the hon. member, getting to this section, that it is virtually identical to section 9(1) of the Industrial Relations Act. In fact, let me quote section 9(1) so he can compare it to section 15(1):

"This act shall not be construed as precluding the parties to a collective agreement from inserting in it a provision (a) requiring membership in a specified trade union as a condition of employment; (b) granting preference in employment to members in a specified trade union; or (c) precluding the carrying out of such provisions."

Section 15(1) says:

"Nothing in this code shall be construed as precluding the parties to a collective agreement from inserting in it, or carrying out, a provision (a) requiring membership in a specified trade union as a condition of employment, or (b) granting preference in employment to members of a specified trade union."

I'm sure that the hon. member opposite voted in favour of section 9 in its entirety when he sat on this side of the House as a member of government. I'm sure that he didn't make the argument that he's just making right now with respect to the current section 15. In fact, I'm sure that during the time of that legislative debate he probably applauded wording in section 9 that is virtually identical to section 15. And I'm sure that he knows that the argument he's now trying to get in is out of order in light of the finding of the Chair. I wish to congratulate him for his efforts but remind him of his vote in the past and advise him that this kind of provision in legislation has existed for some time. Indeed, he actually voted, either directly or indirectly, for this type of provision when he was in government.

With that said, I think the point the hon. member had to make has been made during the course of debate. The point I had to make has also been raised, and perhaps it's time to move on to another section.

Section 15 approved.

The Chair: On section 16.

[ Page 4305 ]

C. Serwa: On section 15, with respect to my amendment, which was going to be handled and discussed subsequent to section 15.

The Chair: In other words, section 15 has passed, and the member is moving this as an additional section.

The hon. Minister of Labour, on a point of order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, on a strong point of order, too. The hon. member moved 15.1 earlier in this debate. He then sought to amend 15.1 to read 15(3) in order to inject it back into the debate after the Chair ruled that it could only be dealt with after section 15. The Chair looked at section 15(3) and declared it out of order, as being beyond the scope of section 15.1. Now the hon. member is seeking to re-move the motion that was declared out of order after having made the decision to renumber it to try to get it into the debate earlier.

All I'm saying is that I think it's offensive to the Chair -- and it ought to be offensive to the House; let me put it this way -- for him to try now to bring a motion back to the floor that has been declared out of order in its earlier form, as he sought to amend it.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. The Chair appreciates your remarks. As I understand it, the problem wasn't the text or the substance of the motion but the sequence, or the process, in which it was introduced. It was disallowed as an amendment to section 15. As a section standing on its own, it has to be considered and determined nonetheless, and this is what the Chair is attempting to do now.

Hon. M. Sihota: A further point of order. We have two submissions to make. One is that by numbering it section 15.1, he is injecting into section 15 as a whole a matter that goes far beyond the scope of section 15 as it is drafted in the legislation. Two, a similar amendment was put forward by the opposition with regard to section 6, and it was ruled out of order not just because it was beyond the scope of section 6, but because it sought to inject an issue into the debate that cannot be brought up during committee stage but only during second reading debate -- i.e., secondary boycotts.

The government has consciously not placed a provision that removes the prohibitions of sections 4.1 and 9.1 in this legislation, and that denies the opposition an opportunity to deal with the prohibitions at committee stage. However, it did allow them the opportunity to deal with that issue at second reading debate. That was the time for the debate, and that debate has happened. At this point it would be improper to inject issues into the debate that: (a) are outside the scope of this provision, (b) have been ruled out of order in the past, and (c) fall squarely within the ambit of second reading debate, given what the government decided to do in proceeding with a specific clause dealing with lifting the prohibition of sections 4.1 and 9.1.

J. Tyabji: In response to the minister's very long point of order, I'd just like to say that we as the official opposition would like to support the amendment that was put forward. We do believe that it is in order, considering that this bill is the only piece of legislation in the province that will be dealing with the provisions as laid out in the amendment. We've got things removed....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Well, here we've got something that is very timely. It being inserted as 15.1 would be, we feel, in order. We also feel that if this minister would like to serve the people of the province to the best of his capacity, he will definitely allow this amendment to stand for the purpose of debate. We recognize that the removal of the sections from the previous act is going to have dramatic impacts on the enactment of this new act, especially given its slant.

The Chair: The Chair would like to point out, first of all, that numbering the section 15.1 is in keeping with the procedure of drafting of bills in that it eliminates the necessity of renumbering the whole bill, so this is just a method of getting around that technical problem.

However, the amendment as submitted does appear to alter the principle of the bill as agreed to in second reading, and on that ground the amendment would be out of order.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

C. Serwa: On section 17, I move an amendment to the Labour Relations Code in the name of the hon. member from Okanagan-Vernon.

[SECTION 17(1)(a), by deleting the words: "trade unions generally" and by substituting therefor the words; "a trade union".]

On the amendment.

C. Serwa: The amendment restores the protection of religious freedom, which even the former NDP government under Premier Dave Barrett offered workers. That is the purpose of the amendment, and we feel it is critical that the amendment be accepted.

Hon. M. Sihota: Section 17 allows for recognition of the fact that religious beliefs may be inconsistent, if I can put it that way, with membership in a trade union. The language would mean that only those employees who can demonstrate that their religious beliefs are inconsistent with membership in a trade union will be granted an exemption from union membership on religious grounds. So I think the intent, whether it be of Mr. Barrett, my good friend and wise MP and office partner from time to time but never dictator of this government's policy, as the members opposite would be so humble as to suggest.... I think the issue is, therefore, adequately attended to.

J. Tyabji: The official opposition would like to support this amendment, and we would like to encourage the minister to remove the words "trade unions 

[ Page 4306 ]

generally" and make them into "a trade union." We do feel that it has an impact. I guess my question for the minister is: does he understand the significance of the amendment?

The minister has been rendered speechless by the question.

[4:45]

I think it's important in section 17 to recognize that some of these issues have been canvassed through the Supreme Court, and it is a bit of a minefield, but the change in the wording would be a lot better for employees who would be affected by this section of the bill. I would love to hear the minister's comments on this. I think he would be denying the House the benefit of his words -- and I won't say words of wisdom -- on the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the phrase the hon. member was looking for is "gems of wisdom."

The standard of labour legislation interpretation on this issue in Canada has been that exemptions are granted to those whose religious beliefs are opposed to membership in trade unions in general. This is not an unusual provision; it exists elsewhere in the country. There have been determinations by the IRC with regard to these kinds of cases. They decided recently that exemptions should be granted if the policies or positions taken by a particular union are inconsistent with a person's religious beliefs. This change, as the hon. member knows, clarifies that the exemption should only apply to the more general opposition to membership in a trade union. Hence the change.

J. Tyabji: The question I have for the minister is: how would the way the amendment is worded impact, for example, an employee who decided that he or she did not want to join a trade union because that trade union was making donations to a political party? In this case an employee has a specific objection to a specific trade union, as opposed to the way the bill reads right now, where they might object to joining trade unions generally. The individual may not object to joining trade unions generally, but that individual may object to joining a specific trade union because of its donations to, for example, the NDP.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know why the hon. member would use that example, unless she's familiar with cases that have been dealt with in this kind of situation. I suspect she is, so she's raising the issue only because of her familiarity with a decision involving the North Vancouver Teachers' Association.

Unions are highly democratic organizations. It is open to members to impact on the policies of a union. Members democratically, by majority vote, often decide on issues, whether it be the selection of their officers or donations to any type of organization -- be it Greenpeace or the Liberal Party of British Columbia, which I understand is different from the Liberal Party of Canada. If they have a difficulty, they should raise the issue within their own union.

J. Tyabji: Is the minister saying that the way this bill is worded -- if he does not accept this amendment -- would preclude an employee who, for example, objects to a specific trade union from having the right to say: "My own religious conviction does not allow me to join that"? As I said before, does the minister not recognize that the amendment would allow that individual more freedom to choose with regard to his or her membership in a union? I do specifically raise the point of donations being given to political parties like the NDP. As the minister has alluded to, there are some specific examples of court cases....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: No, I have not been a member of a union, so I have not.

I would like to ask the minister to confirm for the House that this amendment would allow the individual more freedom to choose based on his or her own acceptance of what the union is participating in outside the confines of what a union is mandated to do.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know why the hon. member has difficulty with the fact that various organizations in society may wish to contribute to the New Democratic Party. In fact, the hon. member may recall that....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That type of heckling has no place in this debate, hon. member.

I was wondering why the hon. member wasn't raising issues such as that it might be wrong for Murray Pezim to make donations to the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I still remember....

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: Point of order. Although I could be calling the minister on a point of relevancy, I'd like to set the record straight for the House that we do not have any donations on the books, as the member alluded to.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, I think we're treading on very sensitive ground here. I'm sad that we make jokes about it, because for many people this is a very sensitive undertaking.

The analogy I would use at the moment is that there are people who might not object to being part of war generally, but might object to being part of a particular conflict that was going on. According to this clause, the analogy means that a person has only one choice: to object to trade unions generally, rather than on a religious objection to a particular trade union. Some people would be happy to join a particular trade union because they feel very much at home with its philosophical or religious base. They would not be happy to join other trade unions whose philosophical or religious 

[ Page 4307 ]

base they do not feel comfortable with. This does not give them that option. I think that this might well be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The opportunity to join or not join a particular trade union is quite different from being against trade unions generally. Those are two entirely different things. I think the minister is on very sensitive ground here and should reconsider this from the point of view of the openness that the amendment provides as against the general difficulty that the present section provides. He should look at it very clearly from the point of view of many of the religious groups in our community.

We have been undertaking to be a multicultural, multifaith community and to respect equally the rights of all individuals and the faiths that they express. This particular clause, unless it's amended, does not take that into account. If the minister is consciously putting it forward, I would like him to clarify how he's able to give the freedom to different religious persuasions to say, from a religious point of view, that they can or cannot belong to a particular trade union without having to say that they are against trade unions in principle. That's what this clause states. I think the minister needs to rethink that, because he does not lose anything by letting the amendment pass, except the satisfaction that he hasn't let any amendment from the other side of the House pass. He doesn't lose anything in the emphasis of this bill. I would be interested to know from the minister why he does not wish people to have the freedom without having this general clause in there, rather than the specific one.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is correct. This is a sensitive issue for a lot of people and a difficult issue of public policy, quite frankly. But there has been a unanimous recommendation to government to proceed in this direction, and I guess that's one very important one to consider.

Second, it would be kind of a difficult policy if people could revoke their membership in a union because they did not like one policy initiative or action that a union took. However, those practical considerations have to be balanced against the need to make sure that there is an appropriate provision which deals with the matters of religious conscience. There were a number of submissions to the special advisers from unions requesting that the act be revised to permit exemptions only for those whose religious beliefs were inconsistent with trade unions in general. A number also requested that employees granted such exemptions be required to pay unions for the benefit they received from the work of the union. There were also submissions from two religious organizations which requested that payment in lieu of union dues go to the consolidated revenue fund, and the process of obtaining religious exemptions may be made less stressful and expensive.

So that was the range of considerations before the panel. For the reasons that I articulated earlier on, we felt that the inclusion of the words in this section -- or the elimination, I guess, depending on which way you look at it, because I forget if we're on the amendment or on the main section.... We felt that the way to go was the way we did here in section 17, which is to say "objects to...trade unions generally," as opposed to the wording that appeared under section 11(1) of the Industrial Relations Act.

V. Anderson: I had difficulty hearing all of what the minister was saying. But if I'm right, he was saying that on one hand -- I want to check whether I heard properly -- there were some unions requesting the clause as it's now in the act; on the other hand, there were some unions and some religious groups requesting a change that would have been in line with the amendment; and there was a difficulty in balancing out the different undertakings.

I see him shaking his head at me, so I'll ask him to clarify that before I proceed further.

Hon. M. Sihota: What I indicated was that there were a number of submissions to the special advisers from unions requesting that the act be revised to permit exemptions only for those whose religious beliefs were inconsistent with trade unions in general. A number also requested that employees granted such exemptions be required to pay the unions for the benefit they receive from the work of the union. Submissions from two religious organizations requested that payment in lieu of union dues go to the consolidated revenue fund, and that the process of obtaining religious exemption be made less stressful and expensive.

Based on those representations and others that the panel had to look at -- which I would assume included the North Vancouver case -- the panel came to the conclusion that the insertion of the word "generally" in section 17(1)(a) was the appropriate public policy decision on what is admittedly a sensitive and difficult issue, for reasons that I have already enunciated in the House.

V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister for that explanation. But what the minister has said seems to me to confirm even more the need for the amendment. We're not arguing at this point subsection (1)(b) of this section. At this point we're not arguing that those who are not part of a union are not going to pay subsequent funds into other funds -- that they would escape those payments. At this point we're not arguing for what is convenient to the unions. At this point we're arguing for the religious liberty of an individual according to their belief to decide whether they belong to a particular trade union in the organization within which they work or whether they are compelled, because of their religious belief, not to work in a particular situation because a particular union happens to be the union of that situation. The minister is implying that if an employee works in a non-union business, and a particular union comes in and unionizes the business, and they have a religious belief in conflict with that particular union, then they are to lose their job on that religious decision. I don't believe that the minister should expect people to be put in that position. With this opportunity against a trade union, one does not put them in that position.

[5:00]

[ Page 4308 ]

It's very feasible that if an individual works at a non-union business, a union could come in and organize, which it has the right to do, but that particular union may not be, under the individual's religious conscience, one that that particular employee can join. Under this clause they lose their job, which is a contradiction of other parts of the act, because a union cannot cause an employer to fire them, but the union, in effect, has disqualified them. I am sure that most people are probably not aware of this part of the act, because there are not that many "trade unions" at this point that have a religious base per se that would raise this question. The very fact that they raise it means that it's a fundamental question to a lot of other people who are not organized by religious belief as such in trade union matters, but who do have a religious belief that would not enable them to do this.

I would urge the hon. minister to reconsider this and change it. I would suggest, humbly perhaps, that those who were dealing with this were not religiously or multifaith conscious in the sense of the implications of this in the wider multifaith community in which we are engaged. I know that this particular government has tried very hard to be open, honest, fair and respectful of people of all religious persuasions, and I commend them for that. But I would urge the minister to put that openness into this particular clause in this act and allow this amendment to go through. At the very least, they should put it on hold so that he can reconsider it and bring it back in at a later time so the implications can be clearly thought through. As it now stands without the amendment, it clearly is a bias against the religious persuasion of many employees.

Hon. M. Sihota: I would argue that it isn't, and I'll tell you why I'd make that argument. The language being proposed would allow someone to make an application to the board and give them the opportunity to satisfy the board -- as has always been the case, so there's nothing new there -- that because of their religious conviction or belief, they object to joining a trade union generally. It allows them to make that application. It does not, hon. member, allow them to make an application saying that they object to a particular policy of a trade union, then it does close that option, because that was the option that arose -- I would argue, rather unexpectedly -- from a decision made by the Industrial Relations Council in 1988 or 1989. So it deals with that issue.

If they object to joining trade unions as part of their religious belief, they can make that application. So it's not offensive to people of different cultures or faiths who hold that belief, but it must be to trade unions generally as opposed, as the hon. member says, to a particular policy or trade union. It must be a general belief. On that basis, an exemption is provided on the grounds of religious objection.

L. Fox: I've been listening very carefully to the debate. I suppose that in a perfect world, where all union contributions were treated in exactly the same way and all the unions had exactly the same policies and goals in terms of how to involve themselves in world affairs, I would have no problems with it. It would be very easy for an individual to have religious objections to unions collectively.

My problem is that many unions are different from others in terms of where their union dues go. For instance, an individual of the Jewish faith could decide to be unionized by a union which may be sending some money to help the PLO. That individual may, by and large, agree with the principles of the union, but obviously has great difficulty with some of his union dues going to that cause.

This particular clause, without the amendment, does not allow that individual to express his dissatisfaction with the union other than through the democratic process. He therefore, in all conscience, has no other alternative than to quit his job and look for another one. The problem with that is that the thrust of this legislation is obviously to unionize more of the service sector and the business sector. So the opportunities for him to find employment in an area where he can have some comfort, in terms of his belief, become fewer and fewer.

I really urge the minister to give some serious consideration to the amendment, and I personally do not see why he should object to the amendment. It does not change the intent; the intent is exactly the same. It allows for protection of the rights of an individual who may have beliefs which conflict with a specific union on a specific initiative.

Hon. M. Sihota: Look, to be candid about it, you raised the example of someone of the Jewish faith in a trade union that gives money to the PLO. You're right that the way in which the individual must deal with that issue is through the democratic process within the trade union. You made reference to that in your comments. They have to use their influence as individuals to encourage the trade union not to make those types of donations. There's nothing particularly new about that. The fact of the matter is that individuals do that all the time within existing organizations.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the member for Surrey-Cloverdale would just settle down, he might actually learn something and get beyond his....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members!

Would the minister please address his comments through the Chair.

Hon. M. Sihota: It reinforces the theme here in this debate, in terms of comments usually made by the third party.

With regard to the comments made by the member from the third party, he is correct in his analysis. There's no doubt about that. As awkward as that policy may be to the individual he referred to, the solution lies in the individual then asserting his responsibility as a trade 

[ Page 4309 ]

union member to encourage the union to make a change in its policy.

The reason for that is that the fundamental tenet of the section is a religious objection with respect to trade unions generally, as opposed to a policy of a trade union specifically. So if the religious objection is to membership in a trade union generally -- not the Teamsters versus the IWA, for example, but with unionism generally, if I can put it that way -- then there is accommodation made for the religious objection. But if it's with regard to policy, then it's a different issue. You're right: that's a distinction that is being cut in this provision.

G. Farrell-Collins: In looking through the annual report for 1991, there were actually 37 exemptions filed. That doesn't seem like a large number of people to me; it seems like a relatively small number. In fact, if we look at the appeals disposed of -- and we are dealing with appeals -- of the rulings regarding religious exemptions, three were dismissed and one was granted.

In my mind, it's quite clear that even under the legislation we have right now, there are some pretty stringent requirements for people, first of all, to seek the religious exemption and, second of all, to actually achieve it. I don't see why it's necessary to further hamper people who feel strongly about a certain issue by imposing legislation on them that requires them to have to go through an even more arduous process to ensure that they can be comfortable with themselves and their religion. For many people in our society who hold strong religious beliefs, it is difficult to reconcile those beliefs with many of the things that people are called upon to do on a daily basis in our society. I think we have to be very respectful and mindful of those concerns.

To say that the protection under Bill 84 is sufficient because it allows for someone who rejects trade unions generally because of their religion to not become part of them is not sufficient. Unions often engage in activities, make donations or set policy issues or rulings that really have nothing to do with representing the individual employee with their employer. They're completely out of the bounds of that relationship of collective bargaining and negotiation. They often set policies within the union that may or may not support abortion or may or may not support a whole range of social issues that are clearly outside the relationship that exists between the union, as the representative of the collective employees, and the employer.

I understand that if people have a problem with a policy of the union as it relates to the collective bargaining process, then they have a choice to leave the union or to lobby within the union to have that policy changed. That makes sense. That's quite clear, and that would be the way to go. That's the whole idea of a collective. But when a union takes off on a tangent and starts to set policy or make donations or try and enforce a policy opinion or decision that the majority of the people in that union have made, that is totally unrelated to the real duty of the union, which is to represent that employee with the employer. Then we're into a whole different area.

Many people feel extremely uncomfortable. They may not be opposed at all to trade unions; in fact, they may encourage trade unions. I never knew Tommy Douglas, but my father certainly knew of him, and he was a very well-respected gentleman throughout the world, I would say. I wonder how he would feel if one of the unions that he was fighting for had a policy on abortion that he didn't agree with. Would he feel that that was the proper means? Would he feel that that was perhaps outside the parameters of what that union should be doing?

There are lots of examples where unions do take policy decisions that are clearly outside that jurisdiction and outside what members may ask a union to do for them as part of the collective. A person may generally agree very strongly with the principle of trade unions. In fact, a person may be the biggest booster of a trade union. In fact, people may bring in the certification of a trade union within their bargaining unit, yet still have problems if that union takes off on a tangent on policy issues that it doesn't really need to be on. In those cases, it's clearly within the realm of legislation to state that it's simply not enough to say that members should go through their union to try to change that policy. A person needs further protection or some help in saying: "Look, I don't like the area that we're going into here. Yes, I like this union; yes, I like unions generally. But I think this is way outside the realm of what I want the union to do for me. I don't agree with that, and I don't want to contribute to it." There's nothing wrong with that type of legislation or provision being included in the code.

The provision that the minister talks about for trade unions in general simply doesn't apply in that case. In fact, there needs to be further clarification within the code, and further substantive guarantees given to the members of the trade union who have strongly held religious beliefs that those won't be violated but that they can still have a good working relationship with their union and their employer. I think those provisions need to be included in this bill. It must be changed in order to provide for those scenarios.

[5:15]

C. Serwa: I rise to speak in support of the proposed amendment, which is a most reasonable and fair amendment.

The issue arises, of course, because in the origin of the union movement we were looking primarily at wages and working conditions of employees. That was the primary initiative for the union movement. Since that time, we find that they have gravitated into a larger number of areas, promoting, as my hon. colleague has indicated, the putting of money into other countries for a variety of causes, supporting a variety of issues. There is certainly great and valid concern on the part of members. At the time of organizing and certification there is no compunction on the part of unions to provide recognition of the type of policies that they are in fact supporting. My belief is that the objection is not 

[ Page 4310 ]

appropriate when you talk about unions generally, but it is when you talk about the policies of a specific union.

If the minister was concerned about fairness and balance, and about fundamental religious freedom and fundamental human rights, perhaps he would honour an amendment that restricted unions to their original set purpose. I don't think the minister is willing to accept such an amendment, and perhaps it's not appropriate here, but the need for this particular amendment is simply because of the wide and diverse range of non-work activities that unions generally participate in.

Obviously when you look at the numbers involved in the union movement, even specifically in the jurisdiction of British Columbia, the number that have objected -- I think the previous member quoted approximately 36 -- is not an odious number that would cause any of the unions any significant problem. But we have a fundamental human right in question here. Individual workers should be able to object to a policy, for if they are not able to object to those single policies, then we'll have what is actually occurring in this Legislature at the moment. The dynamics of the debate here are between the minister and the members on this side of the House. Rank-and-file MLAs elected to represent their constituencies do not engage in debate. They file in on a division, vote in the appropriate manner as indicated by the government House Leader, and file out again in abject disinterest.

The union member who objects to a policy has virtually no opportunity...in spite of the minister talking about the democratic process. We can see even in putting forward this reasonable amendment that in this forum it is almost hopeless to try to get acknowledgement of the reasonableness and the fairness of this type of amendment. So you can imagine the challenge faced by the individual union member. I cannot conceive of a situation where the individual and individual rights should be trod upon so harshly because of the focus on unionism. It is not right. It is not just. It is certainly not fair.

It appears to me that perhaps there is something else the minister is concerned with, and perhaps something else that the government in power is concerned with. I suggest that their ready willingness to trample on religious freedom, the rights of the individual and fundamental human rights is simply their concern with the union arm and the political arm of the same organization.

If anyone objects on the basis of religious concerns, I would suggest that they would object far more strenuously in a situation that involved, for example, abortion, which is a very controversial issue. The socialists and the unions collectively have supported abortion clinics and abortion policies.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Not universally, the Minister of Agriculture says. I hope not, but collectively they certainly have been.

But on that basis, the amendment on the order paper that I put forward is a fair and just amendment, so that an individual has that right. Incumbent in achieving that right, we encourage responsibility on the part of union policies. You recognize, hon. Chair, as I recognize, that government policies are made by a select few. The activities and directions that we see in government are often made by those who are unelected and unaccountable to the general populace, and the executive branch gets their information and carries forward policies on that basis.

So it is with the union system. You have a central group that has specific interests in specific causes that they wish to support. There is no way that anyone in the world can convince me that through a democratic process or policy, the rights of individuals in that union are even cared about in the formation of those. However, if this key point in the amendment is brought into the section, it will create an opportunity for an awareness of displeasure with union policies.

It would be my sincere wish that unions would restrict themselves to wages, working conditions and those things that directly involve the workers that they represent. That would be my fundamental wish. I will fail to achieve that fundamental wish, but it's certainly clear in this matter that the individual worker should have his or her rights protected with the opportunity to object to certain policies. It will then send a clear signal that responsibility by the union elite is imposed on that group of individuals.

While I note that the minister is not in the House at the moment, perhaps one of hon. members on the government side would be willing to stand up and state their views on it. I see by a signal that that's agreed to.

D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, I think it's useful to clarify precisely what the issue is in debate on this point. The section as it stands before us gives individuals the right, for religious reasons, not to participate in a union if they object to the principle of unions in general. The standard of labour legislation and the interpretation of this issue in Canada have been that exemptions are granted to those whose religious beliefs are opposed to membership in trade unions in general. The amendment proposes that individuals be able, for religious reasons, to withdraw their participation if they object to the policy of a particular union. I objected to many of the policies of the former government, but I wasn't allowed to stop paying my provincial taxes because I didn't like the policies pursued by the government...

Interjection.

D. Schreck: ...which that third-party member participated in. The principle is much the same. If an individual participates in an organization that democratically governs itself, that individual can participate in whatever policies that organization sets. If the organization happens to set policies that the individual disagrees with, that is not a more sufficient reason, in most labour legislation throughout Canada, for the individual to withdraw from participating in that democratic institution than if the hon. member opposite 

[ Page 4311 ]

or myself said that we weren't going to participate in our duties as citizens of the province.

So again, we have a fundamental philosophical difference between the members opposite and the legislation. And again, what we find in that fundamental philosophical difference is the mainstream of Canada having one standard, which is embraced by the legislation before us, and the opposition parties calling for a rather extreme breakaway from that mainstream standard.

The remarks of my friend in some respects deviated from the debate we are having. My friend opposite criticized my colleagues for their participation in this debate. I'm sorely disappointed in that, especially after my friend and I had such an interesting debate on yet another philosophical point just the other day. Here we are again dealing with such fundamental philosophical differences, where the opposition parties are advocating a standard -- i.e., objection to individual policies as apart from objection to the principles of general trade unionism -- and trying to take B.C. along a line that is out of order with the rest of labour legislation in Canada.

Interjection.

D. Schreck: My friend opposite refers to where members are in these precincts. Having participated for a good deal of this day with members on all sides of this House doing other business in a legislative committee, I find it very objectionable that the member would think that we could do both committee business and participate in his particular amendments at the same time. The members in this House are all working very hard. Despite that equally hard work, there are some fundamental philosophical differences. The point my friend brings up, advocating opting out for particular policy differences, illustrates one of those fundamental philosophical differences.

The Chair: Hon. member, back to the amendment, if you will.

D. Schreck: I suggest that the amendment before us essentially undermines the principles of participation in a democratic organization. The amendment that is proposed by the opposition essentially says: "Well, I'll participate in the organization, but as soon as the organization pursues policies where I lose -- where my little group is on the losing side -- then I'll take my marbles and go home." That's not the way to have constructive industrial relations, and that's not the standard followed throughout Canada. That is why there is yet one more -- not so much a stalling amendment, in this case -- fundamental philosophical difference. It illustrates that those opposition parties are far offside again from the mainstream of Canada.

L. Fox: I'm sure glad that individual is not the Minister of Labour.

The section that we're on is religious objection. We're talking about the right of individuals to express, through freedom, their particular beliefs when a union goes beyond what they can, in all good conscience, support. If this bill had not reduced the right to vote on certification.... If this bill through that process had allowed a two-way dialogue between employer and employee, as well as between employee and union, which could identify the political agenda of that particular union or how it utilized its funds in terms of the world political scene, or if a union upon signing certification cards had to identify all those particular concerns and issues, perhaps I wouldn't be as concerned about this section as I presently am, since individuals at the signing stage would know full well what the union stood for and what its actions were.

[5:30]

However, those requirements are not in this legislation. So individuals could, indeed, sign a card without knowing that the union is doing something which goes against their fundamental religious beliefs. These individuals, with the legislation as it presently sits without the amendment, would not have the opportunity to protect their beliefs. The only thing that they could do is quit their job. That is something which bothers me. It troubles me deeply that individuals could be forced, through a lack of information provided at the signing, at the certification stage, to belong to a union which goes against their fundamental religious rights.

V. Anderson: I was concerned about the previous speaker from the government side -- not the minister, I must add -- setting forth a philosophy which I'm not sure the minister himself would agree with, because part of the philosophy that was being set forth in this particular discussion was saying, in effect, that the religious belief of a particular person did not have the same significance as the political philosophy of the party he represented. That's a very inadequate and unfortunate statement to present.

The fundamental philosophy that we as a democratic society have here is that individuals and their religious beliefs are pre-eminent. One of the hallmarks of our society is freedom of religion. Being able to express your religion, being proud of it and not having to hide it in order to take your place and work in our society is what our democracy has been built on. People from all over the world have come here for the freedom of religion that they were not able to have in the societies they came from. They came to Canada because they believed that this was an open society, where everybody could stand proud in their own religious faith and have the right to work with other people in the community. This particular facility within the union movement, as put forth by the government, denies them that opportunity. It denies them that privilege and that right.

I am curious to know if the minister has had time to peruse the multicultural study paper that was prepared by the Ministry of Social Services. It brought together persons of all faiths and multicultural backgrounds to develop a sensitivity document that might be used by government to respond to the community in which we now live. If so, I am assured, by my own understanding of that document and of what it represents, that this 

[ Page 4312 ]

amendment would be automatic. In fact, that amendment would have been put into the bill before it came to this House for adoption. This does not indicate, in my understanding, the sensitivity we need to have in a multicultural society -- which implies a multifaith society -- where the individual is not put under the thumb of the majority or the collective in their private faith as they would express it in their undertakings. There are many factors that come into that.

I know that one of the submissions the hon. minister received came from the Christian Labour Association of Canada. I would like to remind the minister of the comments they made with regard to this section:

"Our concerns about intolerance, potential abuse regarding internal union discipline and the need to protect individual workers is heightened by the proposal regarding conscientious or religious objectors. We find it deplorable that organizations in a free and democratic society find it necessary to virtually close the door on even a few dissenters who object to union membership on the basis of religious convictions. These convictions have in the past been scrutinized in the most elaborate fashion -- note the council's decision in the Wasilifsky case -- and we regret that the special advisers were persuaded that the rigid tests currently in place must be made more onerous yet.

"We point out that other Canadian jurisdictions have adopted the wording and interpretation of section 11 of the Industrial Relations Act. We find it hard to believe that this small token of tolerance for an insignificant number of objectors is apparently interpreted by some as an attack on union security provisions."

This is from an organization that is very conscious of the variety of religious expressions that are a part of our community. They are not pressing their own particular religious expression, but they are highlighting the reality that the particular religious expression of each person must be considered and must not be trampled upon by a larger collective.

It's very fundamental in our community at this present time, because one of the realities facing us in the newspaper every day is the increasing feeling of racism, which we all have to counter in every way possible. Time and time again racism is conducted through religious belief. Racism connected to religious belief was part of the Holocaust. Racism connected to religious belief is part of the struggle in the former Russian portions of Russia. It's part of the struggle in every part of the world. It's something of which we in Canada become more conscious all of the time.

Cultural belief and religious belief are intertwined, and the expressions of these beliefs must be preserved and given the opportunity not to be put down but to be nourished. This kind of provision makes it possible -- and probable, no doubt -- that a majority religious body, or non-religious body, for that matter, wanting to build policies and practices with which they have no difficulty, can overlook and neglect the particular individuals who have a different stance and a different point of view.

I find it very strange that this minister and those who speak with him from that side of the House would not take into account the very sensitive nature of this particular part of this bill. This is not a question just of labour and management organization between workers and employers or the labour board. This is a question of....

Interjection.

V. Anderson: Make your comments across the floor if you like, but the people out in our community are concerned that the religious reality and effectiveness of every person be affirmed, and they have the opportunity....

Interjection.

V. Anderson: No, I'm not in the wrong party, because it's your party over there that's making this legislation, and I challenge the party that makes this kind of legislation, because it is a serious matter. For many years, I worked in interfaith dialogue, and I sat down with religious communities of all persuasions across this country. I became very sensitive to words, meanings and implications. This is conveying the meaning of rejection and that religious objection or persuasion is there only as much as it has to be.

K. Jones: It's tokenism.

V. Anderson: That's a good term from one of my colleagues. It's tokenism. It's not acknowledging the inherent right of people to stand up and speak for themselves and be respected for their religious faith.

Hon. Chair, I don't know how we can emphasize this enough for the minister to hear and for the community at large, from within or without the union movement, to affirm that this is an important consideration. This is not a question of union or non-union. There are many people in the union movement who would like the opportunity to express their religious beliefs without being criticized or feeling the prejudice against them which they've felt again and again.

They have to struggle for their days of worship, which has already been mentioned. Different religious groups have different days of the week that are important to them, and they need the privilege to express that. They have different religious holidays, and they need the privilege to respect and acknowledge that.

This suggests to these people that they can not speak out in their workplace, because they will lose their jobs if they don't agree that this particular union can honestly and fairly represent them. It also puts upon them the uncertainty that even if they're part of the union and they go along with it, they cannot speak out for their own religious traditions, customs and times of holy worship.

I think there's a message here that goes far beyond this particular labour bill and needs to be taken into account. I urge the hon. minister to take the multicultural document that has been prepared by the Minister of Social Services very seriously. Look at the messages and principles within that document and apply them to this bill.

[ Page 4313 ]

The Chair: I would remind the hon. member that we are way beyond second reading. We're now on the amendment to section 17. Would you please address your remarks to that.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, thank you for that comment. It's hard to deal with the specifics here without going beyond what some would consider to be its implications, because the implications of this are not just for the union movement; they are for a cross-section of society. It's a specific action like this that brings home to us the insensitivity and incompetence, if you like, of the cultural aspects that we need to put before our community at large.

[5:45]

I know that the hon. minister is aware of that struggle from his own experience, and he is aware of how easily small things can be misinterpreted. I would expect that because of his personal experience, the minister, more so than many others within this House, would be able to understand this and put this change into effect. I trust that he will accept the change or will at least give it more thought before the bill is finally put into law.

The Chair: If the committee would permit an unusual request, the Chair would like the privilege of introducing some honoured guests.

Leave granted.

The Chair: The Clerk's family -- Mr. Izard's wife, Daphne, and two youngsters Sasha and Diana -- is in the members' gallery. I'd like all of us to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: They are awfully cute children. They must be the only people in British Columbia who see the Clerk without his gowns on.

The Chair: Now to the amendment, hon. minister.

An Hon. Member: How do you know?

Hon. M. Sihota: I suspect; I don't know for sure.

I want to deal quickly with the points raised, because we've had an extensive debate on this issue today. The hon. member talked about the conflict between religious conscience, if I can put it that way, and the obligation to work. We talked about multiculturalism. I don't profess to be the only expert in this House with regard to multiculturalism, but I must say I have some knowledge of the topic simply because of my own background. I just want to say this. I also come from a religion where people have to deal with conflicts, with issues that conflict with their religious beliefs and the world of work. There are people in my own culture and my own religion who believe very strongly -- and I must say I have some sympathy for them -- who object when they can't wear a turban to work. Or they object that if they wish to be a firefighter, they must be clean-shaven. The regulations used to say -- I don't know if they still do -- that beards would prevent the placement of oxygen masks on the face. Or they object because they cannot carry a symbolic dagger or knife, if I want to put it that way, or can't wear the bracelet that I wear when I come to work.

I understand that within the world of work, religious tensions and difficulties may be caused, and we all, as individuals, seek to deal with those conflicts and tensions. It is true that we have a right to religious freedom in this province of ours and this country of ours. We also have a right to association through trade unions. It won't be the first time that different rights come to clash with one another, and where they do overlap, we have to try to reconcile the tensions that result.

Individuals deal with those tensions in different ways. We've tried to deal with some of those tensions in this legislation. We first of all recognize in this legislation that there is room for people to be able to deal with religious objections. So the principle of religious objections is dealt with in this legislation. We also try to deal in a practical way with the fact that because of their religious background, some people may object to joining trade unions in general. We have also tried to deal in a practical way with the fact that some people may have objections to the policies of trade unions, not in the way in which the provisions were interpreted under section 11(1) of the previous bill, but by allowing the opportunity for that individual to make their case eloquently -- as the hon. member just did on their behalf in this House -- to their membership, so as to get adjustments in trade union policy and practices. We do that knowing that we can't attend to every situation but also knowing full well that this tries to seek some kind of balance in what is often an imperfect world and in situations that may not be perfectly balanced. But we will proceed with this provision, because we believe that it provides the appropriate scope of comfort that's required.

We also acknowledge that since the decision of 1988 there's been a material increase in the number of religious objection cases brought before the Industrial Relations Council. That's fair enough, and I think that was to be expected, given that finding. I think it's been noted already in debate that few of those issues have been resolved by way of order. But it also should be noted that the bulk of those issues have been resolved by way of settlement. Trade unions themselves have been mature enough to try to make accommodation for that small subset in society, if I can put it that way, that finds itself dealing with these issues. I think one must recognize that fact and commend those organizations for showing the appropriate level of sensitivity.

During the course of his remarks, the hon. member also made reference to the Charter of Rights. It is possible that these provisions may be brought under attack by the Charter of Rights. If that happens, surely we as a government will have an obligation to deal with them -- and we will.

In a very difficult issue of public policy -- which is the way I described it at the outset -- and in a world that is imperfect, where we are trying to seek certain balances, this is the balance that we have chosen to proceed with. We do it recognizing that the recognition 

[ Page 4314 ]

which goes back to '72, I think, is appropriate, but that it ought not to be used as a reason to avoid the obligation of membership in a trade union, and we encourage people through this provision to assert their responsibilities as members of a trade union.

I would hope that that would conclude the debate with regard to this section, and I look forward to the ensuing vote.

J. Tyabji: I have a number of questions for the minister with regard to the amendment. In response to our arguments in favour of the amendment, the minister has said a number of things that I'd like to take issue with. One is that he had based this provision in the bill on submissions from the representatives of the unions to the hearings, and he didn't say anything about who else had been lobbying for the change.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: No, I didn't hear it. If he did, perhaps he can reiterate it. I heard the minister say that this provision was made because there was representation from the unions, and that's why it was put in. We can review Hansard, and he will see that that is there. He didn't say anyone else had asked specifically for this provision. He has just finished saying that they are going to keep this bill unamended because he feels that it has the appropriate scope, the way it is written, for dealing with the issue. I don't understand. When he says appropriate scope, what is that scope? Who is it appropriate for, and in reference to what is it appropriate?

Maybe this question should have been asked a lot sooner. Specifically with regard to this amendment on this section, for whom has the minister written Bill 84? If he is saying that he doesn't want to amend it because he had submissions from representatives of unions who said it should be in there, and if we as the opposition are saying it should be amended because you have this huge group of people who will be directly and significantly impacted, and if his argument is to be that he wants it written the way it is because the union representation wants it that way in order to prevent all those people from exercising their individual rights, I think that's a very serious argument indeed.

I think that he should stand up and say that he is prepared to abrogate the rights of all those individuals who want to be able to focus in on one issue with one union and therefore have a religious conviction or belief on that one issue with that one union very specifically. Is he prepared to abrogate all of those rights because there were some representations made by unions which said that they wanted it to be done, and that if it were not done they would be facing a lot of difficulty trying to deal with members who would be opting out on the basis of religious conviction or perhaps political belief?

That's one area. The other thing is that the minister said this had the appropriate scope for the comfort required. Whose comfort? And required for what? These are the questions. How is it appropriate? Appropriate reference to what? What is the scope that he is dealing with? What kind of comfort required for what? It seems to me that what I'm actually hearing him say is that the comfort required was to prevent anybody having the option of choosing one issue and one union, and therefore on that basis opting out of union membership.

The minister says he has said enough. If I can be more specific, prior to my standing up the minister stood and without clarification did say "appropriate scope and comfort required." Could he, for the purpose of the House, expand on that?

Hon. M. Sihota: By "appropriate comfort and scope," I meant that there is provision here for people who believe, in terms of their ability to make an application as an employee, and argue that their religion, conviction or belief is such that they object to joining a trade union generally. Utilization of the word "generally" in the provision with regard to trade unions specifically gives them scope to make the argument, and indeed those who object to joining trade unions generally as a part of their religious convictions have the right under this legislation to make the application and seek the exemption.

With regard to submissions, I did not indicate that they were simply from employees. In fact, I made specific reference to the fact there were two religious organizations that also made submissions. I don't have the names of those two organizations, but I know that there were two of them.

J. Tyabji: The next question I have for the minister is: does he believe it is more effective and financially responsible to be dealing with these situations after the fact, retroactively, when an appeal has to be made, rather than having the legislation in place ahead of time, so we don't have to make that appeal?

Hon. M. Sihota: It is my hope that the legislation appropriately attends to the situations which have been found coming before the Labour Relations Board in the past.

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

[6:00]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

[H. Giesbrecht 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 6:04 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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