1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 7, Number 1
[ Page 4325 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the gallery this afternoon is a group of students from Robron Senior Secondary in Campbell River. They are accompanied by their teacher, Stuart Meldrum. I would ask the House to make them welcome.
Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, today we have a very special visitor in the gallery. It's my pleasure to introduce His Excellency Tadeusz Diem, the newly appointed Ambassador of Poland to Canada. The ambassador is accompanied by Krzysztof Kasprzyk, the newly appointed acting consul general of Poland in Vancouver.
Hon. Speaker, last Friday the ambassador welcomed guests at a reception to mark the official opening of the Polish consulate general in Vancouver. This office is a significant addition to British Columbia's large and dynamic consular corps, and I welcome the Polish delegation to our House today.
The Speaker: Warm greetings from the Speaker as well.
H. Giesbrecht: In the gallery visiting us today we have one of my constituents, who is also the planning director for the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine. Would the House please welcome Tosh Yamashita.
J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled Free Votes Enabling Act.
J. Weisgerber: This bill is the third component of the legislative package we've introduced to make members of this assembly more responsive to their constituents. The act would enable all MLAs, whether they are in cabinet, on the back benches or in opposition, to escape the suffocating clutch of party discipline.
Indeed, hon. Speaker, it would give our parliamentary system a badly needed breath of fresh air. This act, I believe, is the first concrete attempt in Canada to codify the right to free votes in a legislative assembly. The act would formally guarantee all MLAs the right to free votes on all matters, with the exception of supply bills, motions of confidence or non-confidence and matters specifically identified as fundamental to government policy. This would allow all members to vote freely on all other matters without the outcome being regarded as critical to the government's survival. It would allow MLAs to vote freely without fear of recrimination from cabinet or caucus if they happened to vote contrary to their colleagues' position. This bill would go a long way toward reversing the increasing feeling of cynicism and frustration rapidly eroding the foundation of trust which our democratic system is predicated upon. It would make government truly responsive to the people, not just to the parties represented in the Legislature, as is now the case.
Bill M208 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MUNICIPAL TAXATION EFFECTS OF
NATIVE LAND CLAIMS
G. Wilson: My question is to the Premier, and it has to do with the resolution of aboriginal land claims, a very important matter now before British Columbians. Now that the policy of the government is to include municipal governments and regional districts at the table, can the Premier tell us why municipal governments and regional districts are not permitted to discuss the detail of the land claims under consideration with their constituents, in order to get feedback on the end result?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is a very important question. I think it deserves that sort of consideration in the answer, so I'll take the question on notice.
G. Wilson: A new question to the Premier with respect to the policy of the government. Having recognized the political legitimacy of land claims, will the Premier tell us what provision his government is putting in place to look at the tax implications of pending land settlements with respect to municipalities affected by lands that will be alienated through a settlement process?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition is probably aware that the minister has met with the UBCM executive and has put such a process in place.
G. Wilson: We are indeed aware of the UBCM meetings, but with little satisfaction.
Will the Premier tell us if, in fact, the municipal and regional district interests are going to be served, if there will be some reckoning of tax implications, and if his government will be prepared to state today, categorically, that they will table before this House all taxation implications of pending land settlements prior to those settlements being advanced?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think that the first two answers I gave answered the question. Yes, we are aware of the seriousness of this issue to municipal governments; yes, we have entered into a dialogue with them; and yes, those kinds of issues are presently being discussed between the minister and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
[2:15]
[ Page 4326 ]
TRANSFER OF WESTAR TFL
W. Hurd: A question for the Minister of Forests. When the government accepted the advice of its former Forests minister and approved the transfer of Westar's TFL to Repap Enterprises, was the government aware of the fact that Repap was in such deep financial trouble that it may not make it out of the first quarter of 1993?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was general knowledge that they were in financial difficulties.
W. Hurd: The next question is obvious. Why on earth would the government and the former minister, other than for reasons of prurient self-interest, go against the wishes of its own panel of MLAs...?
The Speaker: Hon. member, I regret that I must interrupt you. I'm sure the hon. member didn't do this intentionally, but I would like to confirm that you did not intend to impugn the motives of any other hon. member of the House.
W. Hurd: I did not, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Would you proceed with your question, please.
W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can explain why a TFL was transferred to a company that might not even have the money to meet its silvicultural obligations under a licence requirement.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The question of the company's silvicultural liabilities, vis-�-vis the other infrastructure assets that they have, is being attended to, and the interests of the Crown will be looked after in the process.
W. Hurd: My supplemental is to the Premier. Will the Premier agree to reopen the investigation into the transfer of Westar's licences to Repap on the grounds that the previous minister not only was in violation of conflict guidelines but also did not exercise due diligence in protecting the working forest when he transferred the licence to a company which, as we speak, is on its financial deathbed?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the member is aware that a number of forest companies are finding that the depressed world market is creating difficulties for them. We should do all we can to keep our workers working and our companies operating through these very difficult economic times.
As the member is aware, the previous minister has been found to have committed a technical violation of the conflict laws. Appropriate action has been taken in that matter. I think that the member is now just trying to rub salt into raw wounds.
LANGARA COLLEGE DISPUTE
C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Six thousand students at Langara college are sitting on pins and needles while you and your government are doing absolutely nothing. Will the minister commit right now to assure those students that they will not lose the semester because of the faculty strike at Langara?
Hon. T. Perry: Because this question was dealt with in question period last week, I think the member is aware that the dispute at Langara is between the faculty association and the college. Negotiations are ongoing, and it would not be productive for me to comment on negotiations which one hopes will proceed to a conclusion. I can assure the hon. member, and all other hon. members, that the interests of the 6,000-plus students remain paramount.
C. Serwa: By the minister's remarks, he clearly shows that he doesn't consider education -- or advanced education, in this specific case -- to be an essential service. Is he actually prepared to stand by and see those students lose a semester and their tuition fees?
Hon. T. Perry: The board of the college has made it clear to the students that in the event a semester were lost, their tuition fees would be refunded. I hope very much that the semester will not be lost. The government continues to do everything in its power to help the two parties achieve a resolution that will avoid the loss of the semester.
MUNICIPAL VOTING RIGHTS
A. Cowie: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The opposition notes that in the ministry's proposed changes to local election legislation, it is suggested that the right of non-resident property owners and cottage owners to vote in community elections will be extinguished. Can the minister tell the House the rationale for the inclusion of this change in his document?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm pleased that the member has actually asked a question on this issue, because the document has been out for two and a half months. I can only assume -- the only indication I had from the critic was two days ago -- that he would like to see it delayed for further consultation after they've had it for two and a half months.
The answer is that we are still consulting. It's available. I would very much like to know the member's suggestions. I understand that the Liberal caucus has not put in an official response. I look forward to that official response.
A. Cowie: I'll give the minister an easier question. Can the minister confirm that while non-resident property owners will be denied the vote, he wishes to
[ Page 4327 ]
give the vote to both transients with no fixed address and convicts?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, if this member took the opportunity two and a half months ago, he could have come and discussed this issue, as I am always open to discuss issues that are important to local governments.
The member should be aware that prisoners currently can vote municipally. The federal government and provincial governments across the country have had Charter challenges and requirements, and we are updating our requirements. I should also inform the member that transients today cannot vote. The suggested legislation does not indicate that transients will be able to vote; but the homeless -- like the homeless today -- will be able to vote if they can prove they are resident in a community. If the member is suggesting that those who don't have a fixed address but are resident in a community should not be able to vote, I certainly would like to hear that from the hon. member.
A. Cowie: I suppose that a designated bus could be a designated home; you could go from riding to riding and vote.
The opposition again notes that included in the package is the proposal to eliminate the ability of businesses to have a vote in local elections unless the proprietor resides in the area. Why is the minister moving to a system of taxation without representation?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, it's most inopportune that this member in the Liberal Party is prepared to use the most destitute and most homeless in our society for cheap politics of the day. They indeed should be entitled to vote.
This opposition critic has finally woken up to the fact that 6,500 copies of the document have been available -- to his caucus, caucus research and his constituency -- and is now beginning to ask some questions. The document is before the citizens of British Columbia. We are consulting. The consultation will continue, and I look forward to the member's official brief on behalf of the people he represents so we can put that into our considerations.
CUTS IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. On Friday, representatives of various business groups in Kamloops advised me that despite repeated attempts they have been unable to secure a meeting with the minister. They are absolutely devastated by the brutal effects of highway construction cuts on their industry and community. Why is the minister refusing to meet with these groups in his own community?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have met with the roadbuilders on several occasions. I attended their last annual meeting and addressed them at that time. I have had two or three other meetings with the executive. In fact, I went out of my way to go to the hotel where they were having their convention in Kamloops and to introduce myself, and to discuss with them. In addition, if the member would like to have a peek at my agenda for December 3, he will find a meeting with the roadbuilders.
J. Weisgerber: The Kamloops Chamber of Commerce has written two letters to the minister requesting to meet with him; neither of the letters has even been acknowledged. Will the minister agree to meet with the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce to discuss the effect of cuts by his ministry on his own community?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Hon. Speaker, the member will know, no doubt, that the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce meets Wednesdays at noon, which is an inopportune time for a cabinet minister to attend their meetings.
As for the statement that their letters have gone without response, I categorically deny it. My executive assistant in Kamloops has worked closely with the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce on an ongoing basis.
EDUCATION FUNDING REVIEW
D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Education. The education funding review panel, chaired by Cindy Spangelo, has omitted provincewide bargaining from its purview, despite the terms of reference to make recommendations to the minister on how to make the school finance system more accountable and affordable. The Korbin commission is looking into provincewide bargaining, yet the appropriate venue would have and should have been the funding review panel. Did the minister specifically not refer to collective bargaining in her terms of reference to the panel, based on opposition from both Ken Georgetti and Ray Worley?
Hon. A. Hagen: The terms of reference for the review of education funding have been available since early June 1992. If the member does not have a copy of them, I'd be very happy to make them available.
There are two processes that government has undertaken over the past months: a funding review and a review of collective bargaining. The funding review has been completed, and the document has been tabled with me. The Korbin commission, under the Minister of Finance, still continues its work, and as government, in due course we will be receiving its recommendations.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 84.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 84; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On the amendment to section 17.
[2:30]
[ Page 4328 ]
H. De Jong: First of all, I want to express my appreciation to the minister for giving the opportunity to some of our caucus, who have serious concerns about this section and are particularly interested in the amendment, to speak to the amendment. I believe the amendment is very essential in order to retain the freedom British Columbians have cherished in many fields, as well as the field of labour, and I believe that the amendment would provide the particular freedom that is so essential.
To begin my comments I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from page 10 of the green book:
"The focus of the enlightened workplace today is on the employee. The organization of work and management practices must allow employees to realize their own potential and contribute in a way that maximizes job satisfaction. Unionization is consistent with that goal and indeed can provide employees with the collective will to bring about a meaningful workplace participation."
That is very important. I would suggest that it was written after the process had taken place. About the process, there were a number of areas that were also looked at. I would also like to state that clearly the preamble of this report from which I have been reading places the importance on the employee as well as on the employer. That should not be lost sight of when we're discussing this particular amendment to section 17.
Reading a paragraph from the area dealing with the process that had taken place, on page 13 it says:
"At the risk of oversimplification, the public consultation process resulted in submissions which staked out opposing positions. Employers generally advocated no change to the legislation, pointing to relative labour relations peace over the last five years. Unions generally presented a case for major reform, which would see a wholesale change to existing sections of the act. Individuals" -- however -- "sought to preserve and enhance their individual freedoms where they were seen to conflict with the rights of unions or employers."
That paragraph specifically speaks about the individuals who have sought to preserve and possibly enhance their freedom. I don't think this amendment that we brought forward necessarily seeks to enhance the rights of the employee, but it does seek the preservation of what they've enjoyed for so long: individual freedom within the workplace.
I guess there's a whole lot that can be gathered under individual freedom in the workplace, and I certainly won't go into all of that. I will go into what we're actually speaking of: freedom, from a religious perspective. When any government wants to interfere with that type of freedom, it's a very serious situation. I don't think there's a whole lot asked for. I recognize that there are not a whole lot of people involved who would be categorized under this section and that there has been no complaint either by unions or employers to see this section changed. Certainly individuals have asked for their rights to be preserved. I'm not sure how serious the minister is in not allowing this amendment to go forward. I would hope that he is inclined to do so, and I will try to say why I feel that way.
When the same minister was in opposition, he gave some very passionate speeches in this House when certain ceremonial aspects of a religion that he was very much acquainted with were at stake, not necessarily between labour and non-labour but in areas connected with labour. I am sure that the minister will recognize what I am specifically referring to. There were some things that people were shocked about, things that could not be condoned -- or at least it was thought they couldn't be condoned -- about entering certain places that were directly connected with labour. But the changes were made to those situations, because these people were indeed sincere about their religious beliefs and the ceremonial things connected with that.
Surely to goodness if the minister would only look back at how he pleaded for those situations, he would understand that we plead today for the situation at stake here -- religious freedom. They should not be put into a position where they cannot get a certain position within a workforce or into a position where they have no say.
It's one thing to work in a certain workplace, and it's another thing to join a union. I'm convinced that most of these people have no objection to joining a union. In fact, many of them are members or associate members of another union. So the question is not so much whether they want to belong to a union; they're quite prepared to belong to a union. But they are not prepared to make contributions to a fund that can be disbursed in many different ways. That's where the crux is; that's where the problem is.
Perhaps before I make my further comments I can get an indication from the minister of whether he is prepared to consider this amendment that we have placed before him, given what I've said so far.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I appreciate the opening comments of the hon. member in terms of allowing this issue to be debated today. As I said the other day, it is a difficult area of public policy. I don't think there is any doubt about that.
With regard to the question about amendments per se, no, we are not prepared to entertain the amendment, for the reason that we believe that the amendment ought to apply generally to trade unions. In other words, if one holds the general religious view that generally one is opposed to trade unions in a generic sense, then we think there ought to be a place in the legislation for the exemption, as indeed the case is here. With regard to any specific policy or action of a trade union or one trade union instead of others, we believe that there ought not to be an exemption in that regard. More particularly, with regard to the question of policy, it may be that individuals have difficulty with a policy of a trade union. We would argue that the way one ought to address that issue is by seeking to influence the membership of the trade union to change that policy.
H. De Jong: I'm not too pleased with the answer from the minister. When the minister says "we believe," who is he referring to? Is he referring to the government or to the B.C. Federation of Labour?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm referring to the government.
[ Page 4329 ]
H. De Jong: Having got that question cleared up, I'm just wondering whether the minister or the government really have a feeling for what they're doing with this section if they want to push it through as they have presented it in the bill. We're really going to the heart of the issue; but more so, we're going to the hearts of individuals. I think it's a pathetic situation when we have a government in British Columbia that wants to interfere with issues which are not about money but are about fundamental principles which individuals strongly believe in. I just cannot imagine the kind of power and influence that this government wants to exert through a so-called labour bill which is supposed to bring peace to labour and to the individual. It does not bring peace to the individual.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have known the hon. member since we were both elected to this House for the first time in 1986. As with many of us, we've had the opportunity to engage in exchanges in this House over the years. Some were heated, and some were often interspersed with laughter. I cannot recall the hon. member ever using the word "pathetic" during the course of a debate and expressing so much anger -- to be honest about it -- with regard to an initiative by the government. Knowing the general temperament of the hon. member, for whom I have a considerable degree of respect, I take his comments quite seriously, because it's somewhat out of character for him to be that strong in the characterization of an issue. I wanted to say that, because I appreciate the depth of feeling with which the hon. member has a concern about this issue.
The other day I talked a little bit about the interrelationship between religious values and the world of work, and I'm going to repeat what I said. I think it's best to use the example I used the other day which relates to my own religion. A lot of people from the religious background that I come from object to a whole series of government policies. They take the strong view that because of their own religious beliefs, they should not be required to wear hardhats at work, because they wear a turban. They take the view that WCB regulations which require someone to be clean-shaven before they can put on a mask for firefighting or for first-aid work are inconsistent with their religious views.
The depth of their conviction to those religious views is as deep as the conviction that the hon. member portrays in framing the question and in his prefatory comments to it. I think that underscores the point I was making earlier on that in this very tough area of public policy, it is, indeed, difficult at times to reconcile the concerns people may have about strongly held religious views. Yet there's the requirement that expects them to put aside those views in order to earn a livelihood. It is as true for the religion that I come from as it is for other religious groups.
This legislation does not seek to deny anybody freedom of religion, nor does it seek to deny anyone an opportunity to express their religious views. In fact, those are tenets in our society that we hold and cherish very strongly. This legislation tries to deal with a dynamic that has emerged over the last couple of decades, where individuals have strongly held views because of their religion which make them feel uncomfortable with a work experience that they're having, as I indicated earlier with people of my own religion. We try to reconcile these views through public policy -- particularly the whole matter of people religiously objecting to a trade union.
[2:45]
If there is a feeling in their own religious background or sense of conviction that they're opposed to trade unions generally, then we seek to accommodate them. However, if they're.... I hope the hon. member appreciates the sensitivity with which I accept that point, but I find it difficult to accept the point that because they take issue with a policy....
Let's take an issue of heated debate. For example: unions, often being the front edge of social reform, have taken strong positions with regard to the abortion issue. That in itself places those who feel strongly about that issue from a religious point of view in an awkward situation. If the majority of the members in a trade union take issue with a trade union policy -- let's say with regard to abortion -- then the best way to deal with that issue is not through legislative instruments such as those that are before the House, but rather through action by members of a trade union to change the policy of the union.
Accordingly, I want to bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that that's why we're proceeding with this provision. I would like him to reflect on the words of the panel, which unanimously came to this recommendation. Let me read what it says:
"B.C. labour legislation has historically contained a religious conscience provision similar in wording to sections which exist in other labour legislation across Canada. Until recently, an exemption from mandatory trade union membership was granted only where the applicant could demonstrate that his or her religious convictions or beliefs were inconsistent with membership in a trade union. However, more recently the Industrial Relations Council held that exemption would be granted where a person's religious convictions or beliefs were inconsistent with the policies of, or positions taken by, a particular trade union, even though the applicant was not opposed to trade union membership generally. We recommend an amendment to the religious exemption provision to ensure that its original intent is maintained. In our opinion, exemption from union membership otherwise required by a collective agreement should obtain only where an individual, because of religious conviction or belief, objects to joining trade unions, generally. Exemptions should not obtain where the individual does not object to membership in a trade union, but rather objects to membership in a particular trade union because of that union's policies or objectives. We have retained that provision in the existing statute which provides that, where an exemption is granted, an equivalent amount to union dues be paid to a charitable organization."
Hon. member, I want to reiterate: if it's a policy position taken by a union that one takes issue with, then the issue really is to work that through a union. If I can use the example of my own religion, if members of the religion that I subscribe to -- it's uncomfortable talking about it, to be honest about it -- belong to a union that has a policy that hard hats should exist on construction work sites, it's for them to try to influence their union to
[ Page 4330 ]
change their policy so as to encourage government to change its policy. If it's a particular policy, I think it's best worked out within the union; but if it's generally a religious conscious belief against trade unions, it's best dealt with through the kind of provision we provide in the legislation.
H. De Jong: I appreciate the answer from the minister. However, I have difficulty understanding some of the comments he makes in this regard and the analogy that he draws from the fact, for instance, that beards on firefighters cannot be allowed because of safety regulations. Surely it is quite different that a firefighter cannot have a beard because his mask will not work and this will not stand up to the safety regulations of the WCB and whoever else imposes those type of regulations. It's not a union matter. Those are general safety regulations.
I can appreciate that some of those things will interfere with their religious beliefs. However, there is a specific reason for it: it could save their own lives. If, in fact, they allowed people with beards to continue to wear the masks, and something happened, it would not only be the fact that this person might have died in a fire or in trying to help someone get out of a fire, but rather that there could be lawsuits following out of it because the safety regulations were not maintained. I think the minister knows that very well, because that's all part of his ministry.
I believe the important thing is the individual worker, and the individual worker has certain rights. I believe that in not accepting this amendment the individual rights of a worker are certainly being ignored by this government. It's not a matter of something that we have been brought up with, or of people who may have been brought up in a certain setting or with ceremonial aspects. Because they are matters of principle, these matters go down to the very root and the existence -- down to the very heart -- of the individual.
I haven't got many more words to say how sincere I am and how sincere I feel about this situation, but I would urge the minister once more to consider this amendment, because I do not think it would change one iota in terms of the overall unionization process. It wouldn't hinder anything, but it would certainly allow to continue the freedom that British Columbians are entitled to within the workplace and within the union setting.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to thank the hon. member for his thoughtful comments.
Let me first of all make a couple of points. I think you too casually dismiss the whole issue of beards and Sikhs as a safety issue. I can assure you that that element of our society will not attend to it on the basis of a "safety issue." They see it also as an infringement on their individual rights. Be that as it may, I don't want to get into an extended debate on that issue. I'm sure there will be lots of opportunities to discuss that later on.
There are two other points I want to make in addition to what I said earlier. Remember that individuals do have some rights with regard to human rights legislation, and section 31 of that legislation says that a trade union cannot discriminate against an individual because of their specific religious views. Let's also remember that there are provisions in the Charter of Rights, all of which can come into play in trying to arrive at some resolution of these concerns. These points are in addition to the ones I raised earlier.
H. De Jong: I have a final word in response to the comments the minister made. I certainly had no intention of belittling or taking lightly the issue of the Sikh religion in terms of the kirpan or turban. In fact, when I was in local government I spoke out for them on many occasions and have since done so for local citizens. We have many East Indian people in our community, and I have always had high respect for them and for how strongly they believe in certain ceremonial aspects connected with their religion. I just want to put that on the record.
D. Symons: I'd like to continue the previous speaker's line of thought because I, too, feel there's maybe a difference between the answer the minister was giving and the point that the previous member was making, and it is that when you're dealing with, say, the abortion issue, it is something generally outside the direct purview of a union. Indeed, the union is there for negotiating workers' rights and things work-related. The example the minister gave with regard to the Sikh religion, the turban and the beard were in a sense related. So I can see his concerns in that, because they're work-related and fit in with the union.
But when a union gets into something like the abortion issue or supporting a political party during an election, those are outside the normal purpose of the union, which is to work for the rights of the union in relationship with the employer. They're going outside the employer-union worker relationship, and when they get into these areas, I think it's a slightly different area than the answer you were giving to the previous member.
I don't know if your argument there holds, because of that aspect of it. It's the sort of thing where the individual rights of a person have to be protected. When a union moves outside of those particular worker-employer relationships and into other areas, and is going to commit that person's stance as a union, implying the person is behind this.... Or when that person's financial donations to the union are used in these outside-of-employer-employee relationships, we get into areas where the worker and the individual worker are having some rights taken away from them in this particular part of the bill.
Hon. M. Sihota: We've really strayed off the point, hon. member. Unions are a force in society; they're a coming together of workers. I'll tell you one thing: I'll defend the right of any organization, including a union, to make comment about public policy issues, such as abortion -- which may fall well outside the scope of their profession -- about political parties, or to provide resources.
[ Page 4331 ]
It's certainly outside the scope of Murray Pezim's work, hon. member, to provide financial assistance to a political party, but you seem to have no difficulty with him at least appearing to have given $25,000 to the Liberal Party.
R. Neufeld: They wish. They need it.
Hon. M. Sihota: They wish. They need it. I think we should have a little fun this afternoon. I was reading a speech that was given today: ten top reasons why Liberals make a better opposition than Socreds. Reason No. 10 -- I'll only give you one every time I speak -- is that Liberals keep....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: They don't want to hear this. Okay, hon. Chair, I'm sorry. I still might find a way to use it. It may not be in this House, but it's hilarious.
The Chair: As long it's relevant, hon. minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure it's relevant, and I think all hon. members should read this. It's probably one of the funniest speeches I've read in a long time.
So let me say that I think it is appropriate, correct and, indeed, in many ways a public duty for organizations -- be they trade unions or any other association -- to pass resolutions on matters of public policy. I find nothing wrong with that. I think it's kind of a false issue to suggest that they can deal only with issues that deal with labour relations, that they can't comment on matters concerning Third World countries, let's say, or on matters before their respective legislatures, or on matters being discussed by Parliament. Surely an organization ought to have the same freedom of speech, expression or association that any other individual or entity has in society. I would not be one who would seek to restrict the ability or the scope of trade unions, or any other association, to make comment on issues.
[3:00]
D. Symons: Just following up on what I was saying, I suppose I don't have as much concern about "making comment on," but I do take exception when it comes to the fact that the employee may in a sense be financially supporting the very idea that he has very strong, deeply felt feelings against. If the union cares to take a verbal stand on something, that's one thing, but when the union is also going to use his dues in support of something that the member is against, that's pretty awful. What you are saying here is that a member doesn't have a choice in many cases because of closed shops and belonging to that union. They're given the only option of becoming unemployed if they really feel so strongly against the policies which the union is taking beyond the worker-employer relationship. I don't think that's at all fair. We have individual rights that must be adhered to and given great credence. Your bill is not doing that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I take it the hon. member has all sorts of difficulty as well with Shell Oil or Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce giving money to the Liberal Party, and he thinks that there should be a prohibition on that happening, in that the shareholder who disagrees with money going to the Liberal Party should have these kinds of rights that you're talking about, or there should be a prohibition.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister perhaps exhibits the blinders that are mounted on the side of his head when it comes to this issue. The reality is that a shareholder in a corporation can choose to invest in another corporation at no loss to themselves. There are plenty of corporations out there that they can invest their funds in. An employee is in a much different position, because the employee has to choose between their conscience and their job. It's not as easy to find a job as it is to pick up the phone and talk to a stockbroker and move your funds from one company to another. Perhaps the minister is being a little flippant in trying to compare two issues that simply aren't comparable. A person put in a position where they have to choose between their job because their union has a certain policy and is contributing funds to a certain issue or society that they may not agree with, and an investor who has money in a corporation and the money may be going elsewhere than what they would choose, are two different things. Perhaps the minister should get that into his mind and understand the differences there. I'd be glad to hear his comments in that regard.
Hon. G. Clark: It's an interesting debate, Mr. Chairman. I guess I wouldn't mind entering it just very briefly. The difference is, of course, that unlike corporations, trade unions are the most democratic institutions in our society, where individuals have the right to vote on a union's constitution and on union dues, unlike shareholders, where the....
C. Serwa: Point of order. For the awareness of the Minister of Finance, we're debating an amendment on the section with respect to religious freedom. It has nothing to do with the matter that the minister is bringing forth. I appreciate hearing the minister, but I would suggest that he speak to the amendment.
Hon. G. Clark: It always interests me to hear members of the Social Credit and Liberal parties, who have received millions of dollars from federal and B.C. corporations, lined up at the trough of their friends in the corporate sector.... Unlike trade unions, small shareholders have no rights relative to large shareholders. Money talks, and they influence those parties opposite. A trade union, on the other hand, is a democratic institution, where all members have the right to vote on these questions. It seems clear that there's a double standard by members opposite. They don't want any restrictions on corporate power or a corporation's ability to bankroll their political parties. On the other hand, even though trade unions are democratic and have those rights, we should have the very tough, heavy hand of the state impose some rigid standards on trade unions that no other organization in society is expected to adhere to.
[ Page 4332 ]
With respect to religious freedom, it's very clear that under circumstances where an individual's religious beliefs and dogma come in conflict with trade union principles, this section allows members to declare themselves and not, therefore, have to join a trade union. It's very clear. This is consistent with what we've seen in similar clauses about religious freedom in labour legislation across the country and in other parts of the world. This is not dramatic. This allows people to be conscientious objectors, but it does not go the other step and allow that to be an excuse to undermine the democratic principles of a trade union. It's a reasonable clause. It provides for religious freedom but does not provide for the kind of abuse we've seen under other legislation and in other clauses in the past.
The Chair: Before recognizing the next speaker, the Chair would just like to make the comment that we have allowed a full airing on both sides of the issue. I'd like to draw the House's attention to standing order 61(2). Remember that relevancy is the key word.
G. Farrell-Collins: The comments by the Finance minister were -- in my mind, anyway -- interesting and enlightening, because they showed the bias of the government once again. I would be glad to have the same rights that apply to corporate donations apply to individuals in a trade union and to the legislation, where a member of a trade union can object to policy issues that have their funds relegated to one area or another. Members of a corporation can certainly determine where their donations go. It would be wonderful if trade unions in British Columbia would allow their members to not only check off that they want money to go to a political party but actually state to which political party they wanted it to go. I'm sure that would dramatically erode the support the New Democratic Party gets from union people in this province.
L. Hanson: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for holding the debate and giving me an opportunity to speak on the amendment to section 17.
I too found it very interesting to listen to the Minister of Finance's remarks. I could probably say facetiously that if this government continues with his policies, it may become a religion to oppose the NDP.
If I have the minister's attention, I would like to have some comments from you on this section of the bill, particularly as it relates to where the initiative to make the change came from. I've done a fair amount of research, although I must admit that I haven't looked at all the submissions made. So far I've only been able to find that there were two submissions made specifically opposing the clause as it was before, and -- surprise, surprise -- both of those came from organized labour. Maybe the minister could comment on that.
Hon. M. Sihota: In addressing this issue the other day in the Legislature -- and I realize the member wasn't present -- I pointed out that a number of submissions were received from special advisers. Firstly, there were submissions 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. Secondly, there were submissions from two religious organizations requesting that payment in lieu of the union dues go to the consolidated revenue fund and that the process of obtaining religious exemption be made less stressful and expensive. There were a number of submissions making those requests, primarily from those two groups.
L. Hanson: Could you confirm to the objections by religious organizations to paying dues to the charity of their choice or paying them to the union or paying them to the general fund were not objections to the exemption from union membership as a result of a concern within the trade union itself.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I said, there were a number of submissions from trade unions, and if your submission is that the only people who made submissions on this issue were trade unions, that's not true. As I said, it was trade unions and religious organizations.
It is true, however, that during the course of the process, trade unions appeared to be the ones that took a strong view with regard to this issue. Until recently, the Industrial Relations Council interpreted the existing language "objects to joining a trade union" as meaning trade unions generally.
As the hon. member knows, there was a decision rendered in 1988 with regard to the B.C. Teachers' Federation, and as a consequence I can only assume that that decision was brought to their attention during the course of representations received. This provision in Bill 84 only seeks to clarify the provision to go back to the original intent.
L. Hanson: My understanding of what the minister just said is that a number of trade unions opposed the IRC's interpretation of the old clause simply because the interpretation was that if there was a religious objection to a trade union policy, there was exemption granted on the basis of that. Did I not understand the minister to say that religious organizations had also lobbied the group? I understood from what he said that they didn't lobby the group to change the wording so that religious exemption would be on the basis of opposition to a trade union in general but simply as a concern about where those dues might go or should not go. Their presentation was not on the basis of removing the interpretation that the IRC had placed on the old wording.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're just getting a summary of the representation that was made. At least one of them dealt only with the issue of where the dues should go, and I'm assuming that the other one did as well. They may have made some comment in passing, but their primary concern was with the dues. You're correct on that assumption.
[ Page 4333 ]
L. Hanson: So it is a fact that no religious organization was objecting particularly to the interpretation of the Industrial Relations Council for religious exemption. It was simply to do with the dues.
Maybe the minister could either verify or correct me on this. If I'm repeating something that the minister provided on Thursday, my apologies. It's my understanding that even after the much broader interpretation of the legislation by the Industrial Relations Council, the number of actual exemptions granted was very small -- infinitesimal, in fact -- relative to the union strength.
[3:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: Since 1988, there has been a growth. For example, in 1987 there were 12 religious exemptions sought; nine were granted; in 1989, it went up to 66, with 19 granted; in 1990, 52 with 23 granted; in 1991, 43 with 22 granted. Going back, we had six in 1983, 15 in 1984, eight in 1985, 13 in 1986 and 12 in 1987. So it was relatively small. Then it jumped up to 25 in 1988, 66 in 1989, and 52 and 43, as I stated. So they started to move up at that time. But it is also fair to say that the vast number of exemptions were mutually agreed to and not contested in front of the IRC, which shows that the parties had an ability to work out these differences among themselves.
L. Hanson: I'm trying to establish and get some understanding of why the interpretation and the wording that was there before is such a major issue with labour law in British Columbia. Maybe the minister could give this House some example of where a trade union's ability or representation of the workforce was inhibited by religious exemptions granted by the Industrial Relations Council.
Hon. M. Sihota: I can't think of a situation off the top of my head. I don't even know if there is one, to be fair about it.
Let me also say this: we didn't go there to engage in this process and take the view of a trade union and simply implement it. If we were going to do that, then we did not need to go through the process that we went through. We wanted to go through a process of consultation. It is true that the vast number of trade unions who appeared before us and raised this issue argued that the provision should be removed altogether from the legislation. The panel had to consider that against the representation from others that it should be included, and it also had to look at the original intent of the provision. That's how we arrived at this. To characterize the position that we arrived at as a trade union position would be wrong. Trade unions generally took the view that these provisions should particularly be removed from the legislation. We obviously did not do that. We tried to strike some kind of recognition of the need to have a religious-objections clause. It's there now in the legislation.
L. Hanson: I understand from the minister's remarks that this particular clause was not causing serious difficulty to labour unions with their responsibility to represent workers where they had certification in the province. For the record, we placed this amendment before the House because there are individuals who sincerely believe that some particular policy of a trade union is non-debatable as far as supporting it or not supporting it. It is a major issue with some individuals. Knowing the minister's background and that he has studied the issue of labour law to some degree, I think he would admit that the test the Industrial Relations Council gives individuals ensures that any objection is truly a religious objection, not simply an objection to unionization -- an issue that wasn't very large in their mind -- and they had to provide some evidence that the religion they were following was truly their honest belief, and that the particular policy was, in their opinion, totally wrong.
In support of the amendment, I submit that this change in the legislation appears to be swatting a fly with a sledgehammer and is, in fact, going to hurt a lot of individuals in British Columbia who had their beliefs respected under the old act and are not going to have that same respect given their opinions under the new act. Listening to the minister, I suspect that he is prepared to take the criticism and court cases that may come from individuals as a result of this change in legislation, and his government is prepared to support that as well. I certainly support the amendment.
C. Serwa: I continue to be deeply concerned about the position of the minister and government on this specific issue. Perhaps the minister would advise me of the process if, for example, an employee objects on the basis of strongly held religious convictions. What is the process? Obviously, it's not simply a statement of fact, but there must be a formal process that has to be complied with under the existing legislation.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: I was asking the minister to elaborate on the process that has to be followed by an individual seeking protection, even under the current legislation with the IRC, for example. It's not a simple statement. It has to be an expression of a deeply held religious conviction, and there must be a process with the IRC. What is that process?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, they would have to go in front of the Labour Relations Board. The board will make the determination. Secondly, they would have to give evidence to the extent of their religious belief and the religious background they have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the board that their religion is such that their beliefs are inconsistent with membership in any trade union. Only after doing that will they be granted an exemption. So there's a process that they go through in front of the board to establish their case. If they make their case, they can then secure the exemption.
[ Page 4334 ]
C. Serwa: It appears to be a fairly substantive process to identify and consider the application. There's no question about it.
I have a question again to the minister. Does the minister know if the panel members in fact hold deep religious convictions? If they don't hold deep religious convictions, perhaps they've made a decision in an area where they're not qualified to make a decision.
Hon. M. Sihota: Look, we don't give people some kind of test to determine whether or not they hold deep religious convictions. But we do engage individuals on the board who have the ability to ascertain facts, and who are intelligent and capable of making inquiries and showing some empathy for people who are involved. Some people like to promote their religious beliefs and the depth of those convictions in a very loud way, and others in a very quiet way. So it's hard to ascertain that, nor, quite frankly, is that a consideration. One's religious background and the depths to which they believe in those convictions have not, in my knowledge, been a test in the past with respect to appointments to the Labour Relations Board. I'd be loath to place that in as a test now.
C. Serwa: The reason I bring that up is because unless you're there, it's really very difficult to weigh the degree of strong feeling on this particular issue. The minister talked about his own religion, the Sikh religion. I understand that, like other religions such as the Jewish religion, there are a number of degrees. There are the orthodox practitioners and, if you'll excuse the word, the more liberal practitioners of that particular faith.
The reality is that perhaps the latitude -- the freedom and openness -- of groups that practise the same religion is substantially different from those with the orthodox faith, and those with the orthodox faith have very little latitude in which to manoeuvre.
I think we've established -- and I think the minister will agree with me -- that in the overall context of the union movement, when you're looking at the B.C. Fed having 275,000 to 300,000 members, this is a very insignificant issue. But if you look at the number of applications in reference to these large numbers, 300,000 as a round figure, and if you look at the number of applications -- I think the minister indicated 41 last year with 23 being successful -- it's obviously not going to impact in any way the freedom or opportunities of the union movement. But for each of those individuals concerned, this is a major and significant issue.
The government of the day has a member of this Legislature who is of the Jewish faith. If that member of the Legislature belonged to a union that had, in its non-work policy, the support of some group that was threatening Israel, I cannot conceive of how the government could virtually force that member to continue to be a full dues-paying member of that union. The member may not have many choices. Not many members who are working and belong to the union movement are independently wealthy or have a wide variety of options to get a well-paying job in some other jurisdiction. Here you clearly have a case where that strongly held religious conviction, which the member has no opportunity to escape from, is subjected to the realization that union power surmounts his particular religious belief.
I cannot see how the minister can support that. I don't see how the government can continue to support that. So we have established a number of areas here, and the only area that I have, which clearly holds an incredible influence over the minister and the government, is the paranoia that must exist.
While my hon. colleague from Okanagan-Vernon used the analogy of a sledgehammer to swat a fly, it seems to be more like a nuclear bomb to extinguish a mosquito. There is no foundation whatsoever for the type of paranoia that exists. The union movement itself has to be sensitive to trampling on the strongly held religious convictions of individuals. The numbers are infinitesimal -- insignificant to the broad overall look of the union movement -- but to those individuals the issues are very large and very real, and surely this legislation has to make provision for them. That's why I so strongly and clearly support the amendment.
One of the other things, obviously, that must come up in this matter is not simply the union position, but perhaps it's a socialist position. I am mindful of the position that the socialists had in Soviet Russia where they operated under a godless society, and perhaps that's one of the aims. I sincerely hope not.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: That's right. The member has said it well. That was clearly enunciated, "The godless socialists," in case you didn't get the words of the hon. member from Revelstoke.
It's certainly a concern, but it doesn't make any rational sense for the minister to continue to object so strenuously to something that is so small and, as a matter of fact, a tokenism. But with respect to the deeply held religious convictions of men and women in this province, you can double the number, and it's still insignificant to the 275,000 to 300,000 members of the B.C. Federation.
Unless the minister is willing to face with his government in-court challenges under the Canadian Charter, which I'm confident they will face.... And they will face not only that; they will face loss of face, which I think is significant.
In the smallest gesture of goodwill and in the interests of the right of the individual and those strongly held religious beliefs, I earnestly request that the minister consult with Mr. Georgetti and see if some accommodation cannot be made.
[3:30]
C. Tanner: I wonder whether the minister could tell the House whether this bill, when it was being drafted, addressed the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the employee -- I think it was in Penticton, certainly somewhere in the Okanagan -- who was unable to work on Saturdays and whether his concerns, which the court has given an opinion on, are
[ Page 4335 ]
addressed under this section. And if not, which section would they be addressed to?
Hon. M. Sihota: I just wanted to clarify an issue, and that's why the pause.
I don't think that case had anything to do with the person's concerns about membership in a trade union. I'm not trying to avoid it -- there has been a lot of latitude in this debate -- but it doesn't fit with regard to the kind of fact pattern that would come up under this section. There are other ways for individuals whose religious beliefs may be inconsistent with certain practices to raise those issues. That's exactly what happened in that case. I can think of a lot of other cases where that has been tried. In some ways it has succeeded and in other ways not, and in other ways it has ultimately changed public policy.
C. Tanner: The member and his staff obviously have more expertise than I do, but it seems to me that the amendment addresses the problem, whereas the legislation doesn't. Specifically, this particular member was supported neither by his fellow employees nor by the union, and his employer had to let him go because he didn't want to work on Saturdays. He was in the business of being a janitor. Over the space of about four or five years, he had to go to the extreme of going to the Supreme Court. It seems to me that with the amendment proposed here, the member could satisfy his demand and still not have to go through the restrictions that are imposed on him by this clause.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, you're wrong, hon. member -- quite bluntly. This amendment would deal with the policies of a union. It may be a policy of the union that you should work on Saturdays; it may be that you shouldn't work on Saturdays. The amendment deals with the policy of a union; it doesn't deal with legislation that requires you to work on Saturdays. The same fact pattern that you referred to not only deals with an enactment or a regulation, but it also deals with the policy or practice of an employer. This amendment deals with the policies of a trade union.
C. Tanner: That's exactly my point. It seems to me that the case the minister was making previously was that one of the reasons for a trade union is to protect employees from their employer. In this case, the employer fired the employee and would not allow the employee to work, and the trade union didn't come to his assistance. If he were exempted from the trade union under this, he might have been able to continue to work.
The Chair: The member for Okanagan West on a point of order.
C. Serwa: No, not really. I just want to interject a little bit of fact. The hon. member had it wrong. This was an issue in my own constituency, in School District 23. The school district was willing to allow the employee to work on Sundays. It was the union that objected to that. The case went to the human rights tribunal. In the end, the worker was awarded a substantial settlement, and it was the school district -- not the union -- that had to pay. Those are the facts as I know them. I know it's not the issue, but that's the way I understand it.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's outside the scope of what this provision is all about. I thank the hon. member for Okanagan West for correcting the situation.
F. Gingell: We spent quite a bit of time earlier discussing all the provisions of section 2 of Bill 84. Section 2 sets out the purposes of this act. All of the relationships between an individual worker and his trade union and between the union and his employer are set out within this act. This clearly legislates the requirement of a whole series of responsibilities for the union and the employer, and the employee has to abide by and recognize the requirements of this legislation, this code.
It seems to me that where we get into trouble, or where there is a dispute, is with regard to the matters that trade unions get involved in which are outside the scope of the responsibility of the trade union to represent the interests of the members of the bargaining unit with their employer. Under section 17 an employee is going to have to have a religious concern that would allow him to obtain a complete pass, as it were, from being a member of a union. His concerns might very well not be -- and properly so -- with respect to the trade union's responsibilities under this act to represent him and other members of the bargaining unit. The problem comes in areas where the union is financially supporting causes and positions that are irrelevant to the collective bargaining procedure.
Surely it would make sense that trade unions should be restricted to looking after the responsibilities they are given under Bill 84: "...the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of the employees" -- and other responsibilities under section 2(1). Surely the solution is for the bill to restrict trade unions to being able to charge their members dues only for the purposes of fulfilling that mandate. Trade unions would then be free -- as any free citizens are -- to band together to raise additional sums through a checkoff process, if that is what they wish to do, to support the political party of their choice or particular issues of their choice, such as the right to life or capital punishment -- a whole series of items. What perhaps would have been appropriate prior to October 26 would have been to support one side or the other on the referendum issue.
Surely the right solution to this would be to encourage unions to set up a sister organization which would fund these various issues that are outside the collective bargaining responsibilities. Then members of the union would, of course, be required to fund the cost of the union looking after their interests in the collective bargaining process, the administration of the collective agreement and the research that trade unions do into employment practices and all those other matters. But they would have a separate and distinct fund. That
[ Page 4336 ]
would be a voluntary arrangement, whereby workers could congregate and accumulate their relatively small monthly donations to this fund, so that there would be funds available for them to take other policy positions. I think the real crux -- and it has been mentioned by earlier speakers -- comes down to the fact that under Bill 84 and previous labour legislation, it is a requirement for an employee, to maintain his employment when there is a trade union agreement that covers the particular work that the employee does, to belong to the union. I'm sure that in the majority of cases that doesn't cause any problem. The problem arises only where the union takes a position or supports a political party or particular special interest position that is against the religious beliefs of the individual trade union member.
So, hon. Chairman, I would be most interested in the response of the minister to advise this House whether or not he has considered restricting the kinds of things a trade union can do to those set out in section 2(1), and encouraging them to set up a sister organization that would deal with these other subjects.
[3:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: No.
K. Jones: I would also like to speak in favour of the amendment to allow a greater degree of opportunity for people who for religious reasons choose not to be a member of a union but who would still be part of the work unit and the workforce and be bound by the collective agreement. I think that a strong union has no problem with a few people who for various reasons have objections to being a member of that union or who don't agree with a particular direction of that union. Good, democratic unions never have any problem with that type of situation. I think that this case here, under any democratic union situation, would never be a problem to any union, either in its effectiveness in collective bargaining or in its effectiveness from a financial standpoint.
We have lots of examples in the labour movement of people not being required to be members of a union under a Rand formula or some other special arrangement which provides for individuals who choose not be members of a union. However, they are still covered by the collective agreement, they are still bound by the process, and they still pay dues. This amendment is appropriate, so that those few individuals who, for a very strong conviction based on their religious belief, have difficulty in being forced into being members of a particular union, for the reasons they would bring forward.... The reasons primarily would be that they either don't agree with the whole concept of collectivization, or else they don't agree with the objectives or the particular objects of support that the union might take up, such as -- as has been stated previously -- the issues of abortion or other ethical or philosophical-religious views. Those are very important for people, and I think that they should be respected, particularly in this House. This House is the primary location for democratic opportunity and the primary location for the protection of the individual's rights. We as legislators have that responsibility to stand up for those people and protect their ability to make a choice.
Choice goes both ways, and you choose to become a member of a union. You should also have the right to choose whether you do not wish to be a member of that union. There should not be a situation where people are forced into being part of an organization, because they are not going to be very effective members of that organization. What you want are people committed to the cause, committed to the party, committed to the labour movement, to the union, to the purpose for which you are taking up that membership. If you're not going to be committed to that membership, there is really no point in being a member.
I would like to ask the hon. minister to give us his views on this question of the situation of the Rand formula example that I've given, and other examples like that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I listened very carefully to the comments the hon. member raised. The Liberal opposition passed section 16 that dealt with these types of issues. The debate is out of order. I say that in all respect. I don't wish to disrespectfully dismiss the points being made here. We had a good discussion earlier today with respect to religious objections, and I tried to participate positively in that debate. But you should know that the issue of dues was canvassed in section 16.
F. Garden: I'm listening with amazement to the debate that's going on here. I personally feel, hon. Chair, that we're straying from the whole idea of what this is about. It's whether a person feels strongly enough about his religious beliefs that he doesn't want to pay dues or assessments to that union. He doesn't want to join. So if he's against that generally, he could apply to the board and get an exemption for his beliefs. But the last speaker was suggesting that a person should have a right not to belong to a union. But if we did anything else other than what we're doing in this particular legislation.... Most contracts state that an employee, after working for a firm for 30 days, must automatically become a member of a union -- unless, generally, they've got these strongly held feelings. If we did anything else, we, as a government, would be interfering with negotiated contracts that are already in effect all over this province. But this does allow an employee to stand up for his rights.
There's something the opposition seems to have missed. I hear them talking on and on about individual rights. One thing that really bothers me about this legislation is that halfway through it says that if the employee doesn't feel that he should, because of his religious convictions, give dues and assessments to the union, then the employer will decide where the dues and assessments go -- not the union. That's notwithstanding the fact that the dues and assessments normally given to a union are used for collective bargaining purposes and to set up the benefit programs that unions put out for their members. Here's a situation where because of a member's religious objections, he doesn't have to pay dues anymore. But the union
[ Page 4337 ]
doesn't get to decide, notwithstanding the fact that it spent all the money on behalf of that member; it's the employer who gets to pick the charitable institution.
An Hon. Member: Read the bill.
The Chair: Order! Comments through the Chair. On the amendment, the member for Cariboo North continues.
F. Garden: I would like to remind the members that throughout this province there are many unions which have members from all religious beliefs. I would say, from my experience over the last 30- odd years, that 90 percent of union members hold some very strong religious belief. I do personally, and I was a member for 22 years. It's only a few who feel their religious views are strong enough that they don't want to comply with the needs of membership.
Interjections.
F. Garden: I hear interjections, and I shouldn't be responding to interjections.
But they are respected through this legislation.
D. Symons: Just to remind the previous speaker, toward the end of the section it states: "...are remitted by the employer to a charitable organization registered as a charitable organization in Canada under Part I of the Income Tax Act (Canada) that may be designated by the board." So it's not the employer but the Labour Relations Board that will be deciding where that money goes. The employee does not gain in the sense that he does not have his union dues deducted. They are still deducted from his pay, but the organization that they go to..... They don't go to supporting something that the person may deeply feel that he should not be supporting. I use the abortion issue as an example of that.
The Chair: Through the Chair, of course.
D. Symons: Of course, through the Chair.
To the minister, if he's within hearing range, we have the problem here. The member for Okanagan East brought up a very important point in this. I added up the figures he was using of the people who have used the option in the current legislation. We've got under 300 people. If you compare that to the number of unionized members.... That's over a period of time. That's not even counting anybody who might have belonged to one union at one time, asked for an exemption and then a few years down the line did it again. So it may not even be the number I've got by adding totals of exemptions asked for.
But if you compare that to the total number in the trade union movement, we're dealing with less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the unionized members in this province who have traditionally asked for exemptions under this section of the current bill. It seems to me that for one-tenth of 1 percent, it's not asking very much to give them that satisfaction, that peace of mind, that they're not participating in something which they very strongly disbelieve in. They can still belong to the union, be an effective member of the union, but they don't have to support something that's beyond the usual scope of a union -- that is, an employer-employee relationship -- in which the union may care to get itself involved. They don't have to support those things outside that scope that the union may care to involve itself in. For one-tenth of 1 percent of the union population in British Columbia, it's a very small thing we're asking: that the government allow this particular amendment to go through to give those people a feeling of comfort rather than discomfort.
If the minister could respond to that please.
H. Giesbrecht: I've been listening to the debate for most of the day with some interest, in part, I guess, because I've had some experience with some of the provisions which people are talking about. I think it's worth remembering that the religious exemption in the particular case of unions requires that the dues go to charity. That in itself is not a bad option, except that what makes it different is that the unions are still required to service the member the same as before. That comes from section 12, which we have passed. That's what makes the issue a little bit coloured; one has to remember section 17 and the amendment in the light of what it says in section 12. Unlike most other things that we belong to -- or most other fraternities, perhaps, that opposition members belong to -- here is a case where a member gets a religious exemption and still enjoys the benefits of belonging to the particular organization and the benefits of all of the efforts and energies and resources extracted from his or her other colleagues that also belong to this organization -- in our case, a union.
It's for that reason that most unions and union members find the scope of religious exemption in the Industrial Relations Act somewhat odd. It's one thing to object to a union generally -- and we can deal with that -- but it's quite another thing to object to an action or a position that a union has taken through a democratic vote at a particular convention or meeting or during a debate. The member who claims religious exemption has actually also had an opportunity to debate and to vote on that particular policy or action.
It's kind of understandable that union members would find some of the debate here a little bit difficult to accept. Certainly from my perspective I find that that sort of piety which some of the opposition members are wrapping themselves in is just a little self-serving. Unions would probably prefer to have a much tighter section 17.
I think section 17 -- the way it's written -- is a fair compromise. If you object to unions generally -- and there are some religions that do -- I think that can be dealt with, albeit there is still the problem that all the dues go to a charity agreed to by the two parties and none of the resources are then available to provide equal and fair representation to the member. In some cases, if you're thinking arbitration, those costs can be quite horrendous. Unions -- for all the nasty things that the opposition thinks about them -- need resources to
[ Page 4338 ]
function and to service their members. It's somewhat odd that a person would not participate but would still derive a lot of benefit from membership in the organization. This person then objects only to the actions taken by the union, which were authorized by the majority of the membership, who, after a democratic vote, have decided on it and then objects only to the actions taken by the union -- the actions which were authorized by the majority of the membership.
[4:00]
As I said earlier, this person may even have debated the point, actually have had participation, and then has the final option of turning it around: if it doesn't go quite the way he or she wants, they can always apply for a religious exemption on the basis that the action taken is something that they personally can't subscribe to.
Hon. members, I think those who are out there listening to the debate might find some of your arguments ringing somewhat hollow. I think section 17 is a good compromise, and I will vote for it as it is. I will vote against the amendment. The minister may wish to comment on that position.
H. De Jong: It surprises me when the member for Skeena talks about nasty things being said on this side of the House about unions. I don't think there were any nasty things said here this afternoon. This has probably been one of the better debates ever held in this House -- and on a very sensitive issue.
There's been a lot said here this afternoon about union dues -- where the moneys go to, and so on. That is not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that some people, because of Christian or other beliefs, do not belong in or feel at home with an organization that, for one thing, promotes job action, strikes and picketing. Yes, they like the job, and they're well qualified to do the job -- the same as any member within the union. But it is because of the issues which go the heart of the individual, what they believe in and what they stand for, that they do not agree to pay funds to the union.
It's not because some of the union funds may go to some other organization. That's not the main thing. They may not like it, but that's not the key issue. The key issue is that those funds are collected for the purpose of serving the members during a strike period. These same members who do not agree with the philosophies of the union, for whatever principle, would not want to stand on the picket line, and they are therefore denied being serviced by the funds collected in the first place for those purposes. That's the heart of the matter.
With the minister pushing this legislation through, and this government wanting to push this kind of legislation through, let's not kid ourselves that this is going to go by just because of this issue. There are undoubtedly many more issues where individual rights are being challenged by this government. This is one particular issue aimed at the employees, the people who have nothing to come back to. That's where it's at. To say the least, I am very disappointed that the minister has not given any indication he is prepared to accept this minor amendment, which means so much and is the view within the province in terms of labour. But it's one of these issues that touches the fundamental rights of the individual, and I don't think any government should be allowed to tinker with it.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask whether the members for Cariboo North and Skeena, who spoke previously, are actually objecting to the bill as it has been written and brought forward by the minister and the government.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. You may ask a question of a minister, but you can't ask a question of another member in the House.
K. Jones: I'll place this question to the minister. Does the minister accept the criticism of the bill that was brought forward by him, particularly the latter part of section 17 where they objected to the dues being sent to a charitable organization? I got the impression that they were not in tune with the minister's views. Is the minister allowing this freedom of discussion -- this opportunity to have a differing view from the government's position -- by the back bench? It is very thrilling to be a part of this opportunity -- this change of heart on the part of the government -- to allow the back bench to have that free voice. I believe the members are actually speaking their desires. They feel that it is important that the dues not go to a charitable organization but to the union. Is the minister willing to stand by his bill? Or is he recommending a change to the bill to have the dues reverted to the unions, as these members have spoken out on? Could we get a response from the minister, please?
D. Schreck: While we're waiting for the minister to contemplate his answer to that stimulating question put by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I'd like to bring us back slightly to the precise topic that we are debating, as the range of discussion has gotten quite broad. It might be useful to remember that we are debating how and when a person can opt out of the union for religious reasons in clause 17. The amendment before us allows an individual to opt out not because of religious objections to trade unionism but because the individual objects to a specific policy advanced by a specific union.
There's a divergence of opinion among the members opposite. Some argue that anything that allows individuals to get out of a union is a good thing. I think I heard that from some of the members in the last few minutes. Others take a far more serious view and are legitimately concerned about protecting religious freedoms. When those criticisms on Bill 84 come forth leveled at government, it is important to come back to the base for comparison. How did the government arrive at the proposals for religious exemptions? I would urge all members, if they have not done so, to read the report by Roper, Baigent and Ready, particularly the section for religious exemptions. It states:
"B.C. labour legislation has historically contained a religious-conscience provision similar in wording to sections which exist in other labour legislation across Canada. Until recently, an exemption from mandatory trade union membership was granted only where the
[ Page 4339 ]
applicant could demonstrate that his or her religious convictions or beliefs were inconsistent with membership in a trade union."
The authors of the report went on to state that a recent decision of the Industrial Relations Council put B.C. at odds with the labour standards enjoyed throughout the rest of Canada. What the commissioners unanimously recommended was simply to bring B.C. back into line with labour standards enjoyed throughout Canada.
K. Jones: On a point of order, the member is becoming repetitious. He's reading a statement that was just previously read by the Minister of Labour. It is quite evident that it is a repetition. I don't know whether the member is trying to stall for time or what.
D. Schreck: I appreciate the guidance on the debate offered by the member opposite. The principles before us are so simple and so easy to understand and so fundamental that it is clearly difficult to avoid becoming repetitious. Perhaps that explains why the members opposite have gone far beyond the terms of both the amendment and the section before us. The matter before us is quite simple: it's one of endorsing the unanimous recommendation of the commissioners.
K. Jones: I thank the future Minister of Labour for his comments. Certainly I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour, now that he's able to answer the question, whether he agrees with the changes recommended by the members from Cariboo North and Skeena that were brought forward while the minister was previously occupied. Perhaps the minister would like to approach that question of whether he is bringing forward an amendment to change the legislation as brought forward with regard to funds going to charitable organizations. Or are they going to unions now? Are you making that change now?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is being a little mischievous and has obviously misinterpreted the hon. members who have today dignified this debate with their interjections in a way that hasn't been seen here for hours in the debate today. But I would encourage the hon. member not to be so mischievous in his interpretation of what they had to say.
K. Jones: To the minister. These were not interjections; these were actual speeches made by the hon. members. They are recorded in Hansard, and I am sure that you will want to review them.
Hon. M. Sihota: The member may want to read them so he can understand what was said.
F. Gingell: It was interesting to sit here and listen, because we are dealing with section 17, which deals with the religious objections. I got the feeling from the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale that the only bible he has is the report of Messrs. Baigent, Roper and Ready.
[4:15]
Moving on to the remarks, I was really pleased that the member for Skeena understands the quandary here. The member, in dealing with this subject, said that it is within the right of the employee -- the member of the union -- to go and debate the issues, to vote in the local of his trade union or the B.C. Fed or whatever trade union organization may be involved in the particular discussion, and if he doesn't agree, he can then go to the board and get the religious exemption under section 17(1). Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case. That is the concern on this side of the House. If the trade union member debates the issue and loses it within his trade union, he cannot then go to the board and get the exemption, because his religious objection is clearly not against trade unions generally but against a specific policy or issue that is being proposed by the union. That's where the problem is on this side of the House. Every time we bring this question up, the response is given to us that if you have a religious objection to trade unions, then go and get your exemption. That isn't the problem. We aren't talking about that person; we're talking about the person who has no objection whatsoever to trade unions from a religious viewpoint but who may have a religious objection to an issue like abortion, where the trade union is taking a pro or anti position on that particular issue. That's where the problem is.
It seems to me that it's such a simple issue. The trade union member is in a real quandary. If this issue comes up in their church or the Kinsmen or some service club, they can leave. They have no problem; it does not affect their job. Particularly in British Columbia in 1992, jobs are one of the most valuable things we have. Jobs are becoming harder and harder to get. We all see unemployment numbers going up. The statistics become frightening, month by month. And we're putting trade union members in a position where they have to make a choice not about their religious beliefs as far as trade unions are concerned but about issues that are completely outside the ambit and responsibility of collective bargaining and the administration of a collective agreement. You can't vote no, lose the debate and leave; you are stuck there. If you want to keep your job, you continue to pay your union dues. You cannot go and get an exemption, because you have no religious objection to the collective bargaining process. You have no religious objection to belonging to a trade union. You're in a quandary. It is unfair of this government, Mr. Chairman, to bring forward legislation that leaves British Columbians with this quandary. And it can be solved so easily. One way is to vote for this amendment. That will easily solve the problem.
The second alternative that I'd like to again suggest to the minister is to require trade unions to deal only with those issues that are in administration and the collective bargaining process. That can be quite wide. But let it not include issues that are clearly outside the scope of the generally accepted responsibilities of trade unions.
Let us deal with this. Please support it, and we can then move forward to part 3 of this act.
[ Page 4340 ]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 18 | ||
| Tanner | Cowie | Wilson |
| Tyabji | Farrell-Collins | Gingell |
| Stephens | Hanson | Weisgerber |
| Serwa | K. Jones | Jarvis |
| Chisholm | Hurd | Anderson |
| Symons | Neufeld | De Jong |
| NAYS -- 32 | ||
| Marzari | Sihota | Cashore |
| Barlee | Charbonneau | Jackson |
| Beattie | Schreck | Lortie |
| MacPhail | Giesbrecht | Hagen |
| Gabelmann | Clark | Blencoe |
| Perry | Copping | Ramsey |
| Hammell | Dosanjh | O'Neill |
| Doyle | Hartley | Streifel |
| Lord | Krog | Randall |
| Garden | Simpson | Brewin |
| Janssen | Miller | |
On section 17.
V. Anderson: The discussion that has been brought up concerning section 17 has overlooked a change in which the employees' rights.... When we look a little further into section 17 and compare it to the religious conscience section, section 11, of the Industrial Relations Act, we see that employee rights are even further eroded. As has been mentioned by members across the floor, if a person was given religious exemption under the Industrial Relations Act, they had the opportunity to pay their dues, and those dues went to a charitable organization. However, the decision as to which charitable organization was agreed to between the employee and the employer. That agreement has been taken out of this act, so the employee does not have the opportunity, in the same sense, to indicate....
If members opposite will look, I'll read the section for them. The section now reads: "Dues or other assessments are paid by the employee to or are remitted by the employer to a charitable organization registered as a charitable organization in Canada under Part 1 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) that may be designated by the board." The difficulty here is that the charitable organization that may be chosen by the board may be totally contradictory to the wishes of the employee.
[4:30]
To correct that, I would like to move an amendment that at the end of that paragraph, following, "that may be designated by the board," we add the words: "if the employee has not so designated an eligible charitable organization." I move it.
The Chair: Hon. member, could you supply the Chair...?
V. Anderson: Right there. There's one for the hon. minister as well.
Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, hon. Chair. I would argue that this motion is out of order.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me explain why, for the edification of the Liberal caucus, who can't conceive of why I would be making this application to the Chair at this time.
First, it totally changes the intention and tenor of the section; second, it is outside the scope of the intention of the provision; and third, it is wholly inconsistent with the provision contained, which gives the direction to the board. Therefore that substantially changes the purpose of the section.
V. Anderson: Naturally I disagree with the hon. minister, because it does not change the intent; it simply indicates that the designation will be made by the board if the employee has not designated a charitable organization, which is the agreement that the bill is attempting to undertake. It does not take away from the employee the opportunity to designate where this goes, as in the previous bill. It adds on to the end by giving the employee that opportunity, and I would say that it is not out of order.
C. Serwa: On the same point of order, I also do not believe that it changes the intent in any way, shape or form. As far as individual union membership rights are concerned, I think it's a very important amendment. I certainly encourage the Chair to take that under advisement.
On the amendment.
F. Gingell: Do I take it that the amendment has been accepted?
The Chair: No.
F. Gingell: Then I will speak to whether the amendment should be allowed.
The Chair: Hon. member, you can speak to the amendment, but not to the point of order.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chair, it seems to me that this is pretty straightforward, because section 17 makes a provision whereby the amount of these monthly union dues can be paid to a charitable organization that is registered under Part I of the Income Tax Act. That is clearly the intent. The individual's monthly payments will not go to the union; they will go to a charitable organization. That is to the main point; that is the gist of it.
It is a secondary issue, but an important one to us, as to who determines which organization it shall be that qualifies. It seems to me that if we are dealing with a set of circumstances where an employee has obtained an exemption for religious purposes, it is terribly important for everybody's peace of mind, comfort and happiness -- if we are allowed that in this day and age
[ Page 4341 ]
-- not to throw the religious beliefs back in the face of the individual by having charitable organizations designated that are clearly inappropriate. The appropriateness of the particular organization is important. Sure, this is a minor item. No one is arguing that it shouldn't be a real and genuine charitable organization; it has to meet all the requirements of the Income Tax Act.
Perhaps it should also be registered in British Columbia so that we can be assured that the Minister of Government Services -- at the moment, or the Minister of Finance, who more normally is responsible for the administration and registration of charitable organizations in this province, other than the Nanaimo holding company -- ensures it is a real, proper, genuine charitable organization. Surely we also need the assurance that it is a charitable organization with whom the particular employee has sympathy and understanding and wishes to see supported.
The Chair: Hon. members, it is the decision of the Chair that under standing order 84 this particular amendment is out of order in that it would run contrary to section 17 where it says: "...that may be designated by the board."
I would remind members under standing order 9 that decisions of the Chair are final.
Interjection.
The Chair: Hon. member, I would ask that you withdraw that remark.
D. Symons: I withdraw that remark, hon. member.
V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, this is a very important issue. It's still very much a question of fairness. Acknowledging that you have indicated that it may be designated by the board is an important part of this. Recognizing that the opportunity for the employee is not there, I would like to move the amendment to add to "designated by the board" the words "in agreement with the employee."
The Chair: Unfortunately, hon. member, this too is out of order in that you are again changing the intent away from the board to the employer.
K. Jones: We should all walk out.
The Chair: Hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale I would ask that you withdraw your remarks, and I would remind you of standing order 9 that the decisions of the Chair are not debatable.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I did not debate the issue whatsoever. If it's a problem, I withdraw.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, we have spent a lot of time dealing with section 17, and you can clearly see that a lot of us have very real concerns about it. The proposal that section 17(1)(b) brings forward, one in which the amount of the monthly union dues should be paid to a charitable organization as clearly defined, is given a qualification in that it "may be designated by the board." It doesn't say, "that is designated by the board." So I have a problem understanding what will happen to these monthly union dues if the board doesn't so designate, because section 17(1)(b) does not create a compulsion for the board to make this designation. It makes it voluntary. They may do it, but they may not.
So that there isn't any misunderstanding by all hon. members of the House and by the new board, it would seem that this lack of certainty and definition in section 17(1)(b) should be dealt with by the minister. I would like to suggest to the minister that the board could be required to prepare a list of charitable organizations that they would find acceptable. Then the sensible thing would be to allow the employee to make a choice from that designated list. We really shouldn't go past this discussion on section 17(1)(b) until this uncertainty has been dealt with. And it is very easily clarified. I don't wish to be seen to be disrespectful to any officer of this House, but perhaps an amendment could be accepted somewhat in line with the two that have been previously put forward so that the process will be clearly defined and not just left in limbo.
[4:45]
D. Streifel: I rise with the hope of shedding a little bit of light and a bit of clarification onto the working language in this particular clause, and that word is the "may." The board "may" designate a charity and that would happen -- I would suppose, given jurisprudence in labour legislation -- in consultation with the parties involved. But the Liberal opposition, the group off to the right here, is losing sight of one very important fact: these dues do not belong to the union member; they actually belong to the union. And as such, I would expect that the Liberal opposition would be equally offended if an amendment were brought forward to suggest that it would be only the union's determination as to what charity received the dues that are not being paid to the union any longer. So I would suggest, in the spirit of shedding some light on this that the amendment either way -- whether it's a determination by the union member or by the union -- goes against the spirit of this particular clause in that it's an attempt to remove the confrontation about who decides which charity is the recipient of the dues. Therefore the board makes the decision in the spirit of fair play and equal judgment.
J. Tyabji: I've been listening with some interest to the debate back and forth on this section, and I think the comments coming from the NDP -- both the cabinet and the back bench -- are really indicative of the mind-set of the people who are behind this bill. The amendment that we tried to put forward was simply to add "with the agreement of the employee," and we had it ruled out of order because that is not the intent of the bill. Then we had the member for Mission-Kent say: "Who owns the membership dues? The union does." Well, hon. Chair, who pays those dues? The union members do. What is a union without the members? It reminds me so much of what we see in this House. In this House we're supposed to have accountability. What the government seems to lose sight of is that when the
[ Page 4342 ]
union members pay their dues to the union, that union has to be accountable to those members. The accountability is not in section 17 of the bill.
We on the opposition side have been extremely concerned that section 17 does not allow for any accountability in terms of how the union designates the dues or the funds. What we have tried to do repeatedly is introduce that accountability through amendment, and the government has repeatedly said that it is not in order. Hon. Chair, we find that unacceptable, but it seems to be consistent with the fact that they are constantly undermining the employees' rights in this bill. Here's another case where the employees' rights are being undermined; those rights have been assigned to the union executive. The union elite are the ones who are deciding where this money goes, rather than allowing the membership to have some accountability or some say in where it goes. I find that regrettable. I find it to be consistent with the rest of the bill, and I wish the minister would answer directly as to why there's no accountability to the membership in section 17.
V. Anderson: I've heard the discussion, hon. Chair, and I would have had no problem if the bill had read that the decision would be made by the employee and the union, as in the previous bill, or if it was by the employee and the employer. In the previous bill it was agreed on by the employee and the trade union. I would have no problem if it was designated again in this bill in that way. But as has already been pointed out, it does not say in this bill that any decision has to be made. It says that the union dues are paid to a charitable organization. If the bill were changed to read that the charitable organization shall be designated by the board, we'd be perfectly in agreement, because that would mean that the board, no doubt, would consult with both the union and the employee, and therefore there would be a perfect distinction about who is doing it and what is being done. Leaving it as "may" leaves it up in the air. Those union dues could go into whatever fund and sit there indefinitely if the board does not decide to designate them. I think it should be clear by whom they are designated. If it's by the board, that's fine, but if it's not by the board, that's fine. But if it's not by the board, then by whom? That should be changed from "may" to "shall." I would urge the minister to make that simple change, and then we could live with it, because I think the board would be fair in consulting. But they are not directed by this to make that designation.
Hon. Chair, I would move that it be amended to read "shall" instead of "may." That would then read: "that shall be designated by the board."
The Chair: If the hon. member would give the Chair that amendment in writing, then it would be perfectly in order.
D. Streifel: I would offer that the amendment to change "may" to "shall" is completely out of order. As a matter of fact, it predetermines the outcome of any hearing by the board that may decide whether or not there's an actual religious objection. If "may" was changed to "shall," the clause would be absolutely directive, and the board would have no choice but to make the determination that, in fact, there is a religious objection. It strikes the amendment out of order.
The Chair: The amendment is in order.
On the amendment.
V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, I think it just makes the issue perfectly clear and straightforward. I'm sure it affirms and clarifies the intent that was in the bill in the first place. It follows through on the decision which the board has to make and gives them the opportunity and responsibility to carry it out.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
[5:00]
| YEAS -- 15 | ||
| Wilson | Tyabji | Farrell-Collins |
| Gingell | Stephens | Hanson |
| Weisgerber | Serwa | De Jong |
| Neufeld | Symons | Anderson |
| Hurd | Chisholm | Jarvis |
| NAYS -- 32 | ||
| Marzari | Sihota | Edwards |
| Cashore | Barlee | Charbonneau |
| Jackson | Beattie | Schreck |
| Lortie | MacPhail | Giesbrecht |
| Hagen | Gabelmann | Clark |
| Blencoe | Perry | Copping |
| Ramsey | Hammell | Evans |
| Dosanjh | O'Neill | Doyle |
| Hartley | Streifel | Lord |
| Krog | Randall | Garden |
| Simpson | Miller | |
Section 17 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 31 | ||
| Marzari | Sihota | Edwards |
| Cashore | Barlee | Charbonneau |
| Jackson | Beattie | Schreck |
| Lortie | MacPhail | Giesbrecht |
| Hagen | Gabelmann | Clark |
| Blencoe | Perry | Copping |
| Ramsey | Hammell | Dosanjh |
| O'Neill | Doyle | Hartley |
| Streifel | Lord | Krog |
| Randall | Garden | Simpson |
| Miller | ||
| NAYS -- 15 | ||
| Wilson | Tyabji | Farrell-Collins |
| Gingell | Stephens | Hanson |
| Weisgerber | Serwa | De Jong |
| Neufeld | Symons | Anderson |
| Hurd | Chisholm | Jarvis |
[ Page 4343 ]
On section 18.
G. Farrell-Collins: One of the dealings that I think, particularly with section 18 -- and I assume we're going to have another noisy period before we get started. In subsection (3) it says: "Unless the board consents, a trade union is not permitted to make an application under subsection (2) during a strike or lockout." Perhaps the minister could expand upon that subsection.
Hon. M. Sihota: The thinking there, hon. member, is that often these kinds of issues come up during the course of a first contract. Because of that it was felt that there ought to be some protection in this instance, during a strike or lockout, to give the board some discretion.
G. Farrell-Collins: As the minister knows, there are fairly strong provisions for a first-contract arbitration in this bill. Again, I'd like the minister's comments with regard to subsection (3). Despite the provisions in the sections that deal with first-contract arbitration, does the minister feel that both the section on first-contract arbitration and this one are needed? Perhaps it is going a little too far. Maybe the minister would like to comment on that.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: That's a valid point, but no, I see nothing wrong with providing that additional protection during the case of a strike or lockout. It's difficult enough as it is, particularly with regard to a first contract, to conclude a collective agreement. I don't think it's necessary to then have the field cluttered with another application that seeks to allow for an 18(2) event to occur. It's a reasonable point, but consequently I think it's appropriate to allow this provision.
G. Farrell-Collins: My reading of subsection (2) is that the intent, again, relies on the employees to make the decision. It says: "...a trade union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining may...." Does that then mean that in fact the employees themselves have to choose to have their interests represented by another union? Maybe they're not comfortable with the one that they started with and found a better deal elsewhere. Shouldn't it be up to the employees to determine which union should represent them? Maybe they've got themselves into a lockout or strike position, and they would rather be represented by another union, because they don't feel the one that they certified under is doing a sufficiently good job. The minister has mentioned numerous times that it's his feeling that it's the right of the employees, and only the right of the employees, to determine whether they wish to be certified and under which organization they wish to be certified. Shouldn't that apply here also? Shouldn't the members still have the freedom under section 18 to do the same as they would in all other cases?
Hon. M. Sihota: The operative words in subsection (3) are: "Unless the board consents...." It does provide some latitude for the employees to state their case before the board. The board can consider what has happened. If it were simply a blanket provision, there might be more validity to your point.
G. Farrell-Collins: Again, I know the minister doesn't want to limit the prerogative of the board to decide on these matters, but I guess the minister is saying that there may well be conditions under which a bargaining unit, not happy with the union that initially certified them, may choose to move to another union. At that point they should go to the board first. I guess you're saying that the board should be the one to decide whether they can move and not the employees themselves.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, in keeping with subsection (3), when there's a strike or lockout.
G. Farrell-Collins: I suppose I can understand the minister's intent. I understand the difficulties that sometimes arise during first contracts, particularly if they are in a strike or lockout position. My opinion, and certainly the opinion of the caucus, is that the power or decision should rest with the employees; the board should not be able to put those limits on the employees to determine whether they can seek to certify to another union or move to a different trade union. I would hope that that type of right and privilege would rest with the employees themselves, and that they wouldn't have to make representation to a board, given the fact that for the most part the employees are newly organized and certified and just starting to operate as a bargaining unit. The only representation they have as a collective, of course, is the union that's representing them. They may find it difficult to make a presentation before the board to ask for that change unless they can solicit the help of the union that was hoping to represent them otherwise.
Hon. M. Sihota: You've heard my interpretation of it, and based on what you've had to say, hon. member, you've obviously understood it. I guess it's there to prevent some of the ugly situations that have occurred in the past and that have done little to serve the conclusion of the collective bargaining process during a first contract but have done a lot to deteriorate the situation. We're just trying to prevent that.
Section 18 approved.
On section 19.
G. Farrell-Collins: When we get into section 19, we're looking particularly at the section that deals with raiding. Perhaps the minister can give us his interpretation of this section, particularly with regard to the seventh and eighth months in each year of the collective agreement. Why he has chosen that particular time frame to work with raiding?
[ Page 4344 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: This issue has been part of our labour relations legislation for the better part of 20 years. It allows for matters to be resolved a little earlier than, let's say, the eleventh month, which would be too close to the conclusion of an agreement. It was a subjective decision to place it at that level. It's been there for 20 years, and no one has seriously suggested that we should change it. This practice has grown in B.C. It's not one where there is much divergence of views.
Sections 19 to 22 inclusive approved.
On section 23.
L. Hanson: The minister thought he was on a roll there.
Section 23 is the first we see of the denial of the democratic process by not giving individuals the right to vote. It stipulates that certification is automatic when 55 percent of the employees are members of a trade union. I know there was some reference to it in the report by the committee, but maybe we could ask the minister, for the record, why the democratic vote was taken away. Because I suspect that he may have to have his tongue in his cheek when he's suggesting that there is no need for a further vote. But I'd like to hear the response from the minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to this provision, we had noticed that between 1984 and 1992 there had been a substantial increase in the number of unfair labour practices. I believe they had increased by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100 percent over that period. Recognizing that they are obviously there for a number of situations where employers had been engaged in, let's say, threats or intimidation or coercion with regard to these matters, and given the increase in the number of applications concerning unfair labour practices, we obviously recognized that this was an area that needed study.
We consequently asked the panel -- which, again, consisted of representatives of both business and labour -- to do an analysis of the situation and give us their advice as to how they think we should handle this issue. As we had said all along, we would move on a recommendation if there indeed was consensus between the parties, between labour and management. We asked the parties then to go back and reflect on the experiences between 1984 and 1992 and advise us if there was any way in which they could come to a resolution in terms of how these issues should be dealt with.
So off they went to their corner, and they returned with the following advice to us. They felt that there ought to be a vote allowed in the realm of 45 to 55 percent, and at 55 and up they should proceed on the basis of signed membership cards. This was a unanimous recommendation of business and labour. If one reviews the findings of the panel in any detail -- which I may have to begin to quote during the course of what I'm sure will be lengthy debate on this section -- it is clear that they spent a lot of time discussing this issue.
[5:15]
They came back to us, and they said: "We've had an opportunity to reflect on the experience of British Columbia for some decades prior to 1984" -- I believe -- "as far back as 40 years. And we've had an opportunity to reflect on what happened between 1984 and 1992. On the basis of that reflection, we recommend...." As I've indicated and as is indeed reflected in the legislation, they recognized that this was the practice in British Columbia for some 40 years and recognized that in fact it was the kind of practice that existed in other jurisdictions.
For example, mandatory votes are not required in any other jurisdictions. The federal legislation does not require mandatory votes, and has a threshold to trigger a vote at 35 percent and automatic certification at 50 percent. In Manitoba there is no requirement for a mandatory vote. In that province the threshold to trigger a vote is 45 percent and automatic certification is 60 percent. In New Brunswick there is no provision for a mandatory vote. The threshold to trigger a vote is 40 percent and automatic certification is 50 percent. However, it should be noted that in the case of New Brunswick, there is some discretion to give automatic certification between 50 and 60 percent.
In Newfoundland there are no mandatory votes. The threshold is 40 percent and for certification 50 percent. In Nova Scotia, as in Alberta, there are requirements for mandatory votes. In Ontario there is no requirement for a vote, with the threshold being 45 percent and for certification 55 percent. Prince Edward Island, again, has no requirement for a vote. However, the LRB has discretion to require a vote in that province. In Quebec there is no provision for a vote. The threshold to trigger a vote is 35 percent, and automatic certification applies to 50 percent. In Saskatchewan there's no provision for a mandatory vote, a 25 percent threshold triggers a vote, and for a certification it is 50 percent.
That's the experience elsewhere in the country. I think it's important to note that the experience here in British Columbia, as proposed in this legislation, is therefore consistent with the approach taken elsewhere in the country. It is also consistent with the pre-1984 principle that established that trade union certification would be based on recognizing established membership evidence rather than on mandatory certification votes in all instances. I need not remind the hon. member that it was his party that supported those provisions at that time. So these provisions have historical precedents in British Columbia and elsewhere in the country.
These provisions are not radical in any way. They are designed to provide a more logical basis on which to determine the level of certification. They are designed to prevent diseasing the relationship between management and labour at the front end, as was evidenced by the number of incidents of unfair labour practice under the previous legislation. They are consistent with our view that employees ought to be able to make that decision. They are also consistent with our view -- which I think is shared opposite -- that the decision should be made quickly so the parties can get on with collective bargaining. I think there is general agreement -- I would hope on all sides of the House -- that these
[ Page 4345 ]
issues have to be resolved with dispatch. They are also consistent with our view that by preventing the diseasing of a relationship at the front end, we go a long way towards ensuring that there is a positive and constructive relationship between management and labour.
There is no doubt that the government has received plenty of comment, both inside and outside the House, with regard to this issue. We listened with care to what the opposition had to say during second reading debate and to what other groups in society had to say as well. We think that at the end of the day, the compelling and determining variable is the fact that this provision triggers an element of labour peace and takes out what was clearly diseasing the relationship between management and labour. To that extent it corrects the flaw in Bill 19. For that reason, apart from others that I can get into, it ought to be supported.
It is a provision that the government recognizes was arrived at unanimously by the panel. Having made that representation unanimously, we accepted it. We advised all of the groups involved in the issue and that contacted us that we would not deviate from any provision for which there was unanimous consent.
In its report the panel said:
"There are good reasons for returning to a system of certification on the basis of membership cards. First, there is no compelling evidence that membership cards do not adequately reflect employees' wishes. In those cases where improper influence by a union during a certification campaign is established, the board has a plenary jurisdiction to dismiss the application for certification or to order a secret ballot vote if there is a doubt about the true wishes of the employees. Second, a representational campaign, hotly contested by both employer and trade union, all too often poisons the atmosphere and fosters mistrust between the parties. A campaign fraught with allegations of unfair labour practices results in an atmosphere in which collective bargaining is not likely to succeed. This is to no one's advantage. The decision to join a trade union is, in the final analysis, a decision and right of the employee. And that employee should not be put in the position where he or she is asked to choose between his or her employer and the right to be represented by a third party in dealings with that employer."
This is a provision that I look forward to debating in the next few hours -- or however long we're going to be involved with it. It is an issue that I think is important and that I am totally comfortable with. This provision was put in the legislation because it is in the public interest to proceed with this type of regime, and that has been recognized historically both in this province and in other provinces. This is a provision that we will not amend.
L. Hanson: The minister said he will not amend it. I wasn't living under any false hope that he might consider amending it, but certainly I think we have to put on record the opposition that we have to this clause.
I'd also like to correct the minister, and maybe he would even agree with this correction. He has used many times in the argument on this bill the fact that the incidence of unfair labour practice charges has increased dramatically. I think he's used the figure of 100 percent a number of times. I just point out to the minister how many actually have been found guilty of unfair labour practices, because it isn't anywhere near that figure -- although it has increased. In fairness, because I know the minister and his government are fair, I suspect that when there are allegations of obtaining memberships by other than fair and reasonable means -- and those allegations increase the same as the unfair labour practices -- he'll look very carefully at this and bring back the truly democratic vote.
The minister points out that consensus was reached by the reporting committee and that they had unanimously recommended that this change come in. I was able to do a little research -- albeit maybe not completely, as far as I would have liked to have gone -- but the only evidence I could see of any suggestion, application, desire or presentation on the basis of removing the democratic vote was by organized labour. I didn't see anyone from the employers' community even suggesting that that should be removed.
I also would like to comment to the minister -- and maybe he can give us some explanation -- that when the reverse of the process of certification comes about, there is a requirement for a vote. It seems that there are two standards, depending on which standard you're trying to promote. But this government has long had two standards, and I guess the public will rule on that at some point.
The minister also suggests that if 55 percent or over are signed up for membership, and the Labour Relations Board is convinced that they have that strength and that it was legitimately obtained, certification should be automatic. The excuse is that the vote takes too long and therefore gives the employer the opportunity to campaign against it. I have to acknowledge that there were circumstances where that did happen, and unfair labour practices came about. But I suggest to the minister that the democratic principle of a secret vote, where the organizers of the union, their peers and even the employer are not privy to how the individual voted, is a basic right that we have come to accept, and I don't know how you can possibly say there is no need for it.
The 55 percent requirement simply says that the employer is not going to be fair and reasonable; it says that if it is only 45 percent, then the employer is going to be fair and reasonable and it's okay to have a vote. I suggest to the minister that if that were his real concern, it is possible to order the vote in much less than the ten-day requirement in the old act, which would probably preclude any campaigning by the employer, the use of unfair labour practices and the charges that the minister referred to earlier. Maybe the minister could comment on that.
Hon. M. Sihota: On the issue of the number of days, I know -- and I know the hon. member knows -- that the issue comes up in the next section. It would seem that that would be the appropriate time to have that debate. So if you don't mind, we will defer that subject until then. I think that attends to that concern.
If there was another question and the hon. member could rephrase it, I will attend to it.
[ Page 4346 ]
L. Hanson: I may have to get Hansard to rephrase it.
In any case, I was suggesting that you had suggested that a consensus was reached. My research tells me that organized labour was the only segment of the labour relations community that made any presentation regarding getting rid of the vote. While I don't disagree that the three members of the panel, who have been mentioned so many times, all signed their names saying they recommended it, I suspect that the presentation and the lobbying to the committee for changes to that legislation came from one specific sector -- not from individuals, the public or the employer, but from organized labour.
Hon. M. Sihota: I guess there are a couple of points, because this has come up over and over again in debate. I will answer the question directly in a moment. I want to preface it by making the following comments. We have asked a panel to go out and do a job and to advise the government. But for the moment I want to stay away from some of the rhetoric that happens in here in terms of the people on there and all that kind of stuff. I'm sure the Liberal critic, who is already starting to heckle, will get into that issue fairly soon.
We asked them to go out there and do a job; we asked them to sit there and listen to the submissions that were received. If you look at some of these issues, one could make the argument that more submissions came from one point of view than from another. That is indeed true, and I'll give you the actual numbers in a moment with regard to this issue. But that's only part of it. We also asked them to consider the relative merits of the arguments that were put forward, to pass judgment on those submissions and to make decisions which they thought were in the public interest -- good, sound public policy decisions. So you may get a disproportionate number of people making a particular representation. That's not the determinant, in my mind, as to whether or not the policy is a correct one. The determinant is the rationale and the reasoning as to why they chose to go one way or the other.
[5:30]
We just debated section 17, where the vast majority of the submissions were in favour of removing the religious objections clause in totality. If the theory here is that the panel just responded to the union movement, then that's rebutted, I would think, by that example, as will be the case with others. But if the theory is that they looked at the submissions as they should have, attached weight to the arguments put forward and tried to make sound public policy determinations, then I think the weight of the evidence is that that's exactly what they did.
That was the case in this case. In this case it is true that the issue of mandatory certification received a great deal of attention from both employers and employees in the submissions presented to the special advisers. Fifty-one employers or employer organizations, two unions, one employees' association and two private individuals urged that the current practice of mandatory votes be retained. Fifty-one unions or union organizations and the Construction Labour Relations Association, an employer-based group, advocated automatic certification based on signed membership cards. I want to pause there to point out, however, that the Construction Labour Relations Association just did it in the context of their industry, not generally. It would be unfair for me to suggest that they had done otherwise.
Most of these advocated a simple majority of the employees, while a small number advocated a 55 percent sign-up. So, admittedly, you did have a lot of unions making the suggestion that it ought to be on the basis of membership cards, but it should also be noted that only a small number of those advocated the 55 percent threshold. Some unions in the construction industry recommended that mandatory votes be retained where the requirement that an employee join a union as a condition of employment under the collective agreement suggests collusion between the union and the employer. Of course we're dealing with what are known as rat unions.
As you can see, there were a variety of submissions, some arguing against the removal of the provision which has been removed, some arguing in favour, and some arguing for different thresholds than what were arrived at at the end of the day. Few, if any, put forward the argument for what was ultimately arrived at. I think that's a reflection of the fact that the panel took into account the competing interests with regard to this issue and tried to arrive at something that met their requirement to achieve the public interest.
It is true, hon. member, that while I've given you the numbers in terms of who made the application, I've also tried to lay out for you the thinking of the panel and an outline of its responsibilities, and it arrived at the determination I referred to.
Finally, let me say this. A lot has been said -- and I believe that you touched upon this -- about the principle of voting and the whole issue of comparing it to our own democratic process. Mr. Weiler, when he dealt in his book with the whole issue of membership cards, representation and ballots, touches on the issue. It struck me as a good quote; I'm going to quote it. It's somewhat long, but I think the point is well made: "Still I think we should not overemphasize the urgency of the legal task of refining the model for union representation decisions." It's your decision about how you decide who should represent you. He goes on:
"Let us be clear about the nature of the choice being made by the employees. There is an inherent fallacy in the political analogy. The employees are not making a momentous choice, one which should be carefully hedged about with ceremonial trappings, ultimately allowing the employees to make up their minds in the...voting booth in the same ways that citizens do about their governmental representatives.
"The fact is that a trade union does not have governmental authority over the unit of employees. The trade union gets a piece of paper -- a licence to bargain on their behalf -- which is by no means the key to the vault. The union must do something in the real world with that licence. True, the employer has to sit down at the table and negotiate with the union. But it does not have to agree to any of the demands of the union.
"How does the trade union extract concessions and ultimately a contract from a...employer? Only with the lever of employee pressure, through the threat or the
[ Page 4347 ]
use of a strike. In the final analysis a trade union must be able to get a strike mandate from the employees. In practice, there must be not just a bare majority but a solid one to be credible at the bargaining table.
"This is the crucible in which the durability of the union's majority will be tested. Unions do themselves no good by flimflamming a group of employees into 'instant unionism' which they will shortly regret. The trade union has to maintain -- indeed...build up -- its initial support during the months of the certification proceedings and first contract negotiations."
I think the point that Mr. Weiler is trying to make is that it's at this point that a union is tested. It can make all of the wild suggestions it wants with regard to what it may be able to achieve for employees, but that works only in the short-term. The proof of the pudding lies in whether it is able to produce an agreement with an employer and the test -- the real vote of confidence in a union -- comes at the time that the members vote on that first agreement. And of course, that vote is there. I'm looking at the member for Mission-Kent, who I know has a lot of experience in these matters, and he makes the point over and over again that that's the real test of a union. That's when the vote matters.
Mr. Weiler goes on:
"I have always felt that this later stage is a fairer setting in which to test the views of the employees. The employees can see then what their employer is actually offering at the...table, compare that with what the union is seeking or recommending, and make up their minds about whether they are willing to take some risks, to make some sacrifices in the collective...effort. That is a much more realistic setting than the typical representation vote, conducted a month or two after the union's organizational drive, but months before negotiations reach a climax. If the union does not have serious employee support at the latter point, then it should, and normally does, walk away from the bargaining unit."
So that's the test.
He goes on:
"Most important, in the final analysis the employer rarely acts in the interest of the employees. It has its own reasons for fighting the union, and these coincide only accidentally with those of the non-union employees. The employer is much more likely to be manipulative, to slide into the kind of improper coercive practices which the law should be trying to deflect and to reduce. And in the final analysis, legal certification is only the first hurdle which a trade union must surmount. If collective bargaining is to put down enduring roots among that group of employees, the union must build a broad base of support from the time that it encounters heavy weather at the negotiating table. It is at that point the employees have tangible evidence with which to appraise whose claims really were inflated -- the proponents of the individual or of collective employee action."
So the point is: let's not get into diseasing the relationship at the front end during the course of a representational vote, as indeed Mr. Weiler points out that that's when the employer is most likely to be manipulative, to engage in improper activity and coercion. In fact, hon. member, I know that you took issue with the numbers, but the fact of the matter is that in 1989 there were 127 applications for unfair bargaining practices; in 1990, there were 300; and in 1991, there were 262. Whether that's 100 percent or not is really not the point. The point is that the harm that Mr. Weiler refers to, the fact that an employer will slide into this behaviour of being manipulative or improper or engaging in coercive practices, seems to have been the case since we've had the vote provisions in. It is that concern which has clearly led all of the other jurisdictions -- eight of the other ten jurisdictions in this country, counting the federal government -- to go the route that we're proposing here in this legislation, some of them with a lower sign-up required to trigger a certification. Recognizing that in most jurisdictions it's 50 percent and you've got it, in our case it's 55 percent.
More importantly, Mr. Weiler makes the point -- appropriately, in my mind -- that there is a vote. And the vote that counts is the vote when you get past all the rhetoric that flies during a representational campaign and put the test to both parties -- the employer to explain the impact on their position of the union's demands at the bargaining table, and the union to be able to fulfil its election promise, if I can put it that way, to its employees during the sign-up period. If a union is unable to produce when they are being tested, and if the employer's arguments prevail, then the union won't prevail as an ongoing entity at the workplace. That's the vote which ultimately counts.
So let's not forget that that vote, which those who are learned and have spent time on this issue say is the one that counts, is still a vote that remains in this legislation. Let's not forget that for the panel's own reasons we also have a vote in the 45 to 55 percent category. So there is ample opportunity by way of secret ballot for employees, in either of the two situations that I've elaborated on, to express their views at the appropriate time. That's not being denied to them.
But there is also an effort here to try to prevent a diseasing of the relationship, a slipping into coercion and manipulative practices very early on. The reason I keep on going back to that emphasis is that the purpose of this legislation, to a large measure, is to encourage cooperation, conciliation and consensus among the parties and to take us away from the adversarial and confrontational relationship we've had in British Columbia for so long.
You've all heard that speech before. I'm not going to go into it in detail, except to say that the provisions under Bill 19 had the effect of encouraging that attitudinal process of an adversarial or confrontational relationship. We've tried to take that out and, recognizing that some of these issues arise during first contract, put in those provisions. Recognizing that later on it may be necessary for a vote to test the union's ability to achieve its representations to its members, we obviously have the vote provisions on the contract.
I think that what cannot be nor should be finally lost on hon. members is the fact that this is an approach which has found acceptance in our labour law regimes throughout the country. There must be a reason for that, and there must be a reason why it existed in British Columbia for so long. Inasmuch as there may be some superficial appeal to the way in which Bill 19 structured the issue, the evidence is that it was corrosive to the labour-management relationship. So I think that upon reflection on that experience from 1984 on, and on the
[ Page 4348 ]
experience elsewhere in the country, the panel did exactly what it was supposed to do: arrive at a public interest determination that was good public policy. It has done that, and that's why this provision, as is found before the House, is highly defensible.
[5:45]
L. Hanson: The minister has given this House what appears to be a reasonable argument. I hope that he will remember that discussion when we get to another section that requires the vote on decertification. In any case, the minister has said a number of times that this recommendation is a result of consensus.
The point I was trying to make -- and I think the minister has helped me make it -- is that this report, which we all quote and which was tabled with the legislation, was submitted by the subcommittee of special advisers and not by the nine-or ten-person committee that was put in place to start with.
As a result of the statistics the minister gave us as to what the representations were, it's very clear that the advocacy or the lobbying for this change in the legislation to get rid of that democratic vote came from a very specific part of the labour relations community. I have simply put it on the record that it came from a very specific part of the community, and that the committee that brought forward this report with the consensus recommendation is representative of that community -- two sides of it. But the public has not been considered, and the people who actually have to take the vote have not been considered.
I know this is going to be the subject of many other sections in the bill, and I agree with the minister that section 24 will have some long discussions as to the democratic vote and that purpose.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too have some comments on section 23 and would like to talk to the minister about some of the reasoning behind what was done.
The minister quoted from Mr. Weiler and gave us a very clear and concise argument against the vote and against the necessity for a vote. He used the principle that when the bargaining unit finally votes on the collective agreement that has been negotiated -- the first contract -- that is their vote. That is the vote of the people and their vote of confidence, as the minister called it, relative to the election promises of the union they certify.
But in this bill we have changes to the first contract process. We now have first-contract arbitration -- mediation arbitration -- which comes in fairly quickly once there is a strike or a lockout. We also have the section we talked about earlier, which forbids raiding, so to speak, during the first contract or a strike or a lockout. And I would suggest to the minister that in reality, if that is the argument and the test that he is going to use, he has rewritten the questions for the test also. It's not the same test anymore; it's a different test. Before, where there was no first-contract arbitration or mediation, there was a certain amount of confidence that was taken, and the union had to achieve a collective agreement within some reasonable time, or the employees in that bargaining unit could choose to secure the representation of another union. Or the discussion would drag on for some time, and if it was a strike or lockout that proceeded for a good length of time, then perhaps the people in that bargaining unit would realize that the union was incapable of representing them and securing a collective agreement and that they may, in fact, end up voting against that union by decertifying it or by moving on to a different union.
It's not sufficient to say that the test -- as he refers to the member for Mission-Kent, who has spoken on it a number of times -- is the vote for the first contract and that that's where the real test is, because the reality is that the questions on that test or the measures by which we're going to test that confidence in the union or the representation that is bargaining on behalf of that bargaining unit have changed. First of all, the minister has made it quite hard for the bargaining unit to switch unions in the midst of a contract if they don't feel it's going their way, and second of all, he has made it much easier for that initial union to secure a contract for that bargaining unit. So no real test of the type that Mr. Weiler is talking about is going to take place. The test is not going to be the same; it's a different test. So to use that argument, and perhaps to turn it around and to approach it from another angle, one can see that the means for the test have changed. That alone should be sufficient to ensure that there should be some means in there by which that confidence can be tested, and not just through the process that the minister talks about.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sometimes I think that arguments are just made for the sake of arguing. You're right: it's not the same test, but it's a better test. It's a better test in this sense: not only does it provide an opportunity for the parties to conclude and prove themselves, but it also gives them the assistance that's necessary to get you there. Therefore it furthers the objective that the hon. member didn't talk about -- which is important -- of taking the adversarial and confrontational edge off labour relations in British Columbia. You see, the test has been improved: we've given the parties the ability and assistance necessary to conclude an agreement that can be put expeditiously to members for ratification.
The hon. member builds this argument on the basis that there should be some fault in the fact that we've put an ability into the system to assist the parties to resolve an issue, that somehow there's something wrong with making it easier for employers and employees to resolve issues in a consensual way. I would submit that there's nothing wrong with providing that level of assistance or the opportunity to further along employer-employee relations in British Columbia.
It's always easy to argue, but I think one has to think through the public policy objective that is being met by making the change. The change with respect to first contract meets the public policy objective of removing the adversarial and confrontational relationship between employers and employees. I think the hon. member has to reflect on that point in order to recognize that again the public interest is served by moving in that regard and also to reflect on the relationship between representational and strike votes.
[ Page 4349 ]
I'm sure that he recognizes the distinction. So again, I think the points made by the government are clear, and as hon. members opposite have said, concise.
Hon. Chair, recognizing the hour, it's five minutes to six. We could go on for another five minutes, but I suspect this is a debate that's going to go on for some time longer, so it might be just as well to adjourn at this point and continue tomorrow. With that said, I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada