Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1992

Volume 7, Number 2

[ Page 4351 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

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

On section 23.

J. Weisgerber: The effect of section 23 is clearly to do away with the vote on certification in British Columbia. Let me say first of all that I think it's an unfortunate decision that the government has taken. It seems to me almost impossible that we in this Legislature -- members elected by secret ballot -- are even debating whether or not people should have the opportunity, by secret ballot, to confirm or deny their intention to belong to a trade union and have their employer certified at the end of the day.

In yesterday's discussions the minister used several arguments to defend the government's position. The main thrust of his argument seemed to be that many other jurisdictions in Canada don't have a secret ballot and that until 1984 British Columbia did not use the secret ballot as a method of confirming the wishes of employees to belong to a union. He seemed to somehow suggest that this was a reason for us to do away with the secret ballot now. He also suggested that there had been an increase in the number of charges of unfair labour practices, and he somehow related that increase to the introduction of a secret ballot on certification.

I was somewhat taken aback by the statistics he used, because he referred to the growth in the number of charges of unfair labour practices in the years 1987 to 1990 as proof of the increase. I say that I was somewhat taken aback by that, because, by his own admission, the secret ballot was introduced in British Columbia in 1984. It reminds me of the old saying: figures lie and liars figure. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that the minister is not telling the truth, but it seems to me that at the very least he is being selective in the statistics that he uses to make his point.

If that were not the case, it seems to me that he would tell us about the increases in unfair labour practices. First of all, with his very able staff, he would identify the number of unfair labour practices -- charges of interference or intimidation -- that surround the certification ballot process. I believe the numbers -- he has never quantified them -- and the statistics that he gives us are for unfair labour practices generally. He uses the years '88, '89 and '90 because they happen to make an argument that he would like to make as well. I would certainly be interested in hearing the statistics related to unfair labour practice charges around certification votes for the years 1985, '86 and '87, when the secret ballot was first introduced.

Let me say that I cannot accept the argument that something is inappropriate simply because other jurisdictions don't use it. British Columbia has always been a jurisdiction in which labour conflict was at the forefront. It has also been a jurisdiction that has had to show leadership across the country in terms of labour legislation. I believe that it is natural -- and that one would expect -- that here in British Columbia we would adopt a secret ballot on certification perhaps earlier than other jurisdictions. But I don't for a minute accept the argument that a procedure that has been in place in this province for most of ten years is somehow inappropriate, based on the information that the minister has given us.

The minister also suggests that he wouldn't consider an amendment to this section, because it is an issue that was unanimously agreed upon by the subcommittee of three. If the minister is taking the position that he is coming to this Legislature with the notion of debating this bill, but is not willing to consider an amendment on any of the 98 percent of the sections that were supported by his committee of three, I believe that's an affront to this Legislature. I believe that it should be the process of government to get the best advice it can as it drafts its legislation. Surely the decisions on whether or not amendments should go forward are the prerogative of this Legislature, not the three labour lawyers the minister engaged to help him develop legislation. Surely the interests of British Columbia are broader than the interests of those three gentlemen, no matter how well qualified they are.

[10:15]

I am only concerned that, as has been pointed out, Mr. Chairman -- and I know you're going to suggest that I get to the section -- we are dealing with one of the most fundamental sections of this bill, one that goes to the heart of what we're all about and one that is fundamental to us. Quite honestly, I am surprised to learn that it appears to be, on the other hand, fundamental to the government.

This government is saying that it is fundamentally opposed to a secret ballot, and it uses arguments that are anything but convincing -- in my eyes at least. I have not heard anything other than the fact that other jurisdictions haven't moved into the eighties and the nineties and are still using certification cards as their sole method of certification. I haven't heard statistics from the minister that would convince me that the unfair labour practices that he likes to quote are related directly to certification and certification votes; nor am I satisfied with the years he has selected, because they don't conform to the years in which the secret ballot was introduced in British Columbia; nor has he given us any information to suggest how many of those unfair labour practices that might deal with certification votes have succeeded and how many unfair labour practices have been filed by employers.

How many employers have come forward and said: "We believe that union organizers used unfair labour practices"? I suggest there won't be many of those. If an employer is the subject of a successful certification

[ Page 4352 ]

drive, he is unlikely to file an unfair labour practice because, to use the minister's words, the employer wouldn't want to "disease the relationship" right of the bat by filing an unfair labour practice on a successful certification drive. And if the certification drive were unsuccessful, then it's highly unlikely that the employer would file that kind of complaint.

My point is that I don't think the statistics truly reflect the situation as it exists. They don't conform to the realities that are there. There are unfair labour practices on both sides of the issue. At the end of the day, the secret ballot is the one way by which an employee, the subject of a certification drive, has an opportunity, without influence from either side, to cast their ballot in the way that reflects their true intent and their true wishes. It is unfortunate that the government seems to have taken such a stubborn and intransigent stance on this issue, because the issue is important not only to employers in this province but also to workers. I don't believe that workers in this province want the government to deny them an opportunity to have a secret ballot on a certification vote.

Hon. M. Sihota: I listened with interest to the comments made by the member opposite. We started this debate yesterday, and I made some points at that time. I'm mindful of the rules about tedium and repetition, hon. Chairman, and I don't want to end up repeating myself too much. In fact, I'm going to be short in my reply to the hon. member, because I know he has obviously taken the time to read what I had to say yesterday, when I talked for quite some time with regard to this issue.

I want to deal with the statistical issue first and just get that out of the way. You're right: in terms of the statistics I gave yesterday, there was no breakdown there of how many of those complaints dealt with the issue that we're talking about here; how many of them were directly related to matters relating to intimidation, coercion or manipulation by an employer. They are general numbers.

If you want the numbers from 1984 on, hon. member, I'll give them to you, for what they're worth. To be honest with you, when I was engaged in debate yesterday, I just picked the numbers from '88 or '87 on. It has been my habit to do that, because generally we've been dealing with Bill 19. But you're correct: I probably should have started with '84 on, because that's when the situation found itself.

We have two categories: alleged dismissals contrary to sections 2 or 3 and other complaints pursuant to sections 2 or 3. There were 155 complaints in 1983; 140 in 1984; 136 in 1985; 173 in 1986; 162 in 1987; 122 in 1988; 164 in 1989; 364 in 1990; 335 in 1991. So in terms of those two categories, those have been the numbers. Yesterday I gave you the number of other complaints pursuant to section 2 or 3. Again from 1984 on, the numbers are: 60 in 1984; 74 in 1985; 97 in 1986; 85 in 1987; 69 in 1988; 127 in 1989; 300 in 1990; and 262 in 1991.

I wasn't purposely trying to use statistics in an exaggerated way to make the point. The numbers speak for themselves. We've obviously seen an increase, particularly in the last couple of years, with regard to these matters. The panel had the number of 100 percent. I think your Labour critic had asked for the actual numbers, so I provided him with the actual numbers.

You're quite correct when you say that this is a philosophical issue in labour relations. We have to ask ourselves whether or not it makes good public policy sense to proceed with this change. The argument that I put forward in response is that I think it does, for all the reasons that I amplified upon yesterday. It prevents the relationship from being diseased at the front end, during the course of a representational campaign. It ensures that we go to a practice that is more conducive to moving us away from the adversarial, confrontational relationship we've had in labour-management relations in British Columbia, which we're trying to change with this legislation. It reflects on the experience in this province for the better part of 40 years prior to 1984, and it reflects on the experience in other provinces. I must say that I take some umbrage with the ease with which the hon. member tossed aside those last two points.

You have to ask yourself: why have eight out of the other ten jurisdictions in this country -- I'm counting the federal government to get eight out of ten -- arrived at the situation that was the practice in British Columbia for 40 years? I don't think anybody should be reluctant to make a change if a change is warranted, regardless of the practice in other jurisdictions. I agree with the hon. member on that point. But I also think that we have an equal obligation to take a look at practices in other jurisdictions and ask ourselves why they have that practice and why the practice in B.C. existed for the time period that it did. Then one has to arrive at a studied conclusion as to which approach is the best.

I don't want to be repetitious. If need be, we can extend the debate, and I will. But for all of the reasons that I amplified on yesterday, I think that what those other jurisdictions have done -- and hence what we are doing -- is the right way to go. It encourages a higher level of peace, recognizes that there is a vote in the grey area of 45 to 55 percent, and recognizes that there is a vote at the end of the day that tests the union's ability to deliver when the contract is resolved and gives the membership an opportunity to express an opinion in a far better setting, once they've had an opportunity to determine whether or not the union can deliver on the promises they've made as opposed to prior to that. It also recognizes the view that this is a decision to be made by employees and that most employers are not going to encourage their employees to unionize. In fact, they are going to do exactly the opposite, as Mr. Weiler indicated in the extract I read yesterday; and therefore it tries to put some limits on the provisions that deal with intimidation and coercion.

For all of those reasons, which I touched on yesterday, I think it makes good public policy sense to proceed in this direction. Quite honestly, if we felt otherwise, we would have charted a course different from other jurisdictions. You have to recognize that there is a good reason that everybody else is doing this. If it does make sense, then we should do it as well.

[ Page 4353 ]

J. Weisgerber: We need to have a better argument than: "Everyone else is doing it." If that were the only argument, why would we not simply adopt national labour legislation? Why would we have individual, provincial legislation? Why would we be here debating Bill 84? Why would we not simply adopt somebody else's legislation and say: "They do it; it must be good"? Obviously we wouldn't do that. Labour relations, particularly in British Columbia, are so important to our future, to our economic growth and to the confidence we have in our economy that we must have made-in-B.C. legislation.

Given the fundamental nature of this section -- a notion as to whether or not individuals would have a right to a secret ballot on certification -- I'm surprised that the minister doesn't come armed with better statistics. Surely to goodness we live in an information age where the government with all its resources should be able to come to this House and say that in 1984 there were so many allegations of unfair labour practices, and that a certain number of those related directly to the certification process, a certain number were filed by unions, a certain number were filed by management, and this many in each category succeeded. Surely you would have done the research that would have substantiated the position that you're taking, rather than simply coming to this House with a fundamental kind of philosophical argument that has been given to you by organized labour leaders and putting it on the table without the ability to in any way relate what you're changing to the difficulties being faced in the labour marketplace.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

I think it's unfortunate that we rely on statistics that somehow seem to be pretty flat from 1984 to 1990 -- six years without any significant increase in statistics around unfair labour practices. We look at a huge increase in the years 1990 and 1991, and we try to argue that somehow these statistics are related to the issues that we're debating around the secret ballot. Those have been proven to be so weak that I would think that the minister must feel compelled to either deliver some stronger arguments on this issue or reconsider his position on the amendments to the section. The arguments that we're hearing so far simply are not convincing.

[10:30]

The minister, both today and last evening, quoted Paul Weiler and suggested that the real test for a union was not when it was certified but that union's ability to deliver soon after certification. There might be some validity in that argument if the minister weren't introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation that ensures success. How can the union fail, given the kind of support that Bill 84 gives it? If it can't reach a first contract, the Labour Relations Board will impose one. This bill tilts all the areas so strongly in favour of the union and its executive that the argument around the test following certification isn't valid. Clearly the union will succeed with Bill 84. If you were to take section 23 in isolation and impose it onto our existing labour legislation, that might be a fair test of the union's ability to deliver. If, as the minister suggests, the organizers had taken unfair advantage and they had a number of unwilling members, their inability to deliver a contract after certification would surely discourage those members.

But that's not the case in this legislation. This legislation ensures success following certification. No matter how reluctant and no matter what kinds of coercion resulted in the 55 percent certification, the union is guaranteed that it will succeed in its first contract negotiations. How can it fail? Twenty days without a contract, and in comes Big Brother and imposes a contract. That's the test. If the union can't succeed in 20 days with a first contract, big government comes in and imposes a contract. There's absolutely no test there.

Mr. Chairman, there is no balance here. There are no checks and balances, and the logical democratic check is a secret ballot. I am appalled and disappointed that this government would see itself in a position of arguing against a secret ballot or of even introducing a section that would do away with a secret ballot. The question has been asked of me and I'm sure of many of us: "Well, what number would be fair? What would you like to see? If 55 percent isn't the right number, is 65 percent the right number -- or 75, 85 or 95 percent?" My answer is that there is no right number. It's such a fundamental right, that I would be opposed to a secret ballot denial with 95 percent. Clearly that would be more acceptable than 55 percent, but it would not be a fundamental principle that I could support.

We in the Social Credit caucus believe that this section is fundamentally wrong. We don't want to amend it; we want the minister to stand it down and to reinstate a secret ballot. I think that most British Columbians want that. I would challenge the minister, if he likes statistics, to do a little bit of statistic-taking, a little bit of polling. Ask British Columbians what they think of section 23 and the removal of the secret ballot. Then, Mr. Chairman, the minister will get one statistic that will confirm to him that his party is once again on the wrong side of an issue as it relates to the vast majority of British Columbians they purport to represent. So I would again appeal to the minister to reconsider this section and consider standing it down.

Hon. M. Sihota: For the first time since we've had this debate, the hon. member of the Social Credit Party, to which I've been unaccustomed to giving some credit in terms of their tenor during the course of this debate -- they have deserved it; it's been very good debate; I've enjoyed the experience of debating with the members opposite -- started to behave at the beginning of his comments like the Liberals have, and I was almost prepared to deal with him in the same fashion that I find myself at times dealing with the Liberals. But I won't, and I want to make a number of comments.

Let's step back for a moment and analyze the situation. We had a panel that went around the province. I think it fair to say that that panel was balanced. It represented a cross-section of views in British Columbia with regard to labour legislation.

[ Page 4354 ]

Inasmuch as both the Socred and Liberal opposition have criticized the panel now that they've seen the result, I note that at the time the panel was appointed, no one criticized it. There was general acceptance that it was a fair and balanced group of people with a lot of expertise on these matters to provide the government with some guidance and advice.

Secondly, let me say that the panel went around the province and listened to British Columbians. I think it fair to say that at the outset there was a divergence of views with regard to how this issue should be handled, including a view of some on the panel that there should be a vote in all cases. They'd become accustomed to the legislation as it had existed since 1984, and there was a practice that existed in British Columbia. As I said yesterday, there was a lot of evidence on this issue. And I am persuaded, in terms of my knowledge of what happened during the hearing process, that there was an abundance of information provided to the panel that led them to conclude that all too often, regrettably, there was undue influence from employers with regard to the certification drive. That was demonstrated to some extent in the numbers the hon. member takes issue with, but to a larger extent in the life experience of those who came before the panel and outlined their concerns as a consequence of what they had been involved in, given the interference by employers. That clearly got the panel to begin to take a look at the appropriate public policy options.

I guess in terms of debate, one can always use the fact that eight out of ten provinces are doing one thing either to support an argument or reject an argument, and we've heard both sides of that coin. The debate in here is replete with examples where some will defend a proposition on the basis that other provinces do it, and others will put the argument that just because everybody else does it doesn't mean it's right. That's a debating point, and one can use that argument either way. The hon. member is using it in a particular way today -- as I am, to defend our position. I'm sure that if he were as honest about it as I'm trying to be at this point, he'd also have to admit that we have both found ourselves on the other side of those arguments, given the issue that's before us. So that argument can be used both ways. When we use that argument, the real measure of who's right is to take a look not so much at the fact that eight out of ten do it but why they do it, and why it's right as opposed to being wrong.

In 1976 there was a case involving the IWA and Plateau Mills, an employer in the province. A group of employees at Plateau Mills did not wish to unionize. The panel of the Labour Relations Board at the time dealt with this whole issue of certification and votes during the course of its analysis of that case. I won't get into the facts of the case unless hon. members wish me to raise them. That case stands out in my mind because of the panel that was hearing the adjudication. Ed Peck, Don Munroe and Paul Weiler were the three adjudicators. A lot has been said about a lot of people in this House, including Mr. Peck, but I think it's also fair to say that all three of the individuals are well known in labour relations circles and are historically among the leading thinkers in terms of labour relations in this province -- if not North America, in the case of Mr. Weiler.

They looked at this issue. I'm going to take the time, in response to the hon. member, to go through some of the comments they made, because they touch on all of the issues that are part of the debate here in this House. I apologize for quoting so much, but it seems to me that they presented the case in such an eloquent way that it's worthy of consideration by the House. They said, on page 7 of their decision:

"No doubt there may be occasions when a secret ballot might produce a different result."

I start on that point, because it deals with a point the hon. member raised.

"Some employees may have joined the union as a result of peer group pressure."

Let me pause there again. I agree that this happens from time to time.

"Others may sign the application card without thinking too much about it and later change their minds. There may be a turnover in the unit and new employees may have quite different feelings about union representation. A solution for each of these problems might appear to be a board-ordered secret ballot, sometime after the board receives the application for certification and settles the proper unit."

I think that raises the issue that the hon. member raised. Let me continue from page 8 of their response to that issue:

"Unfortunately, the lesson of experience, both in this jurisdiction and elsewhere in Canada, is that the prospect of such a vote often produces a messy campaign. Most employers who run small businesses and who previously had dealt in an informal way with individual employees, are not likely to be enamoured of the decision of the employee group to band together for collective bargaining. A small, but still significant, number of such employers are prepared to take positive action to frustrate that employee choice. They may fire some employees, threaten or intimidate others, or promise wage improvements to the entire group, all in order to avoid unionization.

"In some cases, this effort is successful, and the urge towards collective bargaining is unlawfully, but effectively, aborted. Other times, a bitter legal battle takes place, the certification is preserved, but the future union-employer relationship is thoroughly poisoned. In either case, the losers are the individual employees, caught in the middle of this fight between the union and the employer."

I think those points are worth reflecting upon.

We've taken adjudication with regard to labour relations away from the courts and put it before an administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal. We entrust people to look at matters of labour relations, and we ask them to give us their input so that we can draft legislation that tries to remedy wrongs and deal with public interest considerations. One ought not to casually dismiss the lesson of their experience -- if I can use the phrase that they used. The lesson of their experience has been that it's unhealthy, and it creates a messy campaign. Fair enough.

[10:45]

But let's go further and take a closer look at what they also say. They say that in either case, the losers are the individual employees. They also say in their

[ Page 4355 ]

comments that the relationship between employer and employee -- if I recollect it correctly -- is poisoned by the representational campaign. In fact, they say: "Other times, a bitter legal battle takes place, the certification is preserved, but the future union-employer relationship is thoroughly poisoned."

What are we trying to do here in terms of labour relations? First of all, we recognize in this legislation -- as we have always done historically in this province, regardless of political stripe -- that unions have a legitimate place in the workforce. So we're beyond the question of whether there should or should not be unions. We've always agreed as a society that there is a place in our world for trade unions.

I think all of us believe that a poisonous relationship between employers and employees is something that ought to be avoided. If legislation can be the medicine to prevent that poison from occurring, then that's the way we should go. This legislation, for the reasons that have been articulated in this case, does precisely that. It tries, right at the beginning, to eliminate -- from what is, admittedly, a very adversarial relationship -- the potential for the relationship to become poisonous or diseased. I think it's a legitimate public policy objective for us, as legislators, to endeavour to take out anything which has the potential to poison the working relationship between employers and employees. If this does it, then we must give thought to proceeding on that course.

Certainly the recommendation here is that we do that, and certainly the intent of this legislation, if one looks at the provisions which we haven't yet debated, is to try to encourage unions and employers to work together through the joint consultative committee process that we've laid out in the legislation. It's also obviously trying to get rid of that adversarial and confrontational relationship, which I think has really hurt this province in terms of its competitiveness. We have to bring about that structural attitudinal change. I don't want to give a speech that I've given here many times before. But the way in which we drafted the legislation, by saying to business and labour, "Go and draft it and work it through," was part of beginning to change that relationship.

We can't overlook the lesson of experience; we must pay attention to it. We can't overlook the fact that what is being suggested here has the impact of poisoning the relationship. It's bad public policy, in my view, to proceed with legislative instruments that would poison the relationship.

They go on on page 9: "Does this legal policy in section 45" -- the section they were talking about -- "run an undue risk that unions will be foisted on a group of employees which is now strongly opposed to them?" So they pose the same question that the opposition posed in this House on several occasions during second reading debate, that somehow the majority, the 55 percent, are going to sign enough membership cards, and the rest will have something foisted upon them contrary to their will. Well, they looked at that issue too, and I quote: "An examination of the practical reality indicates why this is unlikely." Let me emphasize that: "An examination of the practical reality indicates why this is unlikely."

What they say is: let's again examine the real-life experience, and the real-life experience is that there is a vote. There is a vote when the union can bring some of the proof of the pudding to its own employees and say: "Well, have we delivered?" At that point employees effectively make a decision on whether or not they wish, by way of secret vote, to have their union represent them, because at that point it has been able to prove whether it can fulfil its mandate.

I appreciate that my time is up, hon. Chairman. I just have a few other comments, so if....

C. Serwa: I would like to see the minister conclude his comments. So if he would take my time, I'd be grateful.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member.

They Go On: "A later decertification vote...or a representation vote conducted upon the application of another union...is often just a formality to record the fact that the incumbent union no longer has the allegiance of the majority of the employees." So there is an opportunity by vote to really test support for the trade union at that point, and it's a legitimate time to prove it, because at that point the rhetoric of what an employer may say -- i.e., "I can't afford this" -- or the rhetoric of what the union might say, i.e., "We can deliver you the moon" -- is sort of behind us, and we're faced with the reality of what both parties can indeed produce in terms of an agreement. That's the true measure. At that point there's a vote.

They go on and say: "These three strands of argument -- the value of union membership cards as evidence of the employee wishes, the turmoil which surrounds many contested representation votes, and the practical need that the union maintain continuing employee support to obtain a first contract -- have persuaded Canadian legislatures that the representa-

[ Page 4356 ]

tion vote should not be the standard vehicle for obtaining certifications. That is the general rule."

So we have the view that membership cards are indeed evidence of an employee's wishes. That's one variable to consider. And let us not forget what our panel said in 1992. They said that there's no evidence that that's not wishes. So that's one thing we have to look at. The turmoil that surrounds many contested representation votes is the second thing that we have to look at. It's good public policy, for reasons I've already amplified on, not to have that turmoil. Third is the practical need of the union to maintain continuing employee support to obtain a first contract, and I've amplified on that point.

When you put those three arguments in front of those who are prepared to make public interest determinations, then the balance is tipped in favour of the kind of situation that we're proposing in this legislation, not just here in British Columbia but elsewhere in the country as well -- but most importantly here in British Columbia. If I can paraphrase the words of the hon. member for those who make the argument that this is not a made-in-B.C. solution, of course it is. We've looked at the experience from '84 on and experience prior to that, and we've developed legislation for British Columbia based on our objective to get rid of the turmoil and poison in order to encourage an end to the adversarial and confrontational relationship and get employers and employees to work together.

They say, on the basis of those three strands of the argument, that the balance is in favour of the general rule, which we've adopted. But they go on, so I think it's important to also put these points on the record, because in some ways they play into the points raised by the hon. member.

"A third, and perhaps more debatable, case is reflected in these hypothetical facts: The union has signed a bare majority of the employees in a relatively sizable unit; the composition of that unit is undergoing some change; a large minority of the employees is not simply passive in the face of the union but actively and vociferously opposed to it; the employer has in fact maintained a completely hands-off attitude to the intra-employee dispute."

Let me pause here. That's a hypothetical situation that has also come up during debate here in the House. Let's say a number of employees are totally turned off to the union and take issue with the union; some of them want it. The employer stays neutral and out of the dispute, and watches from the sidelines. Barely 55 percent are signed up.

"In that situation, can one say that the statutory goal expressed in section 27" -- which was the purposes section at the time -- "'collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representative of employees' -- is likely to flourish? Too often, the unhappy experience is in the negative."

Let me pause here. That meets the concern that some members have expressed in this House, and I'm putting it on the record, because I think it's an honest, straight-up comment. It's fair, if I'm going to quote from certain parts of the decision, to quote from all of them.

"For that reason the board does on occasion feel it appropriate to order a representation vote so as to obtain the kind of employee verdict that hopefully will clear the air, one way or the other."

So it's a fairly studied decision of Mr. Weiler, Mr. Peck and Mr. Munroe. I don't think anybody would question the calibre and credentials of those people. That's why we have put this in at the end of this provision with respect to 45-55, and that is why it is also found in the legislation.

Hon. member, I think that I appreciate superficial politics with regard to secret votes. I agree with you: if you were to take a poll and ask if we should have secret votes, in most instances in life people would probably say yes. But if you wanted to do a poll, you would also put all these arguments to people in a detailed and studied way. We all know about polls; we all know about argument testing; and we all know the numbers change after arguments have been put to people. I'm confident that if these arguments, as they're presented here and were considered by our panel, are put to people, they will meet the test of rising to the standard that I think this Legislature has to rise to -- i.e., that of making a determination that is in the public interest and is conducive to harmonious relationships between employers and employees, and which takes us away from confrontational attitudes and tries to put, at the appropriate place, a relevant test for whether or not employees acquiesce to representation by a trade union. I think good public policy is captured in eight of the other ten jurisdictions in this country -- seven out of nine provinces and the federal government -- and is now recaptured in this province with this legislation.

[11:00]

J. Weisgerber: It has certainly given us some perspective with which to approach this issue. I would suggest that if we were taking a poll and if, in order to have an accurate poll, we gave those being polled the basis on which to assess the issue, those people would be surprised to find that the best argument the government and the minister could put forward is in two examples. Out of the whole history of British Columbia labour relations, he was able to find only two examples: one from 1976, when there was no vote, and one hypothetical case, because he couldn't find another case that would make his point.

I think that the number of people who would be distrustful and would vote in favour of a secret ballot and against the government on this issue would increase substantially by understanding that the government was on such weak footing and had such weak arguments that it had to go back to 1976. The minister probably never thought that he would stand in this House and use Ed Peck as someone to make his argument for him and then would have to look to the hypothetical for his number two argument.

I think that, perhaps better than anything, underlines how weak the government is on this position. For the minister to now say that the eight-of-ten-provinces argument can be argued from either side.... I couldn't agree more. He's the one who raised the eight-of-ten argument, not I. In his weak defence of this section, he has looked to the eight out of ten jurisdictions as his argument.

[ Page 4357 ]

The minister and the quotes he uses refer to life experience. Let's get serious and talk about life the way it really is. During a certification, as has been said many times, there are opportunities for undue influence, intimidation and coercion from both sides. We know that -- or we should know that if we don't. Our life experience should tell us that that happens. We happen to believe that a secret ballot is one way that, for at least an instant in time, removes the individual from the influence of either side. But the statistics will never confirm that, because the complaints about unfair labour practices will be put forward only by the side that fails.

I tried to make that argument before. When a union drive is unsuccessful, there is no loss to the union organizers in making a claim of unfair labour practices. There is absolutely no impediment. There is no risk; there is no downside to making the claim that they failed because of unfair labour practices. Indeed, you could argue that even the organizers themselves, in an effort to justify their own actions or failures in that activity, may well raise the spectre of unfair labour practices as some justification if they are personally being criticized for their lack or their inability to certify. The only other party that is likely to or would have any reason to file an unfair labour practices complaint under those circumstances is the employer when the union has been successful. Indeed, there are all kinds of reasons, as the minister has pointed out, that you wouldn't want to poison or disease the relationship right off the bat by claiming an unfair labour practice.

So it seems to me that the statistical evidence, as weak as the government's statistics are, would nevertheless be overwhelming if you used as a judge the number of cases of unfair labour practices that have been presented to the board. The test may well be the number that succeed, because if many of those allegations are mischievous and if the board is doing its job, you may find that while the number of cases filed increases, the number that succeed does not increase in relationship. If I were looking for some statistical argument, that would be, at the very best, the argument I would look to. I would be far more inclined to use my common sense, my experience and my understanding of the issue, and recognize that some of the people who signed a certification card wouldn't have done so of their free will.

Indeed, while the minister was struggling and could find only one real case that he thought made his point, he read into the record the argument that some of them would have signed cards because of peer pressure when it was not their real desire, and that some of them might have signed the card without thinking very carefully. I would ask you: how many of them -- 10 percent, or 15 percent? What's the right number? We didn't get any indication of that, and I don't think anyone knows. If we are living in a basic democracy, the very least we should expect is that a decision by employees be made only when a majority of them agree. Even this government must accept that basic principle. So if we accept the argument that 55 percent of the cards is sufficient, even using an argument that suggests that all of those cards won't reflect the true intent of the worker, I don't believe we can with any degree of certainty suggest that 55 percent of the cards means that at least 50 percent plus one of the people are genuine in their desire to see certification go ahead.

That brings us back, obviously, to the secret ballot. It is such a fundamental thing that it's hard for me to understand why we have to keep coming back to the one logical kind of balance, the one logical kind of safety check that has been in place and that seems to work so well.

The minister suggests that somehow the panel approved of this provision. I find myself unsure, when the minister talks about the panel, whether he's talking about the three labour lawyers or about the larger advisory panel, because while that larger group was brought together and, we believe, had some involvement in this process, we see nothing in the material tabled in this House to suggest what thoughts or concerns there were, or what unwillingness there was in that larger group about some of the proposals being brought forward. If I understand the minister correctly, one of the three labour lawyers who made up the subcommittee was, at least initially, opposed to this section. The minister was unclear, but I suspect that's the case. I would be curious to know the position taken by the larger group of people on this issue. I would be curious to know whether it was Mr. Roper who was opposed to this section and was convinced to change his mind. If it were, let's understand....

It's been said in this House a number of times, but I think it bears saying again: the credentials of the three people who sat on the subcommittee are not in question. Their experiences and backgrounds, however, suggest that their attitudes and positions may not necessarily reflect the feelings of unorganized workers and unorganized employers. All three of those people have backgrounds that assume trade union certification activity. Their life experiences -- as the minister likes to say -- have been in the union movement. If the argument is being made that the advisers to government supported this position, then the minister should be clear in letting us know exactly who he's talking about. If it's the subcommittee, then we can understand that while Mr. Roper may well have been persuaded to change his mind, that in no way reflects the broader belief held by workers, both unionized and otherwise.

Let me say that I accept the minister's position that there is a place for trade unions in British Columbia. I have no argument with that, nor do I want to see the trade union movement torn down. What I want to see are workers whose organization represents the true wish of at least 50 percent plus one of the members of that employee group. I want to see a situation where employers and employees -- everyone involved -- has the confidence of knowing that for a split second in time each of the subjects of the certification drive were free of influence from either side and had an opportunity to mark a ballot and reflect their position. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to give anyone that assurance, because of the way it's structured.

The minister went back to 1976 for his one and only good argument. He brought out the argument that the union's ability to deliver on a first contract was the real

[ Page 4358 ]

test for the union. But that was in the 1976 environment, not in the environment created by Bill 84. Bill 84 takes away the union's challenge to earn or win or achieve a first settlement contract. The legislation will impose it. There is no pressure on the union to deliver. I am not naive enough -- nor are many people naive enough -- to believe that that was an accident. This legislation is very carefully crafted and put together, and there's a thread that runs through it. This whole business is very much a part of it.

I am interested to hear some arguments from the minister, perhaps something going into the eighties and perhaps even the nineties. We might even look for an example from the nineties that would give us a modern-day look, something that would give us an up-to-date, current kind of argument, because 1976.... The minister has a huge research staff; he has a lot of ability to come prepared for this argument. And for him to have been able to find only a certification of a mill in 1976 that had just been purchased by his mentor, the Barrett government, who were in the midst of labour turmoil at the time.... For them to have that as the only argument to bring forward convinces me that the government has very little but rhetoric and promises to their friends in the union executive to support this section of the bill.

A. Cowie: This is the one section that I've had more calls and letters on than any other. In spite of the many good things in this bill -- and there are many good things here -- there are four or five critical items, and this is one of them.

On the 55 percent sign-up for certification, and the secret vote more than anything, the minister has mentioned that it's largely a philosophical issue, and I understand that. He spoke most eloquently, and I must say that I listened very attentively and was being lulled into being persuaded by the argument. But getting back to the very fundamental philosophical argument, I believe very strongly in the secret vote. As the leader of the third party mentions, we really have to look at the eighties and nineties. The NDP as a whole on the municipal level.... As Municipal Affairs critic I see this daily, and in my experience, the people are demanding to have more say in decisions. Whether it's what's happening in the community or simply whether you're going to become a member of a union or not, they're all items that citizens want to have more of a say in. And oddly enough it's the NDP that in many cases takes the leadership on this and insists that there be votes and public participation. Therefore I find it very odd that the NDP and the minister would use the philosophical argument in the nineties, when people are in fact demanding a right to have a say and therefore demand to have a vote.

[11:15]

I wonder if the minister has considered a compromise whereby if the certification reached the 55 percent level, there could still be a vote, and the employer would perhaps have a shorter time to respond, negotiate and be concerned with his employees. After all, if a firm is going to vote 50 to 55 percent and there's a major problem, that firm is probably not going to be successful anyway. I think it's very important that the employer have that opportunity to clarify issues. It's very important that he have that opportunity, just as it's important that the worker have a right to express his real feelings in a secret ballot. So I wonder if the minister has had any thoughts on the matter of shortening to perhaps 72 hours the period that the employer has to meet with the workers and the union to work out the direction the firm is going and any possible difficulties -- and still keeping the vote.

Hon. M. Sihota: The matter of the time period is actually dealt with in the next section. Be that as it may, let me just say, without being told by the Chair that I'm out of order, that the practical realities are that it is very difficult to actually have a vote within a 72-hour period. In British Columbia, traditionally, ten days seems to be about the minimum that's required. Given that, it seems to allow too much time for the type of practice that I'm sure none of us want to see but indeed does occur.

A. Cowie: Thank you for allowing me to ask a question in advance, and I appreciate the answer.

On another point. At the municipal level -- and as critic for Municipal Affairs I tend to look at things in this area -- I have absolutely no problem with unions. All municipalities are unionized. I have absolutely no debate on that at all, and I don't think anybody has. As the leader of the third party said in his discussion, there's no problem with unionization, especially large unions. It's very important to have that fellowship and that opportunity to negotiate at a level where you have some strength. It's in small business that I have a real concern. We talked about poison. Whether it's poison or not, I can tell you that many employers, as well as workers in small businesses, simply can see no advantage at all in unions. For instance, take the building business, the small house builder or even the builder who builds multiple housing. Most of that building is non-union. Making such a builder a unionized firm and trying to promote that is not really going to help the business at all. I would ask if the minister has thought at all of excluding small businesses. Has he thought at all about the limits on this?

Also -- I might as well get this question out and then I won't have to stand up again -- take Purdy's Chocolates, that I happen to know quite a bit about. There's an excellent firm doing good business. It produces good chocolates and is able to have a very healthy labour-management relationship. There's no way that they're going to unionize anyway, but there's a threat and a possibility that perhaps in one little branch or one little store they could start a union, and then all the other stores would follow along the line. I'm just wondering if the minister has had any requests from small businesses or from workers in small businesses to have this certification clause.... Is there any evidence that it's desirable at all for small businesses, which make up the majority of this province? We rely very heavily on small business to take us out of the present recession.

[ Page 4359 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Before I respond, I just wanted to say a few things to the hon. member. I think you raise some interesting issues. I was listening to your comments, particularly with regard to Purdy's Chocolates and the housing sector. I don't think that you should lose sight of the fact that employees, being intimately familiar with an operation -- a small operation in particular, where employers and employees work very closely together -- are not unaware of the realities and the difficulties of a business. It would be unfair for anyone to suggest that somehow employees would just jump at the chance to be in a trade union. They have to be persuaded that it is in their interest to do so and that they won't lose their jobs, in terms of driving the company under if it's close to the line. At the same time, the fact of the matter is that employees give a lot of thought as to whether or not they wish to join a union.

I would commend to the hon. member the ten opening pages of the report that was tabled with the legislation, for the following reason. Unions have to have a challenge to meet as well, which I think they have generally failed to meet. They have to show themselves to be relevant to the workers whom they seek to represent in the service, retail and small business sectors. The report says:

"The statistical information is revealing. In British Columbia in 1991 over 90 percent of workers in business services, real estate companies, financial institutions, insurance companies and retail trade are non-union. More than 85 percent of the workers in restaurants and bars fall into the same category. These are the fastest-growing sectors of the economy, and the large percentage of jobs in these areas fall to adult women and part-time youth. As a result, private sector industries with high unionization rates are today often exclusively male workplaces, while industries with less than 20 percent unionization rates are predominately staffed by women or part-time workers.

"Size of firm is also a significant variable affecting the rate of unionization. The smaller the workforce, the more likely that workers in it will not have collective bargaining. A small workplace is today eight times less likely to be organized than a large firm in the same industry. At the same time, small businesses are the fastest-growing sector in the economy. These fast-growing, service-oriented enterprises typically have a preponderance of women in their workforces, and the absence of collective bargaining makes it more difficult to address the wage gap between men and women."

It goes on to suggest that the challenge unions have to meet is to prove themselves to be relevant to that fastest-growing sector of the economy. This legislation, with the 55 percent provision -- with or without the secret vote -- isn't, in my mind, the issue in terms of trade unions. If unions are to be able to represent workers in those fast-growing sectors of the economy, they have to demonstrate that what they do will be in the interest of both that worker and the company. Whether you have a 55 percent provision or not and whether you have a secret ballot or not, if they fail to meet that challenge of relevancy, they're going to have difficulty in establishing a foothold from their perspective in that element of the workforce.

Quite often in this debate the fear is put out, I would suggest, by the opposition that somehow there will be an incredible quantum of unionization taking place in all these sectors. My suggestion to you, hon. member, is that I don't think that will happen unless unions are prepared to structure themselves and present cases to those employees who are smart and who know the dynamics of a competitive workforce and climate, and unless they're able to be relevant and to structure their argument in such a way as to win the support and favour of that sector. There's a real challenge to private-sector unions which, to a large measure, they have had some difficulty meeting in the past. It's a challenge of relevancy. They have to demonstrate that they are capable of meeting the needs of today's workforce. If not, I don't think you will see those statistics change.

A. Cowie: I feel much more confident now. I appreciate the minister giving me the confidence that unionization isn't relevant in some of these situations. I agree, and I think I can go back to Canadian Tire, for example, and feel confident in telling them that the minister wouldn't be advocating unionization of that industry, where they have a lot of entry-level people in bottom-end jobs. Then they offer a good incentive program so that after four or five years, they can get educational funding to go to university. Those clearly aren't long-term jobs and should not be unionized. There would be absolutely no benefit in doing that.

It's the same with small building firms. I think there would be no logic there either. Anyway, I wish to thank the minister for giving me a little more confidence to pass on to some of these small firms that are struggling to create more jobs in this province.

L. Fox: I was extremely appreciative that the minister brought up the issue of Plateau Mills, given that that is in my back yard and I'm very familiar with what went on between '74 and '76. I can only suggest that the recommendations he quoted and the article he quoted fell short of recommending that there should have been a vote in that particular instance. If you read between the lines, it certainly indicated that it would have helped the process. As an individual who saw the process happen, right from the time that the provincial government purchased that sawmill in 1974.... In fact, even before that date the IWA and the government were talking about certification of Plateau Mills.

I could use this particular incident, which the minister has brought up from 1976, to indicate exactly the purpose and the reason for a vote. The minister knows full well what the makeup of the sawmill was, what the ethnic background of its workforce was and so forth. In many cases these individuals could not even read English, never mind understand what somebody was telling them -- and of course, this somebody was a union organizer. There were real and solid reasons there for a need for communication between someone else and the union organizer. I could actually tell a very lengthy story about that process and point out, using exactly the same incident, the reasons that there should be a vote, and why we're speaking in favour of replacing the 55 percent with a vote.

[ Page 4360 ]

However, I just had a couple of key questions that I'd like to ask the minister. One is that I'd like to know how many individuals went before the three wise men and asked that their vote be removed.

[11:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: If I understand the question, are you saying people who are already unionized?

L. Fox: Let me clarify. He talked earlier, when the member for Peace River South stood up, about the process. How many individual people came out, participated in the process and asked that their right to vote on certification be removed?

Hon. M. Sihota: We've had a lot of submissions on this issue, as I said earlier on. I gave some numbers in the House yesterday. I'll put them on the record again in a moment. You should understand that we didn't break down each submission that may have made these points if it was a general point that they covered quickly and went on to other issues, so the number is a little misleading in that regard. Urging that the current practice of mandatory votes be retained were 51 employers or employer organizations, two unions, one employee association and two private individuals; 51 unions or union organizations and the Construction Labour Relations Association advocated automatic certification based on signed membership cards. Those are the numbers that I put on the record yesterday.

That is not to suggest that there weren't a lot of other comments with regard to this issue. I wanted to get that clear. That is not to say that the CLRA advocated that position as an employer for employees generally; they did it only in the context of the construction industry.

L. Fox: If I understand what the minister said, there were only two individuals. Other than that, the submissions to ask that the votes be removed all came from organized labour.

Hon. M. Sihota: Two individuals asked that the mandatory vote be retained.

L. Fox: I suggest that out of the 296 -- if I correctly remember -- oral presentations and 304 written presentations, the only two submissions on an individual's right to vote on certification that came from individuals were the two individuals who wanted it retained. The reason I asked the question was to find out whether our suspicions were correct and the thrust was from the unions, or whether there was some concern from individuals wanting to certify. There obviously was not.

D. Schreck: Keep going.

L. Fox: I will keep going, because perhaps my speaking will prevent us from hearing from the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

I also want some specific questions addressed by the minister, and I respect the fact that he's not going to be able to do that at the present time. With respect to the secret ballot, I point out, as the minister did, the 1976 Plateau mills incident, which certainly proved -- in my view and in the view of the community -- that a secret ballot could have solved a lot of discomfort by both the employees and by management. By the way, at that time the management was the board of directors and not the NDP government, because the NDP government lost in 1975, as you'll recall.

Now that the minister is back, I'll just quickly ask a question. The only two individuals who made presentations on the right to vote made those presentations on the positive side. How can the minister justify, given the situation in 1988...? Twelve of 16 inside workers at Northwood in Prince George signed a card to certify, but when the vote actually came to be, only four voted in the affirmative. That's a much more recent example than the 1976 example. Given the fact that the two individuals who made presentations made presentations to retain the vote, how can the minister stand up and suggest that he's representing individual British Columbians in changing this certification process to where signing 55 percent of the employees by the union organizer automatically certifies that employee group.

Hon. M. Sihota: A number of points. First of all, I purposely gave you the information with a prefatory comment, and you did exactly what I thought you'd do. You took the two and used that information to sort of trivialize the number of representations. Let's not forget that we had lots of other submissions which weren't written. We received oral representations from people in community after community, pointing out the problems with regard to this issue. We had all sorts of people who showed up as individuals to speak on the issue. Given the way that we kept our numbers, that's the best number I can give you.

Second, let's not forget that it's good public policy to do this. That's why eight out of ten other provinces or jurisdictions in Canada do it, including the federal government. Third, let's not forget that the Social Credit Party had these very provisions in place for the better part of 30 years. It's somewhat hypocritical for you to suggest now that it should be different. Fourth, let's not forget...

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm paraphrasing my arguments. ...that we want to remove a poisonous aspect of the relationship from the legislation, and we're doing that by the changes we've made. Fifth, let's not forget that government has a responsibility, which I'm sure the hon. member is aware of, to make public policy determinations which are in the public interest. It's always easy to succumb to what on the face of it seem to be appealing arguments. We are elected to study issues, analyze situations and arrive at learned conclusions. I don't want to rest my argument on the basis that eight out of ten do it, but for all of the reasons why they do it; and for all of the reasons which I have articulated this morning in some depth, we're doing it here in British Columbia.

[ Page 4361 ]

It is good, sound public policy to proceed with this form of certification by membership cards. It has been good, sound public policy in this country for a long time, and it ought to happen here in British Columbia again. For that we make no apologies, hon. member.

L. Fox: I guess, then, that the slogan "back to the future" is probably an appropriate one. We're going backwards when we deny the right to vote, rather than moving forward. As the member for Peace River South stated so eloquently: because others are doing it doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

The minister suggests that they have the mandate to develop good, strong public policy. I don't disagree with that, but in that also is the goal to represent the majority of British Columbians' interests, not those of a minority. I think that's one key fact that has been lost here. I really respect the process that another minister is going through. He has produced a discussion paper on elections of local government, and has put it out to all municipalities and regional districts so they can give their input on some very, very difficult and very -- I would suggest -- emotional issues, not unlike this bill and this clause.

I find it odd that the minister wouldn't have floated this. I can assure you that had he put this through a like public process, the overwhelming majority of this province would have come out and spoken against this particular aspect. They would not want to lose the right to mark the "X" on that given day. Another thing that they would have related to, in my view, because it's been passed on to me many times, is that all signing cards would have had to be dated, and they would have had to have a time-frame within which to complete the exercise.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Well, it's not indicated here, and my understanding is that a particular time-frame is in fact dependent upon a particular union's policies and bylaws. It is not consistent, but if I'm wrong in that, I would be pleased to have the minister tell me that, because I know it wasn't that way in the 1976 case the minister put forward. Perhaps, before I ask any further questions, I'll allow him to clarify that for me.

A further point that I think individuals would have been extremely concerned about, as would employers, is: what in fact is the definition of an employee for the purposes of this vote? When you read the definitions, it's very clear that there's no discrimination between a permanent employee and a part-time employee. A couple of times in the House the minister acknowledged a letter that I handed to him from one of the employers in my community that has a huge range of employees throughout the year. It can go down to three or four, or it could be up to 200. Who gets to vote? Whether or not they should have the right to vote is the real question with respect to that issue.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's already in the legislation, section 22, hon. member.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister whether this section governs all government employees.

Hon. M. Sihota: The Public Service Labour Relations Act applies.

K. Jones: I note that there are modifications to the Public Service Labour Relations Act in the latter sections of this bill, which, as you say, applies here, but they don't address the variance between the wording of this particular section and this section of Bill 84. Could you explain how you're going to address that variance?

Hon. M. Sihota: The Public Service Labour Relations Act doesn't come under the purview of the Ministry of Labour. The hon. member should know that.

K. Jones: I'm sorry that the minister has to take such a confrontational approach to this. I'm trying to be supportive of the legislation and point out that there appears to be a discrepancy between the Public Service Labour Relations Act, in which only a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit are necessary for automatic certification, and this bill, which calls for 55 percent of the employees for automatic certification. Could you explain why there is a variance?

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair is having a little difficulty and would ask you to tie your remarks specifically to section 23.

[11:45]

K. Jones: The remarks were directly related to section 23. In this section it talks about a requirement of not less than 55 percent of the employees in good standing in the unit before there is an automatic certification. It seems to me that there is a difference for government employees where they only require 50 percent. I was wondering why there would be a difference in this certification requirement from that of the other legislation. Since the minister has seen fit to -- as we'll see in later sections -- make modifications to the Public Service Labour Relations Act to bring their sections in line with this bill, I was wondering why he had overlooked this section.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member would like to amend this provision to change the number from 55 to 50, I'm sure that it would provoke an interesting debate in this House.

L. Fox: I did want to go back to the one question I asked that the minister didn't answer. Reading through Bill 84, there's no time-frame limitation to the certification process. I cannot see it in there. My concern, of course, is how long a union organizer can have to solicit 55 percent of the employees?

Hon. M. Sihota: The board has the jurisdiction, and always had, to look at the staleness of the cards. If they are stale, it warrants different considerations in the board's mind. That principle has existed for some time.

[ Page 4362 ]

There's nothing in the legislation that takes it away. I would expect that if the board had evidence before it that cards were stale dated or had become stale because they were dated such a long time back, they would apply the kind of test that they applied in the past with regard to these types of matters.

L. Fox: Well, we know, hon. Chair, that when we write a cheque and we use a date six months in the past, it is stale dated. What's the minister's definition of stale dated in terms of this process?

Hon. M. Sihota: The board has developed some guidelines with regard to those types of matters. Off the top of my head I can't remember what the guidelines are. They may be in the 90-day realm. That's our best recollection at this point. Over the lunch hour I can certainly try to get you that information, hon. member.

K. Jones: On the recommendation of the hon. minister with regard to the percentage required for automatic certification, I will take his recommendation and bring it forward with an amendment under section 173 to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act to bring that up to a 55 percent certification requirement, just as in this bill. I'm sure that that will be supported by the minister.

C. Serwa: I have to give the minister first-class marks for trying to defend something that is fundamentally indefensible. I think he is doing a superb effort on a situation which is so fundamental and so basic. Nevertheless, I think we're all aware that the barroom ballot seems to be triumphing over the secret ballot, and I have grave concerns with that particular situation. The minister makes a great deal about eliminating a poison in his support of the certification process with the cards and 55 percent. The minister has used that word repetitively, and he expresses concern with respect to it. While he perhaps has a deep-seated commitment to eliminating a poison, it's paradoxical that the party that uses the "democratic" word in its name.... We had the Minister of Finance speak yesterday about the level of democracy in trade unions, that they willingly deny the secret ballot on the basis that somehow there would be some profound poisonous element that would prevail, not only at the moment but for all time. I suggest that it is a very weak and spurious type of argument to eliminate something that is so fundamentally important.

I suppose we could make the analogy of caging a wild animal and then coming up with all sorts of reasons, once we've caged it, why that animal is so much better off -- perhaps the predators won't prey on it, or perhaps its life expectancy is so much greater. We could come up with a number of arguments, but I suggest that all of those arguments would not be really valid. The home of that particular animal would be in the forest or on its native terrain. I would suggest it's fundamental that the only security in our whole democratic process is the opportunity to peruse the diversity of opinion that comes forward.

It was really interesting for me to note in the minister's use of the 1976 court case with respect to Plateau Mills that there was a specific identification of employee interests, union interests and employer interests by the three participants in the ruling. In spite of all of the comments the minister made with respect to that, there was clearly an established, identifiable realization that the interests of the union are substantial and tend to dominate the employees. I would suggest that that tremendous interest in the aspect of the union, and not the democratic rights of the individual workers, is what is determining the 55 percent.

There is very little question in my mind that this particular process is not going to reduce any of the conflict. As the minister stated, while the objective is to reduce the controversy or conflict in union management or union-employer types of relationships, this will not mitigate that in any way, shape or form. What it will substantially do is deny the prospective union member the right of access to the information, and it will deny him the right to exercise his own independent decision by way of the secret ballot process without fear of a reprisal in any way, shape or form. When you look at this in the context of section 23 and in the context of other things that have preceded -- for example, the restriction on freedom of speech -- it clearly shows an overwhelming bias to weight the whole situation so as to encourage unionism throughout British Columbia.

The interesting thing is that sometimes the thing that we support most ardently turns around and bites us. I guess a recent example is the repealing of Bill 82 -- and I'm using this to make a point -- which really put a cap on public sector wages. That has turned around and caused a great deal of devastation in the Ministry of Education. I think the minister is aware of it. Certainly the Minister of Education, who is here, is aware of it. Fundamentally what happened was that the efforts of the BCTF were, in fact, too successful.

D. Streifel: We're not on Bill 82.

C. Serwa: I agree that we're not on Bill 82, but I'm trying to make a point.

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.

C. Serwa: I'm trying to make the point that while the BCTF and the government of the day perhaps had the best of intentions and commitments, the net result of that effort was devastation in the Ministry of Education. I would suggest that if there is a denial in section 23 of the opportunity for a union member to exercise a free vote, then we're taking a step back rather than bringing in forward-looking legislation. We're introducing an anachronism into this act.

I would also suggest that if this section remains in place -- along with many other very biased union sections -- we will witness the last hurrah of the union movement in British Columbia. The government, which pretends to support unionization, will in fact be the cause of a tremendous backlash against the union movement.

[ Page 4363 ]

Hon. Chair, I notice that the minister would like to make a point.

Hon. M. Sihota: I couldn't resist this, because I just saw it. First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for his kind comments about my ability to defend this legislation in the House. It's much appreciated. But I should let him know that that's not the ultimate compliment. I just happened to be scanning the Vancouver Sun today, and there's a story about the Socreds -- if I may be allowed the liberty for a moment -- suddenly being decimated in the 1991 election campaign and having to go to Hansard to figure out how to function in opposition. And who were their role models? None other than myself and the Minister of Finance. That's the ultimate compliment.

On that note, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. R. Blencoe moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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