1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 7, Number 3
[ Page 4365 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
L. Krog: It's with great pleasure today that I introduce one of my constituents from the sober community of Whisky Creek, Mr. Chad Thatcher.
Hon. E. Cull: I would like to introduce Linda Graham, who is the coordinator of World AIDS Day, and Dale Weston, who is the executive director of AIDS Vancouver Island. Both these individuals are in the gallery, and I would ask the members to make them welcome.
J. Dalton: In the gallery today we have two visitors from Nelson: Dr. Patricia Murphy and Aleen Norris, both representing the Nelson University Centre. Would the House please make them both welcome.
N. Lortie: It's my pleasure to introduce four people from my community representing the Burns Bog Conservation Society. In the members' gallery are president Eliza Olson, Inger Kam, Don De Mille and Sue Johnson. Would the House please make these bog people welcome.
G. Brewin: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a famous restaurateur from Victoria. Chris Causton of Rattenbury's restaurant is here, and I would like the House to make him welcome.
B.C. TRANSIT
D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. Why would this minister float a trial balloon on a parking-stall tax and study an enviro-tax proposal when a September confidential report on B.C. Transit reveals an organization that doesn't even have its own fiscal house in order?
Hon. G. Clark: It is true we inherited some significant problems with B.C. Transit from the previous administration. [Laughter.] The members can laugh, but we're doing the best we can to get on top of these very difficult problems. This Social Credit legacy is one, in some of the Crowns and in government, which will go down in history for some time. The board of directors of B.C. Transit has, as have the boards of the other Crowns, commissioned a series of reviews on questions of management, structure and financing, and the like. That's a prudent and appropriate course of action for the boards to take. The board has received several reports on B.C. Transit. I have full confidence in the board and management to implement any changes that arise out of recommendations from the various reports they've commissioned.
D. Symons: That may explain the past, but I'm looking at the present and the future. According to the study, the failure to adequately structure management accountability has made the B.C. transit system increasingly difficult to fund through new tax strategies. Is this part of the government's strategy: to tax now and undertake efficiencies later?
Hon. G. Clark: The Transit Corporation, largely as a result of the SkyTrain extension to Surrey, faces a $29 million shortfall this fiscal year, which would escalate to some $40 million next year if no action was taken. Action has been taken. There has been a significant reduction in both the provincial government subsidy and the local share subsidy as a result of dramatic and significant cost savings found by the corporation, in part spurred on by various reports. The member referred to one of them. And further action will be taken. However, this is a significant shortfall.
In addition, we obviously have an urgent and pressing need for transit initiatives to both the Coquitlam and Maple Ridge areas in the northeast corner, as well as to the Richmond sector and other parts of the province. We are taking action. The transit commission, as well as the board of directors of B.C. Transit, are working hard on solutions. These reports, of course, will help guide some of their deliberations.
D. Symons: I'm glad the minister mentioned the financial figure there. Can he confirm, then, a conclusion of the study that the $20 million transit deficit could be wiped out with more prudent management at B.C. Transit?
Hon. G. Clark: There have been several studies of management reviews, and the like. Outside consultants have been hired by B.C. Transit. I'm not exactly sure of the study referred to by the member. There are a variety of recommendations, some of which will no doubt be accepted by the board and some of which will not. Suffice it to say that significant cost savings have been achieved in just the last few months as a result of some of these recommendations, and we anticipate more savings in the future.
LANGARA COLLEGE DISPUTE
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Finance. During the B.C. Ferries strike the minister was very eager to assist the affected commuters -- so eager, in fact, that he said he was fully in support of their endeavour to sue the union for costs. Presently there are 6,000 Langara students who are not just losing a day; they're losing a full four months. What commitment has this minister and this government made to those students in recouping the costs of student loans, transportation and books?
Hon. M. Sihota: This morning I had the opportunity to talk to the negotiators at Langara and be apprised of what's happening in this very difficult dispute. We're anxious to find a solution with regard to that dispute, and to make sure that the semester is saved for the students. Our negotiators are working with a view to getting the dispute resolved as expeditiously as possible.
[ Page 4366 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister obviously didn't answer the question as to what he's going to do about the cost to the students as far as books, transportation and other issues are concerned. Hon. Speaker, these students simply can't wait any longer; they've been waiting for two and half weeks now. Election promise No. 41 from the NDP platform says: "A New Democrat government will make sure that young people throughout B.C. get the best possible education." In the light of the government's election commitment to education, will they now call for an immediate 60-day cooling-off period to allow these students to finish their semester?
Hon. M. Sihota: The option of the cooling-off period is always one that is available to the Ministry of Labour, as are a variety of other options. We will use the best option suggested to us by those involved in the negotiations, and in particular we will be listening with great care to the recommendation of the IRC in the next few hours in regard to this dispute.
G. Farrell-Collins: Time and time again in the House we see this minister abdicating his responsibility. He did it with the HEU strike, and he's doing it again. Will the minister commit to immediately order a cooling-off period, forget what an inconvenience it will be to him, and do it to protect the students of Langara and not his own political butt?
The Speaker: The Chair does not determine the difference between that question and the previous one, hon. member.
INCOME ASSISTANCE AND POVERTY LINE
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. A study released yesterday by the National Council of Welfare found that 60 percent of all Canadian families headed by a single mother were living below the poverty line in 1990. Can the minister advise the House what official definition of "poverty line" her ministry is using in its publications?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm hard pressed to understand how that's pressing. I would advise the member that there are a number of different poverty lines, and that the one the report talked about is one we are familiar with. I would also suspect that....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order. Excuse me, minister. The question was listened to in silence, and I think we would all want to extend the same courtesy to the one who is giving the answer.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't believe the issue is what poverty line we're using. The issue is whether or not people on income assistance are living below the poverty line. I would agree with all of those families that are having a hard time making ends meet that income assistance rates are not adequate.
R. Neufeld: It's interesting to note the different poverty lines. I'll just go back a ways. On February 28, 1990, the former NDP Social Services critic stated: "Welfare payments are 60 percent lower than they should be if we want to bring women up to any kind of subsistence or poverty line. We've got to be paying at least 50 percent more than they're getting on their welfare." Using your definition -- or whichever definition you like -- of poverty line, could you advise this House how far below the poverty line welfare rates currently are?
[2:15]
Hon. J. Smallwood: Depending on which poverty line you're using, I think that one could roughly estimate and agree that income assistance rates are approximately 40 percent below the poverty line.
GAIN REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE PARENTS
R. Neufeld: Let me just jar your memory here a little bit. About a month ago I asked a question that I hope the minister can answer today, and that is: how many GAIN recipients have been affected by the policy that allows single parents to collect welfare without having to seek employment until their child reaches 19 years of age? I'm talking about the children that are older, not the infants. I don't want you to mix it up with infants. I'm talking about 19 years of age. Can the minister tell us what the cost of this policy has been to date?
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's impossible to estimate the cost of that policy change. If the economy were static, if there were not changes in or pressures on employment and unemployment rates, it would be very easy. However, the economy is not static. The only indicator I can give you is that while the average caseload is up some 9 percent, single parents are up approximately 14 percent. That says to me that single parents are hit by poverty disproportionately over other sectors.
BIG GAME HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
BY FOREST LAND BURNS
J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister confirm that an international big game trophy organization called the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep pays the B.C. government $600,000 a year for range enhancement work? Does this include deliberate burns?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'll take that question on notice.
J. Tyabji: It's unfortunate that the minister is not keeping up with press clippings.
Can the minister advise the House, in approximate terms....
Interjections.
[ Page 4367 ]
J. Tyabji: It doesn't take a lot of research to pick up a newspaper, but if the minister has to consult the clippings before he can answer the House....
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister advise the House, in approximate terms, how many hectares of public land are being deliberately burned for so-called habitat enhancement programs?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm always happy to take estimates-type questions on notice.
The Speaker: I hope the hon. member's next question is on a different matter.
J. Tyabji: It's a related matter, but it is actually on a specific case. I hope the Minister of Environment has an answer for this. The minister will be aware of media reports that a man charged with arson was still granted permits from the government to burn more than 22,000 hectares of forest land in northern B.C. Can the minister advise us, to his knowledge, if this individual received permits for these burns from the government because they were being partially funded by big game trophy outfits, such as the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is not the reason the individual received the permit.
EDUCATION FUNDING REPORT
A. Warnke: I'm tempted to ask a question of the Minister of Health about my back, but I understand she's a health risk around this area.
To the Minister of Education. Reportedly the Spangelo report is now sitting on the minister's desk. In the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, would the minister table the document today in the House?
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I advised the House yesterday that the education funding review panel has reported to the minister. That report is being reviewed by my ministry and by cabinet, and it will be released to the public in due course.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
A. Warnke: To the Attorney General. Since the Attorney General is responsible for the Freedom of Information Act, and given that the AirCare contract and the BCGEU contract were asked for a month ago, and the report on ferry safety and other requests for information are on the order paper, why is the minister essentially not looking after freedom of information? Can the Attorney General provide us with an explanation of why it is not looked after?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The AirCare report is due to be released very soon; we are just about ready to do that. The BCGEU contract is available at the IRC office, the ferry safety report is available in the library just down the hall, and the report that was the subject of the first question has yet to go to cabinet.
A. Warnke: The Attorney General said that he would table it. We're not talking about the AirCare report; we're talking about the AirCare contract, which was asked for. With regard to the BCGEU contract, we requested that as well. When is this minister going to bring that forward?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The BCGEU contract with the government is a matter of public information and is available, should the official opposition chose to make arrangements with the IRC to obtain it. Or secondly, if that isn't good enough, they could get it from the union involved.
In respect of the AirCare contract, the contract is about a foot and a half thick, in the order of this magnitude. There is a significant amount of proprietary information contained within the contract. The government and Ebco-Hamilton have been reviewing it in a very aggressive way over the last number of weeks, so that we can release that report just as quickly as possible. As I said a few minutes ago, it will be released soon.
D. Symons: I have a petition here from the students of the graphic arts and visual design program of the Richmond campus of Kwantlen College. They are justly proud of their college, their program and their instructors. They are, however, concerned that advances in....
The Speaker: Hon. member, it is only allowed to state the purpose of the petition, not to discuss it.
D. Symons: They are concerned that advances in industry have surpassed the technology required for their instruction. This petition, then, is a request by the students enrolled in that program -- and those students only -- for an immediate assessment to be made of the course needs and for regular reassessment and support to ensure that the graduating class is appropriately trained for today's competitive workplace. They are asking the House if they would direct the Minister of Advanced Education to initiate that research.
WORLD AIDS DAY
Hon. E. Cull: Today is World AIDS Day, and it is an important opportunity for us to honour those who have died of this terrible disease and to rededicate ourselves to fighting AIDS.
The theme of World AIDS Day 1992 is: "A Community Commitment." That theme is consistent with the direction this government is taking in developing HIV and AIDS programs and services and in working with communities around the province to prevent and eventually eradicate AIDS.
[ Page 4368 ]
Some people are saying that AIDS is on the decline, that we are winning the battle; but I don't believe that this kind of comment means very much to the families and friends of British Columbians who have died of AIDS, to the people in this province who are living with AIDS and to the many thousands in our communities around British Columbia who remain at risk from HIV and AIDS.
There are still some people, unfortunately, in this province who have a simplistic and narrow picture of AIDS, and I think it's time to clear up those misconceptions, such as the mistaken belief that in B.C. AIDS is a disease limited to gay, white men. It simply isn't true. The increasing incidence of HIV in women, which compared to men is rising steadily, is evidence that this is everybody's problem. The days of dealing with fear by dismissing AIDS as somebody else's disease are gone, and should be gone, and I think it's time that we all recognized this.
It's also time for us to accept that AIDS is not just caused by the HIV virus. There is more to AIDS than just the virus: racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty, fear and prejudice are all broad social problems that have at least as much to do with the spread of the disease as does the virus itself. A healthy and just society values all of its members and educates its young people to treat themselves with respect. People who are respected and who respect themselves don't choose to put their lives at risk.
We're not just thinking about the challenges of HIV and AIDS; we are taking some action. The government funding for HIV this year has increased by 250 percent, and we've been working with the B.C. AIDS community to establish a new ongoing consultative structure -- a secretariat -- that will advise the government on HIV and AIDS. This is a very exciting concept, one that I hope to be making a further announcement on very soon and one that we're very proud to have worked with the AIDS community to develop.
There's much more to do. We have made a start, and we're continuing to face this challenge head on. AIDS can only be eradicated by reaffirming our commitment to overcoming it, by dedicating our efforts to those British Columbians who have AIDS and suffer with it and by reaffirming our commitment to those who have unfortunately died of the disease. We've got to get on with the job.
I ask all members of the chamber to join with me and the people in communities all around the province to mark World AIDS Day by pledging ourselves wholeheartedly to fight this terrible disease.
L. Reid: As the minister has stated, today is World AIDS Day. A number of us in the chamber are wearing the red ribbon that signifies it. It's a tremendous opportunity for us to hopefully eradicate some of the prejudice that's out there and hopefully eradicate some of the misunderstood feelings and beliefs that people carry with them when they have a discussion about AIDS. It is incumbent upon every single member in this chamber and upon every British Columbian to come together to recognize the necessity for an increased understanding and the necessity to complement the ongoing work that a number of individuals are doing on behalf of AIDS research and on behalf of drug companies that are definitely involved in trying to cope with a discussion on AIDS and, hopefully, a treatment for AIDS.
The minister made mention of the families that are dramatically and definitely impacted by this disease, and that is an issue that we don't often come to grips with. We don't often recognize the incredible sacrifice that families make when a member of their family is suffering from the disease. We certainly need to come together to support ongoing research. We need to support the drug companies in this county that are working on it and to support the ongoing research at our universities, because that is the way we will come to some kind of resolution to this question.
[2:30]
J. Weisgerber: First of all, we certainly join in recognizing this day as World AIDS Day. The disease does impact on all of us. In one way or another, everyone, to a greater or lesser degree, has been impacted by the fact that AIDS has become part of our society. We must start to work towards controlling the disease, finding cures for it and dealing with it.
It's absolutely essential to recognize that AIDS crosses all kinds of barriers -- geographic lines, economic strata and age groups; all those things -- and it crosses sexual orientation. The stereotypes no longer apply. I find it very disturbing that many young people still seem bent on ignoring the risk that exists. We must all recognize that this disease can attack, and it doesn't confine itself to small communities or stereotypes.
We in this Legislature will do all British Columbians and Canadians a service if we work towards raising awareness of the issue by making more people aware of the risks that exist and encouraging them to deal with them in any appropriate way that they might find best suited to themselves. I don't think there's any one answer, and I don't think we should try and judge the solution or resolution for people. But we must recognize that a risk exists and that many people are at risk and that there are ways that each and every one can protect themselves. With that, I would join with the opposition and the government in making this day one on which we not only wear a ribbon, but work genuinely to increase public awareness of this very serious disease.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 84.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 84; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 23.
C. Serwa: Just prior to noon hour, it was interesting to note the minister remembering the wondrous days in opposition, when they were substantially different and
[ Page 4369 ]
the onerous responsibility of being government wasn't upon his shoulders. I rather enjoyed that little bit of dialogue.
While the minister responded, he didn't respond to my specific question with respect to the democratic process, where this section certainly deprives the individual prospective union member of the right to a secret ballot. I think all members of the House are cognizant of the two elements that are so critical to democracy. One that has been emphasized repeatedly here in this particular debate is the right to a secret ballot. The other, of course, is the right to the information required to make the appropriate decision. In section 23 we are denying the right to that secret ballot. In a previous section we denied the right of freedom of access to information. We actually deprived free speech in a previous section. I would like to ask the minister how those two elements coordinate and provide the substance for section 23.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry -- the two elements being freedom of information and the democratic right to vote?
The matter of information we've already touched upon in previous sections. We dealt with that in the section that talked about employers' communication rights -- freedom of speech as it relates to the lack of prohibitions with respect to an employee inquiring about a union.
With regard to democratic rights, I made points this morning in terms of how those democratic rights come into play, so I will just base my comments on what I have said in Hansard already.
C. Serwa: During the debate on section 23, the minister has made continuing reference to the credibility of the subpanel of the three members. The minister continues to dismiss the very valid argument that the three members did not represent the broad cross-section of those who will be affected or the public interest. It has been conceded in this Legislature that the three members of the subpanel have a long and abiding relationship with the union movement and this particular form of legislation. So there wasn't true representation of the public interest, there certainly wasn't representation of the individual, nor was there representation of small business.
It's important not to attack -- and I don't intend to attack -- the credentials of the three members, but I merely point out again their bias. When the minister indicates that this bias has resulted in, for example, section 23, it leads me to believe that there is compelling evidence that section 23 is not really representative of either public opinion or, as I said, individual rights or the interests of small business. Those haven't been attended to.
The other area with respect to the subpanel and the public hearings is that it's my understanding that approximately 90 percent -- the plus side of 90 percent -- of the individual, written or oral presentations that were made were on the basis of either NDP or union affiliation and in most cases a combination of both. Perhaps the minister, who has not tabled the statements of where the submitters came from, who they worked for or who they were representing, would respond to that.
The Chair: Before the minister responds, I would like to remind the committee that we are in fact in committee. The comments made by the previous speaker were partially in order and partially in question by the Chair. The subpanel and the three individuals who were referred to were dealt with quite extensively in second reading on a philosophical basis. Now we are dealing with the text of section 23: certification. I would hope that we can be more cognizant of the purpose of committee and not get into second reading.
Would the hon. minister please respond.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the submissions were about fifty-fifty from employers and employee groups. Secondly, as I've indicated in earlier debate, the information is available at the Ministry of Labour office at 1019 Wharf Street and at the Ministry of Labour employment standards office in Burnaby.
C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Chair, and thank you again for your sense of direction on section 23.
The minister, in speaking to section 23 earlier and in yesterday's debate, quoted a number of areas -- the federal government, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Quebec -- as jurisdictions that had legislation very similar to the contents of section 23. Earlier this morning the hon. leader of the third party expressed concerns with the substance of the statistics that the minister was relating to.
Could the minister indicate to me if he has had his staff do research on the number of claims in the situation where there is interference in the certification process in other jurisdictions, and how those claims compare on a per-thousand union membership? Was there a relative increase in claims in other jurisdictions similar to British Columbia's, or was British Columbia an anomaly in the profile of the other claims? What was the rationale that the minister took in looking at the recommendations for section 23 in comparison to the other jurisdictions that he quoted?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are things that we know and things that we don't know. The things that we know are that there was an increase in our own jurisdiction in British Columbia -- numbers I've already tabled in the House by way of comment that has been transcribed by Hansard.
Second are things that we don't know. We didn't do the detailed work with regard to other jurisdictions.
F. Gingell: I hope the minister won't mind, Mr. Chairman, that I will be saying some things during this section that have, not surprisingly, been said by other members. But it is the first time I've risen on this section, and it is a section about which we have received a great deal of correspondence and phone calls.
[ Page 4370 ]
The issue of democracy in Canada in the earlier part of the 1990s is a very important subject. It is seen by all of us as being critical....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. Your opening remarks....
F. Gingell: This is a lead-in.
The Chair: Just a moment, hon. member. Please take your seat. The difficulty the Chair has is trying to be fair to all members in dealing with, obviously, a matter where there are different points of view. This is not second reading, so the broad question of democratic principles must relate specifically to this section; otherwise it is out of order. We are on section 23, which deals with the process of certification. I will ask the member to please confine his remarks to the section.
F. Gingell: I was just laying a little groundwork for my question.
I think it is important for the minister to recognize, before I get to the question, where British Columbians are coming from. I'd like to suggest a situation to the minister. Under section 23, without a secret ballot, a certification could take place without it being the intention of any of the workers within that bargaining unit to be certified. Particularly in the small construction area, there are a very large number of workers. In fact, I'd like to suggest that the majority of them are members of their particular craft union. They work on union jobs for two or three months, and then they go and work on a non-union job. Of course, they are still members in good standing. They may not be paying current dues, but they are registered members of the trade union.
If it were to happen that 55 percent or more of the people working on one particular job did in fact have dormant memberships -- if I can use that word -- in their pocket, even though there was no desire or wish to unionize this particular employer, the trade union would be in the position to wake up those dormant memberships and get that company certified as a bargaining unit. I may not have that quite right, but I would appreciate a response on the question.
[2:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: They would have to keep their dues going; their membership cards would have to be alive. One ought not to overlook the provisions of section 45 of the current legislation, which allows, in that general example that you used, unionization with 55 percent of the people signed up in the absence of a vote.
F. Gingell: I have another matter I'd like to ask the minister to respond to. The minister, his fellow members of government and we on our side of the House are all concerned with the issues of economic development in British Columbia. We all want investment to come into the province. One of the problems with this section that eliminates the secret ballot is that it creates out in the international marketplace among international investors a perception of concern to a potential investor, someone who might come to....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. With the greatest of respect, I must remind the member again that we are in committee, and the committee is operating on the basis of a resolution that the second reading was complete. We're now in committee and dealing specifically.... If it would be of assistance, I will read the section to the members, because I'm having a lot of trouble separating the tone of the debate from second reading:
"If the board is satisfied that on the date it receives an application for certification not less than 55 percent of the employees in the unit are members in good standing of the trade union and that the unit is appropriate for collective bargaining, the board shall certify the trade union as bargaining agent for the employees in the unit.
In deciding whether a person is a member in good standing of a trade union, the board may decide the question without regard to the constitution and bylaws of the trade union."
The point that I'm trying to make is that it would be inappropriate now to argue the merits of the 55 percent requirement in that this was canvassed earlier and has been approved by the Legislature. So I would ask the member to deal with what is before us.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, I am a little confused because I've sat in the House throughout virtually the whole of the debate on this section and listened to other members of this side question the....
B. Jones: Point of order. It seemed very clear to me, hon. Chair, that the member opposite was challenging the ruling you have made. Very clearly that's inappropriate in this chamber, and I think it's appropriate that you call members opposite and the minister to attention every time they stray from this committee stage of debate.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The point is well taken.
C. Serwa: On the same point of order. We must bear in mind the interrelationship of all the sections, hon. Chair. The Chair has previously extended considerable latitude to the minister in the debate of the Committee of the Whole, and I should expect that that latitude of the Chair and that tolerance, because this is a very important issue, should continue to be extended. I listened to the hon. member opposite, and I clearly understand what the lengthy caucus meeting was shortly before convening, but the debate should be consistent. It shouldn't now be suddenly constrained.
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the value of the points that have been made. The Chair's problem, however, is that when the vote is called on this section, all hon. members will appreciate that it will be with respect to the context -- what is here before us. The matters being entered into by the hon. member who had his place have been canvassed and voted on
[ Page 4371 ]
already. My problem is this: are we debating something that is to be voted on or something that is not to be voted on?
With that in mind, I would ask the hon. member to please proceed.
F. Gingell: Where I was leading to in my question to the minister was that having recognized, as I'm sure the minister has in all of the deliberations that have taken place in arriving at the final wording of this section -- which, as we all know, eliminates the secret ballot -- did the minister take into account the concern of members on this side of the House that the perception of the secret ballot being eliminated from the certification process will be seen by entrepreneurs in other places who consider British Columbia as a location to create new businesses and jobs as making the province a potential trap? They could very well be certified with a trade union without having had the opportunity to speak on the issue to their employees, and without having had the ability to deal with this matter. They may therefore be encouraged to go and invest in a jurisdiction which does require a secret ballot or has a slightly different certification process.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's a preposterous suggestion on the part of the member opposite, for the following reasons. First of all, if that were true, then I guess all the investment in Canada would be going to Alberta and to Nova Scotia, because they're the only two provinces in Canada that have a mandatory vote system. As it is, there is investment in Canada, in Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Indeed that is the law in all those jurisdictions, as it is nationally under the federal Labour Code. So there is a perception out there. It's only out there because of the fearmongering tactics of the opposition in trying to create a perception problem. The fact of the matter is that this is the law generally across this country. We are in step with the practice in British Columbia for 40 years prior to 1984. We're only returning to the status quo. You have an obligation, hon. member, as much as I do to make sure that those facts are known so the perception doesn't exist.
F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that -- I think.
During the course of earlier discussion on this section, the minister talked about the problems of poisoned relationships, which come about between the union and the employer as a result of the secret ballot vote and the 10-day gap between the date the application for the vote is made and the date on which the vote takes place. I would like to ask the minister if he considers there is any validity to the supposition that the poisoned relationship is much more likely to be caused by the employer believing that this bargaining unit has been certified as the bargaining unit without the true and fair second thought and duly considered decision of the employees because of the lack of the secret ballot. I believe personally -- and I've heard a great deal from others -- that that poisoned relationship comes much more from the feeling of the employer that this certification has been made without the true consent of the employees and that the secret ballot would in fact eliminate that concern.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, for the following reasons. First, for all the reasons that were canvassed in the Plateau Mills decision that I referred to earlier in the House. No, secondly, because if you take a look at the life experience in other jurisdictions, that hasn't been the case. No, thirdly, because it wasn't the case in British Columbia prior to 1984, and we assume that it won't be the case after that. The sky is not falling in, despite all your efforts to suggest that it is and to engage in the kind of fearmongering that those questions invite.
F. Gingell: There doesn't seem to be a great deal of interest on this subject, so I don't think any fearmongering that you may be accusing us of while we are in the process of trying to have a sensible discussion.... This question of poisoned relationships is one that the minister brought up. The reaction that I've heard from the people I've spoken to -- business people, workers -- is that the more we can do to create a harmonious relationship in the certification process, the better it will be for all labour relationships in this province.
This question of the employer always feeling -- not always but many times -- that a secret ballot without pressures from either side would have shown a different result is something that is of concern. I would again bring the minister back, if I may, to the Northwood Pulp case that was mentioned before.
When the minister responded to these questions earlier in this committee debate, he spoke about the threats and the kinds of things that can happen. But when you're dealing with a pulp mill with investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, and you're only dealing with a group of, I think, 16 or 18 office workers, there isn't any way that an employer threat to pick the pulp mill up and move it to Alberta can be considered with anything but ridicule. It is also the case that once the secret ballot goes through and if 50 percent of the employees plus one vote in favour of the certification, they cannot be fired. There is just no way those things can happen. Those union members now properly have the protection that comes about through the certification process. But in that Northwood Pulp case, the office workers, who evidently had signed up a sufficient number of cards, turned around, when there could be no threats that would mean anything, when they would all be meaningless, and immediately, in their own wisdom, with their own sober second thought, without anyone looking over their shoulder in the polling booth, voted no. It seems to me just such an obvious conclusion that the secret ballot is there to protect everybody, and primarily the workers.
[3:00]
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, it's ironic that the opposition member would use the word "protection" that comes from certification. All this legislation tries to do is give additional protection to those who seek to be
[ Page 4372 ]
certified. I appreciate that you recognize that there are advantages to certification.
On the second point, in relation to the secret ballot, I would refer you to the comments I made earlier in the day with regard to the benefits that accrue.
F. Gingell: One last point that I'd like to make in trying to convince the minister that he should consider making an amendment to this section is that when I went back through the board's report of the last three or four years, there's a table there that shows the number of certification votes that have taken place each year, the number that have failed and the number that have succeeded. In the last three years that were shown, there were roughly 300 every year -- some years a few more -- but as a rule of thumb, two-thirds were passed and one-third failed. That sounds to me like the logical result of a sign-up process: a sufficient number of people who had signed cards had, with sober second thought, decided that they would prefer not to be a member of the union. But in by far the greatest majority of cases the number of failures doubled the number of successes where employees had signed the card, didn't want to change their minds and were absolutely satisfied with the decision they had previously made.
Mr. Minister, doesn't leaving the secret ballot in with those kinds of results give us the best of both worlds? Isn't this really the opportunity to be seen as fair, equitable and democratic?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, for all the reasons that I put on the record this morning and yesterday.
L. Fox: Prior to lunch, the minister suggested that he might be able to give a definition for me. I wonder if he has that.
Hon. M. Sihota: In regard to the validity of making an application for the validity of cards, the IRC's current rule is that there's payment of an initiation fee plus the signing of a valid card. The stale time period seems to be about three months, so the 90-day suggestion was correct. That's that aspect of it.
The hon. member should also know that section 30 of the new legislation and section 49 of the current legislation provide discretion of the board to restrict repeat applications for certification. As well, the board may designate the length of time; usually it's not less than 90 days.
L. Fox: Just one follow-up question. Is it a requirement of the board that at the time of signing these cards, they must be dated prior to signature?
Hon. M. Sihota: If you look at the back of the report of the advisers, you will see that there's draft membership evidence regulation. They have a card that is being drafted and proposed which would have a provision in it to allow for dating. The government intends to introduce regulations to that effect.
C. Serwa: I've been following the debate on this very important section fairly closely, and it's clear that this section is not supported by any comparative statistical analysis of other jurisdictions in Canada where they do not have the democratic right to vote by secret ballot. It's obvious that the decision wasn't made on the merits of that, and it's just as obvious that in section 23 the minister really doesn't know whether the decision and the recommendation are good, bad or indifferent. I think it's fair to judge that similarly the subcommittee has not done any statistical analysis, so the recommendations they have put forward are really not based on whether they're good, bad or indifferent.
I would suggest that section 23 is the result of a backroom deal and horse-trading by those three individuals.
Hon. M. Sihota: A point of order. It seems to me that the hon. member is getting into a debate in principle with regard to the provision, which was, of course, dealt with during second reading. This is not in keeping with the requirement in committee stage to deal with consideration of the section for its intended purpose.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. I concur with your concerns. I'm sure the hon. member recognizes the need for close adherence to standing order 61(2), which requires that we stick strictly to the section before us and be as relevant as possible. Having said that, I realize that the hon. member is trying to make a point, and I just hope he will confine his remarks to the section as much as possible. Would the hon. member please continue.
C. Serwa: As I tried to say on an earlier point of order, it is imperative that while we discuss the elements of this section and stay as closely as we can to it, it's also apparent that we must find out where these things are coming from and how they're coming, because they're all part of the section that's before us. That's the basis for my rationale. I still maintain that this section is in there only because of that background horse-trading that went into the whole proposal.
The minister spoke earlier about his concerns about a messy campaign if there were a time element in the certification process that required calling for a democratically held secret-ballot vote. I would like the minister to go on record that a messy campaign is a good reason for rejecting the secret-ballot vote. The minister has stated it. I would like him to fundamentally confirm that in his estimation, secret ballots should be denied because of the potential for what he referred to as messy campaigns.
Hon. M. Sihota: I put my comments on the record. I talked about the three strands of argument that have to be considered. It was on that basis that we felt we should go with this section.
W. Hurd: I had a series of questions to the minister regarding the central thrust of this 55 percent, no secret-ballot certification process. I assume that the minister has been making numerous references to unfair labour practices which, in his view, dictate the
[ Page 4373 ]
whole rationale behind this 55 percent, no secret-ballot certification process. It's such an important section of the act that I just wonder if the minister would welcome this opportunity to discuss the extensive work he's done analyzing these unfair labour practice cases to determine that there is a documented pattern of abuse by employers that provides a compelling reason for the government to push this elimination of the secret ballot forward.
The minister will be aware that there were representations made to the Labour Relations Review Panel from the B.C. Federation of Labour and other labour organizations pointing out the abuses they felt had occurred during these drives for certification when the secret ballot was in place. Perhaps the minister can just review his views with the committee as to how serious these allegations of unfair labour practice were and whether or not they constitute, in his view, a compelling reason for this significant change in the act.
Hon. M. Sihota: The change in the act is not significant. We're moving to a regime that exists in eight of the ten provinces. It's certainly not radical in that light. We're not doing anything but moving to practices that have existed in British Columbia for the better part of 40 years. Therefore it is not radical, for all the reasons I amplified upon this morning and yesterday.
Secondly, with regard to unfair labour practices, as the hon. member may be aware, they were dealt with earlier on in the House, I believe, under section 6 of the legislation. It seems to me that that would have been the time to have the debate.
W. Hurd: In arguments this morning and previously on this particular section, the minister talked at length about the problems that ensued in the workplace with the old rules relating to secret ballot votes and the opportunity for there to be a relationship between the employer and the employee that became acrimonious and turned into a very negative labour relations situation. He has explained at length, too, that the mere act of signing a card constitutes a desire for someone to join the union.
I think it is certainly in order to ask the minister to discuss with the committee these allegations of unfair labour practice. I'm a little bit concerned about remarks made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon this morning when he pointed out that there is a chance that some of these unfair labour practice arguments by some unions may have been somewhat frivolous in nature and may indeed have been part of a political strategy to indicate that the existing labour legislation was much worse than it appeared. I wonder if the minister is concerned about not having gone back to 1984 and the start of secret ballot votes in labour relations in the province. Is there a risk that his view might be somewhat skewed by what occurred in the province over the past year or two when we had a situation where labour was anticipating a possible change in government? There may have been a strategy to pursue all unfair labour practice grievances through to the logical conclusion, based on the assumption that it would have the effect of influencing public opinion in some way with respect to the existing legislation.
Because we are dealing with such a significant change in this section of the act, surely the ministry, in its careful analysis of labour relations in the province, would have made a determined effort to quantify and qualify the unfair labour practice allegations that existed to ensure that there was a compelling reason to move toward the elimination of the secret ballot certification, that the allegations were so serious that they could be eliminated by this type of provision. I notice that later in the bill we will be talking about the 45 percent vote. So there is an issue that has to be explored in connection with section 23: if the abuses existed under the system of secret ballot votes in the past, then provision for that type of vote in the future.... Surely the minister has examined the allegations of abuse, the substantive nature of them and whether they represent an overriding and compelling reason for this significant change in the legislation.
Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to any conspiracy on the part of labour to purposely bring frivolous cases before the Labour Relations Board to make the numbers look higher than they really were.... That's totally preposterous. I don't know what the Liberal opposition is into today, but I can tell you this: they should be mindful of the fact that it costs money to bring these applications forward. Therefore I find it hard to believe that anybody would bring forward a frivolous application to make a political case.
[3:15]
W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can advise us if he has analyzed the votes that have taken place, particularly the applications for certification that were turned down by the board after a vote. How many allegations of unfair labour practices subsequently ensued from those defeated votes? If you were looking at a strategy for dealing with a labour relations bill such as Bill 19, it would obviously be in the interest of the party that lost the vote -- particularly if it was a union -- to follow the process through to its logical conclusion by alleging an unfair labour practice. Surely a minister who wasn't accepting the view of labour in its totality would be prepared to look at some of these votes and allegations of unfair labour practices from a somewhat neutral position to determine whether or not they were the result of an attempt by the union during the last couple of years -- as part of a strategy, which is understandable -- to increase the number of allegations of unfair labour practice to give the appearance that the system of secret-ballot certification was not working.
Earlier this morning, the minister went back to 1976 case law on labour relations. Perhaps he and his staff could share with us any cases going back to the origin of the secret-ballot vote to determine....
Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, I've listened with great care to the comments made by the hon. member, and, in defiance of your ruling this afternoon, hon. Chair, he is now debating issues of principle. The House has already accepted the principle that we
[ Page 4374 ]
should have certification based on membership cards. Therefore what's at issue here is the wording of the section with regard to its requirement in terms of putting that principle into place, not whether or not the principle itself is valid.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. The point is well taken. I'm not sure if the member was present when I stated the problem that the Chair has when members revisit second reading on the sections. With the greatest of respect, the issue may not have been resolved by a consensus, nonetheless it has been voted upon in general. We're now at the point where the Chair has to remind members of standing order 61(2), which requires that we keep our remarks strictly relevant to the section in question. There is obviously a good reason for that. We would, in effect, be unable to proceed in a reasonable order otherwise.
Would the hon. member please continue.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can just, then, briefly revisit an issue originally raised by the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca with respect to how long a union card is current before the certification application goes forward to the board. Is there a grandfather clause on the length of time that a card can exist as being current in the workplace before it forms part of the automatic certification under the 55 percent order?
Hon. M. Sihota: Out of respect to the House rules against repetition and tedium, I've already answered that question of the member for Prince George-Omineca. I'm sure if the hon. member walked over there, he'd get the answer. I'm sure if he looked at Hansard, he'd get the answer. And I'm sure if he looked at the draft regulations attached to the report tabled with the legislation, he would get the answer.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too have been listening to the somewhat wide-ranging debate that the minister has been giving us today. At one point I noticed that he actually spoke for half an hour, I believe it was, on the principle of votes and no votes. I found it enlightening and interesting.
With reference to this section, on the question of a vote or no vote and how it applies to this section, I might make reference to a -- I guess you could say interesting -- meeting that members of this caucus had with the B.C. Federation of Labour last week. It dealt extremely closely with this section, with the changes to the bill and changes to this section as far as it applies to automatic certification. There were numerous comments and people lined up to explain their scenarios -- their particular problems with the former legislation and their support for this section within this bill.
There was a great deal of discussion about the unfair labour practices that took place and why they felt that this particular section in the bill was necessary. In some of the cases, quite frankly, it was extremely disheartening to hear that those types of things would go on. I assume that they were all based on fact. I have no reason to dispute the comments that were made. There were very serious allegations of different types of unfair labour practices that had taken place in workplaces they had been part of. Some of them no longer have their jobs as a result. Some of them have had very difficult times within the bargaining unit, and others made very articulate comments about the effect of that on the working relationship with their employer.
We got into somewhat of an in-depth discussion about this section -- how it was going to affect the legislation and the workplace in particular -- and we asked questions and they gave answers. I came to the conclusion that while, yes, all of these things had taken place, in fact there was really nothing in this section that was going to stop them.
The minister has stood up and talked about the implications of automatic certification and how it is supposed to correct a lot of the injustices that have taken place, and that that is the sole purpose behind this section being included in the bill. He has gone on at some length explaining how these types of unfair labour practices must be dealt with by removing the right to vote and having an automatic certification process in place.
I have listened very carefully for the majority of the day to comments by the minister and comments that have been brought up by other members of both our caucus and the Social Credit caucus, and I once again fail to see how this section of the bill is going to stop those types of things. It may mitigate them to some effect, but there certainly are still great opportunities for unfair labour practices to take place on behalf of the employer and on behalf of the union. This legislation, in bringing in a change that removes the right to vote -- as this section does -- and institutes a system of automatic certification, simply does not go to the nuts and bolts of addressing that very critical problem.
I would say that there are other ways we can go about bringing in changes to deal with unfair labour practices without impinging upon people's democratic right to vote. One of the changes that's been discussed, of course, is to perhaps shorten the time frame of the vote down to....
Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. I'm having difficulty again with regard to relevance. The hon. member has talked about unfair labour practices, which were dealt with in section 10. He is now talking about time periods, which are dealt with in section 24.
Hon. Chair, with all respect, I took your ruling.... I have to confine my comments as a consequence of your ruling, and all I can ask is that the hon. member do the same. I must confess that I think the comments he made originally, and the comments he is making now with regard to unfair labour practices and with regard to timing, deal with sections that are not before the House.
G. Farrell-Collins: On the same point of order, while it is true that this House has approved -- or at least passed -- through second reading, the overall principles of this bill, we are now debating the specific implications of specific clauses. In order to do that, there are still lots of cases out there that are relevant, and the minister has quoted time after time and again and again over the last six hours of debate numerous
[ Page 4375 ]
instances of unfair labour practices and statistics on this in order to try and prove that section 23 is necessary. Hon. Chair, I'm merely using the same types of information that the minister has used, to try and state that section 23 is not necessary. That is the whole point behind this debate on section 23.
D. Symons: Hon. Chair, maybe while you are pondering those points of order, I might ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Symons: Visiting us today is a group of students from Cambie Junior Secondary School in Richmond. There are approximately 55 grade 8 students and their teacher Ms. Lori Crosby, and student teacher Ms. Paula Egan. They have spent part of the morning in the halls of the Legislature with the tour guides and are now seated in the gallery to observe the debate. Would the House please make them welcome.
The Chair: Hon. members, the Chair again wants to remind all members who are entering the debate to familiarize themselves with the section that I've referred to, standing order 61(2), which deals with the rule of relevancy, of being to the point, of not being repetitious, etc. I know all members are aware of the reason for that. However, the Chair does not feel that the member who was speaking is strictly out of order nor strictly in order. It's one of those areas where I want to be as flexible, reasonable and fair as possible. But it would assist if members were to make their points as concisely as possible, respect the right of other members to be of another opinion on a particular point and not enter a situation where we have redundancy and repetition and are not getting on with the progress that I'm sure we all would like.
G. Farrell-Collins: I notice that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour is about to take over the other debate, and I welcome his interventions.
Hon. Chair, I do want to keep my comments very specific to section 23, and in particular some of the implications that we're going to see from this. As I stated before, I personally, and the caucus, certainly feel that there are better ways to avoid many of the unfair labour practices that the minister has spoken about, without impinging upon individual rights, and that merely adds to the point we were trying to make about the impact that section 23 is going to have.
Perhaps I could ask the acting parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour what the implications of section 23 would be upon the other provision -- I believe it's section 8 in this bill -- that allows for freedom of speech on behalf of an employer to state the case of what they believe the impact of certification or non-certification will be or what the economic impact on the business may be. That's clearly stated and outlined in, I believe, section 8. But with section 23 allowing for automatic certification, the employer would in fact not know that they'd been certified until it had already happened, until that very day. There would be no advance warning and certainly no opportunity for a frank discussion or debate to take place. The minister will probably stand up and say that that's only an opportunity for intimidation, but there is no opportunity for a frank debate. I know the minister will say that that's merely an opportunity for unfair labour practices or misinformation to take place. I guess the question to the acting parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour is: how did he reconcile that difficulty? At one point we have a section in this bill which states that one should have the freedom to represent facts to the members of the bargaining unit, and in another section of the bill we have a situation, very clearly defined under section 23, where that would simply not take place.
Interjection.
The Chair: The hon. member continues.
G. Farrell-Collins: It was my understanding that when the Minister of Labour leaves, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale traditionally takes over his spot. That's certainly been the practice. I assumed he was ready to answer questions, but I'll continue on with that line of thought. Perhaps when the minister returns he'll have an answer.
We have a problem in this bill. I see a conflict between section 23 and section 8. That's why we're bringing it up, and perhaps why section 23 may need to be amended. Section 23 sets out a system of automatic certification, whereby an employer and the bargaining unit that represents the employees of that business could become certified automatically upon the signatures of 55 percent of that bargaining unit on union cards. In that case, there would be no opportunity for communication in the frank and honest manner described in the other sections of the bill to take place between the employer and the employees. I'm asking the hon. member to comment on how he resolves that dichotomy. Does he think that perhaps we should have amended section 8 to not allow for freedom of speech, or does he think we should amend section 23 to allow for that in some way?
[3:30]
D. Schreck: The difficulty we are having at this stage in the debate is that, in their attempts to filibuster the legislation, the members opposite are going far beyond the terms of section 23, which is before us, and both re-engaging in second-reading philosophical, broad-ranging debate and touching repeatedly on other sections of the act. At some point, while we have all in this House been tolerant of that debate....
R. Neufeld: A point of order, hon. Chair. As I understand it and as you have made clear to us on quite a number of occasions, we're talking about section 23. The member opposite is certainly not talking about certification or section 23. He's rambling on about filibustering and that type of thing. I would rather he focus his discussion on section 23, the same as the rest of us have had to do.
[ Page 4376 ]
The Chair: The hon. member for Peace River North is quite correct in his comments. I would ask the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale to address the tenets of section 23.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, I'm coming to precisely that point. I appreciate exactly that discipline, and that is the discipline that I was calling for in the preamble to this statement. Those of us who have experience dealing with the Labour Relations Board and the Industrial Relations Council, who have been involved in both management and organized labour over the last ten or 20 years, as many in this House have been on both sides of the bargaining table, know the standard processes by which industrial relations operate. When an application is made for certification, one of the first questions that the Labour Relations Board must determine is the appropriateness of the bargaining unit. Employers are notified. The opposition, in dealing with section 23, would have those who are not familiar with standard industrial relations practice assume that somehow the employees sneak off, form a union and surprise the employer some day, saying: "Bingo! You're organized and you have no rights in the matter at all." In fact, the rights of the employer are to deal with questions such as the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, and who should be in and out of the bargaining unit. The employer has rights spelled out in various sections of the labour code as to where those opportunities to express the employer's legitimate concerns can be articulated.
I must say that over my career in 20 years of management, I have taken those opportunities on many occasions, both in the original Labour Relations Board with Paul Weiler as chair and more recently with the Industrial Relations Council. Those in this House who have that practical experience know that many of the objections being raised by the opposition have nothing to do with any practical industrial relations experiences. They are talking to the naive and are failing to understand the practical matters of industrial relations.
Nothing in section 23 deprives anyone of any rights. It does lay out a very clear procedure that is given more effect in the other sections of the act. The sooner we get to those other sections of the act, the sooner we will be able to debate matters where there may be some substance. The debate on section 23 has been too wide-ranging. It is time we got back to the point and passed section 23.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm certainly not attempting to filibuster. In fact, the member took longer to answer the question than I did to ask it.
An Hon. Member: And you still didn't get an answer.
G. Farrell-Collins: I should say that he took longer to not answer the question than I did to ask it.
The question is very clear. For the sake of enlightening the member -- and maybe he can enlighten me in return -- section 8 states: "Nothing in this Code deprives a person of the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business." That does not, in my understanding, state that you can only speak about the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, as the member said. Rather, it concerns any piece of information that's relevant or is an opinion that's reasonably held with regard to the employer's business.
I am asking the acting Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour a very simple question. Section 8 allows for freedom of speech, and section 23 talks about automatic certification. I'm not saying that they sneak off and then surprise the employer, but in my mind there's no way the Labour Relations Board knows that a certification process is taking place until the application is before them. The Labour Relations Board would receive the application for certification, and then they would go to the employer and say: "Let's see your employee list and discuss the appropriateness of the bargaining unit." That happens almost immediately. At that point the employer certainly doesn't have time to go back to his employees and say, "Hang on a second everybody; let's have a chat about this and look at the implications," and try to explain that to the employees. There's no opportunity to do that, because the application -- along with the signed cards -- has already gone to the Labour Relations Board. There's no opportunity at that point.
Further into this bill it states that the only opportunity members of the bargaining unit have to rescind that card is up until the time of the application for certification. No matter what the employer says, it's going to fall on deaf ears. Absolutely nothing can happen. Because of the process that's being laid out by this bill, particularly section 23, there is no opportunity for an employer to act under section 8 and bring information forward.
D. Schreck: I thank the opposition Labour critic for making perfectly clear the fundamental philosophical difference between how labour relations are conducted in most of Canada -- and how we are incorporating them in this labour code -- versus the position put forward by the opposition. I will run through it one more time very clearly so the differences are understood.
At the end of the day, it's a question of voting. The difference is: labour relations are understood in the majority of Canadian provinces and are put forward in Bill 84 such that the question of whether employees choose to be represented by a union is a question to be determined by the employees -- period. The question for the employer may be whether the accountant is in or out of the bargaining unit. It is not for the employer to intervene in the democratic right of employees to decide whether they form a union or not. The argument being put forward by the opposition is that the employer should be given the right to convince, intimidate, coerce or persuade -- whatever language you want to use -- the employees out of forming a union. The position taken by the commissioners, in eight out of ten provinces and in this labour code, is that it is not proper for the employer to try in any way to
[ Page 4377 ]
intervene or dissuade the employees from forming a union.
The question for the employer is what the appropriate bargaining unit is and who should be in or out -- not whether employees should form a union. The appeals by the opposition to have some opportunity for the employer to smash the union, to disorganize the union or to get the union out is not provided for in this legislation, because it is not appropriate.
G. Farrell-Collins: I cannot agree more with the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale when he says that the opportunity to smash the union does not exist in this bill. I agree with him 100 percent. Where we disagree, however, is in the interpretation of section 23 and how it relates to section 8 and, according to his last comments, section 9.
Hon. Chair, it is very clear that section 23 provides for automatic certification with no opportunity for the employer to use the privileges and the rights that are granted to the employer -- or anyone else for that matter -- under section 8 of this bill. There is no opportunity for the employer to bring forth information or opinions reasonably held or to communicate with the employees under section 8. If the member doesn't have a copy of the bill with him, I'd be glad to let him use mine to look at section 8 and section 9.
Section 8 clearly states the privileges and rights of anyone -- not just the employer -- with relation to the business. The union members can make statements that are reasonably held, and union organizers can make statements that are reasonably held. They can make reasonably held opinions public to the members of the bargaining unit. So the employer should have the rights that are in section 8.
Section 9 clearly limits the right to state that you cannot use intimidation or coercion....
D. Streifel: On a point of order. I've listened with rapt interest to this debate on section 8 and section 9. I would bring the House's attention to the fact that we are on section 23.
C. Serwa: Clearly this particular piece of legislation is interrelated.
D. Streifel: But we're on section 23.
C. Serwa: Yes. As the hon. member says, we are on section 23. But this is a very special piece of legislation, hon. Chair, and there has to be some understanding that reasonable latitude has to prevail. The legislation will be taken -- and it has been written -- to be incorporated as a whole.
G. Farrell-Collins: I can't agree more that we are not on section 8 or section 9; we are on section 23. However, my concern with section 23 is that it may be impinging on some sections that we have already passed. In order to highlight that discrepancy and perhaps the need for amendment to section 23, it's important that we look at the bill and at the other sections, and how they relate.
D. Symons: Just for clarification to the Chair, I believe the minister mentioned something along these lines that might help you in your decision. On November 25 around 4:30 p.m. when I was speaking on section 8, he basically cut me off and suggested that really that's covered better in section 23, and that he would allow me to speak when it came to section 23 relating to section 8 again. So I think if you look back in Hansard, you will find that interrelationship.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale on the point of order.
D. Schreck: No, on the debate, hon. Chair.
The Chair: On the point of order, the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: Not on the point of order, hon. Chair. I was going to continue speaking.
The Chair: The Chair appreciates the submissions by all members. As I have probably stated more than three or four times now, it is a matter that requires cooperation by all sides of the House in order to avoid the option of the Chair invoking standing orders which may restrict members' opportunity to express themselves. I certainly have no desire to do that.
I would remind all hon. members of standing order 61(2) dealing with relevancy, tediousness and repetition. If members can keep that in mind and not stretch the integrity of the Chair or the Legislature to the point where it obviously becomes necessary for the Chair to intervene in matters that he would prefer not to, it would be of great assistance. So in that spirit, I hope that we can proceed. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove had the floor.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I keep your wise remarks in my mind as we go through this debate.
As I was stating to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, the problems arise in section 23 in the potential for section 23 to be in conflict with other sections. I was merely trying to highlight for the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale that section 8 clearly states that these rights exist. Section 9 then limits those rights to say that intimidation and coercion of any kind shall not be used. My understanding is that it's up to the IRC, according to the minister, to determine what constitutes intimidation and coercion. But according to section 8, anyone has the right to bring forward "a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business." The employer or representative of the employer and a union organizer or representative of the union can do the same. I wouldn't want to limit that.
However, I see that under section 23, because the union organizers are aware that the certification drive is taking place and the employees are aware to some extent -- at least 55 percent of them, we would assume, if there's an application -- that discussion, the provis-
[ Page 4378 ]
ions of section 8 and section 9, has to have taken place and applied on one side of the equation. But because section 23 allows for an automatic certification, there's no opportunity for the other side of the equation to make those same statements of facts or opinions reasonably held.
[3:45]
As soon as I'm finished, hon. member, I'll be glad to have you stand up and partake.
In fact, the result of section 23 is an inherent abrogation of the rights that are given to one side under sections 8 and 9 and not to the other side. In that respect there's a very specific problem with section 23 that we need to address, and perhaps it does need amendment.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, there is no problem with section 23, and I will repeat very carefully once again the answer given earlier. What is being debated here is a fundamental, philosophical difference between the opposition's position and the position that is common in labour legislation in almost all the rest of Canada and is being restored to British Columbia. What is provided for in section 23 and the philosophy behind Bill 84 is that whether or not employees are to be represented by a union is to be determined by the employees. To be determined by the employer -- or at least which the employer may make a submission on to the Labour Relations Board -- are questions of the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and of who should be in or out of the bargaining unit by way of exclusion.
The member opposite argues that it is implied in section 8, which refers to the employer's right of speech, that the employer has a right to intervene in section 23 in order to attempt to dissuade employees from joining the union. Nothing could be further from the truth. What section 8 does -- and the member should have understood when we passed section 8 -- is lay out the criteria under which the employer would be exempted from charges of unfair labour practices.
Again, the member's lack of experience of industrial relations may have something to bear on this matter.
J. Tyabji: On a point of order, I'd like to remind the member speaking that we are not discussing some kind of fable about the labour critic's qualifications for this, but that we are on section 23. I would like him to withdraw his comments about the ineffectiveness of our critic.
The Chair: If the hon. member would withdraw any improper motives with respect to the opposition member, it would be appreciated.
D. Schreck: I withdraw any remarks that may have offended, and I certainly did not mean to imply that the members opposite were ineffective.
I do attempt to emphasize that there is a considerable difference in understanding these matters from the viewpoint of experienced labour relations practitioners and from the viewpoint of theory. Experienced labour relations practitioners know that a site is rarely organized without rumours abounding and without someone in the bargaining unit going to the employer saying, "The union organizer is in the shop. What can I do to help you keep the union out?" and that this spurs an employer to attempt to intimidate the union out.
If the report of the commissioners on the matter of certification is carefully read, it is ultimately based on a recommendation that previous attempts under what was known as Bill 19 by the former government to intimidate employees out of joining a union must end, and that the recommendations put into the statute -- section 23 forming part of that statute -- follow the recommendation of the commissioners to end intimidation and to allow a process of certification that appropriately involves employees in determining their democratic rights on who is to represent them and limits the employer's participation to those matters which are clearly set out in the statute, which do not include interference in the internal matters of the union.
G. Farrell-Collins: If I can just address some of the points that the member mentioned. Perhaps I'll do it in reverse order.
First of all, there is no union before certification takes place, so there is no interference in the internal matters of the union. There may be some discussion with the potential members of a bargaining unit, but that in effect hasn't taken place until the certification itself takes place.
The member made reference to the debate on sections 8 and 9, that somehow, under section 8, we should have determined what the parameters were of that involvement of the employer. Perhaps he should go back and read Hansard, because in fact we did spend a great deal of time on section 8 trying to determine from the minister the parameters of the employer's involvement in the process as it relates to communication. If the member from North Vancouver-Lonsdale would listen, perhaps he wouldn't spend so much time filibustering his own answers. The parameters of section 8 were canvassed quite extensively, and I won't go into them at length other than to assure the member that the parameters of section 8 go well beyond what he's been describing.
There is indeed a problem with section 23. It does abrogate the rights of not just the employer but of a number of people -- certainly of those who are not in the know of what's taken on as far as an organization drive goes. And it abrogates some of the rights given in section 8 and limited in section 9. Therefore section 23 is clearly in conflict with those sections and therefore will need to be changed.
The member has stood up and talked at some length about section 23 doing away with the opportunity of employers to intimidate, to coerce, to threaten and to do whatever is necessary to try and scare the potential members of the bargaining unit away from unionizing. The reality is that that does happen: intimidation, coercion and unfair labour practices occur on both sides in rare cases, both by organized labour and by employers. The member stands up and talks about these ogres of management who do nothing that's right while union organizers never do anything that's wrong. I would say, in fact, that there's a little bit of both in there.
[ Page 4379 ]
Certainly the provisions given in section 23 do impinge upon the rights given in section 8 as described by the minister, and on the parameters which we defined in this very House. Section 9, which limits those parameters, certainly still leaves enough leeway so that a person could make reasonable comment which then is further encroached upon by section 23. I think it's very, very curious that we have this section 23 that allows for automatic certification, while the argument that we're hearing from the members opposite is that we want to further limit rights. This member is specifically stating that we want to further limit the rights of the employer to communicate with the employees. I think there may be a good deal of constructive information that could be given by an employer to an employee, and section 23 does limit that.
I agree with the member 100 percent that it must be the employees that determine whether or not they want to certify; it has to be. That's common sense. I don't think there's one person in this House who would disagree with that statement. That's very clear; we all agree with that. The question is: how informed should the employees be before they make that decision? Perhaps the bias of the member is coming through when he states: "The only person who's allowed to give them information and who should be allowed to communicate with the employees under section 23 should be the union organizer. There should be no representation from the other side." I think that's blatantly unfair; it's unbalanced. Certainly section 23 must be changed in order to ensure that there is no further impingement on section 8 other than what is given in section 9, which goes to limit that freedom of speech. So perhaps the member can clarify some of his statements as to what the parameters are and his understanding of what will be impinged upon by section 23.
The Chair: The point I want to make before I recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has on a number of occasions referred to sections 8 and 9 to make the case with respect to the conflict in section 23. I should point out to all hon. members that unless there was an undertaking on behalf of the committee to revisit those sections -- and I have no directive in that regard -- that process is out of order. It is not the custom of the committee to revisit sections that have passed. Making reference to those sections can be tolerated only to a very limited degree, because clearly we would not be going forward but be going backwards.
C. Serwa: The point of order follows what you've said, but clearly the minister has also made reference to other sections. It's an awareness of the intricacies and the interrelationships here. If we're going to make progress, we're going to have to allow some latitude in this because they're so closely interrelated and aligned. I would like to see consistent progress made in this Legislature, and in order to do so I think we're all going to have to give a little bit of latitude in order to ensure progress in this debate.
J. Tyabji: As the member for Richmond Centre said, when we were on section 8, the minister specifically said that we would refer back to section 8 when we were in section 23. We find ourselves in a bit of a catch-22 that when we were trying to deal with some of the provisions in 23 under 8 we were told: "No, when we get to 23, we'll deal with 8." Hon. Chair, I would ask that in this respect, provided we refer primarily to section 23, we look back to 8 and 9, because when we were in those sections, we were instructed to do that when we got to 23.
The Chair: Is the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale standing on a point of order?
It is important, hon. members, to remember the difficulty the Chair has in enforcing or ensuring that standing orders are followed strictly. One of the difficulties, obviously, is when a transgression is not addressed at the time it occurs. Therein lies the beginning of difficulties as we progress in committee. I can only say to the hon. member for Okanagan West that his point is well taken with respect to comments made previously by the minister. However, the Chair would encourage all hon. members to keep in mind standing order 61(2) with respect to their remarks. We are dealing with the process involved in certification, and that should be the extent of the scope of the debate.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, I hesitate to go through the explanation yet one more time, as I may be accused of being tedious and repetitious, but I will state one more time that section 23 deals with the matter of what is termed automatic certification. When a board recognizes that there is no problem in determining that 55 percent of the employees have signed a union card, the opposition is arguing that the employer should be given some opportunity to intervene in debate with the employees or persuade them or provide information to them prior to that automatic certification. We have repeatedly stated that therein lies the fundamental difference between the opposition and labour legislation in almost all of Canada.
[4:00]
The members opposite should understand that there are appropriate points for an employer to express an opinion, both to the Labour Relations Board and to the employees. One of the most important places to express that opinion is at the bargaining table. By having the certification, the bargaining commences and the employer faces the union and the employees to discuss very important matters. That is the place for that dialogue to occur, not with the employer intervening with the certification process.
D. Symons: I'd like to thank the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale for such a clear explanation of what is apparently the real intent of this particular section. From his explanation, the obvious intent of this section is to deny the employer the opportunity to discuss the merits or demerits of unionization with his company. To me this is a fundamental breach of the concepts of democracy on which this country is built. I find it totally unacceptable that such a bill should be
[ Page 4380 ]
brought before the people of this province and for the people here to be discussing a denial of people to speak freely. This is a freedom of speech section. It is simply trying to remove that from the employer, and I think the member has made that perfectly clear in his explanation. If the union organizer has the opportunity to speak to the union members one by one -- and he doesn't have to do it in the shop or in view of the person; he can do it somewhere else away from the company -- and coerce and convince them or whatever of the merits of joining a union, the employer should at least, through common courtesy if nothing else, have the opportunity to express his views also as to the merits or demerits of unionization.
Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, section 8 is entitled "Right to communicate," and it deals with the freedom of speech accorded to employers. That was the point at which to have that debate.
The Chair: The minister's point is well taken. I would ask members to address the issues in the context of standing order 61(2). The Chair has had to intervene more in the last hour or so than I have had to do since the beginning of this session. I want to remind hon. members, if they haven't apprised themselves of the standing orders, that there is a provision whereby the Chair may ask a member to terminate a particular line of debate after a point -- a point at which I certainly hope we do not arrive.
Would the hon. member please proceed, keeping those remarks in mind.
D. Symons: If I could remind the minister, he made a promise to me on November 25 at 4:30.
Interjection.
The Chair: Hon. members, please address the Chair.
D. Symons: I'm simply asking if the minister would honour the commitment he made to me at that time to discuss section 8 in relation to section 23.
Hon. M. Sihota: I vividly recollect that, but I also vividly recollect saying to the member that he should apprise himself of what was said in Hansard. I assume that if he had, he would have.... Well, if not, then he can ask the question. I will agree.
D. Symons: I assure the minister that I did read Hansard, and I didn't see the answer to the question I was trying to frame at that time. I'll just carry on with what I was saying moments before, because I am concerned about the basic freedoms -- and they're covered in section 8 -- that will be denied the employer by implementing section 23.
Both sides should have that opportunity. The combination seems to guarantee it, but section 23 allows that freedom to be taken away from the employer. I would be very happy if there could be some guarantee in here that the employer would have the opportunity. It just seems that there's no consideration given to that one side of it in here. It seems to be a very one-sided sort of arrangement, where the guarantees are there for the union and the union organizer, but the same guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom to converse with employees -- or potential union members -- is not there for the employers.
I would simply read into the record a couple of things, one of which I referred to during second reading. This gentleman was concerned with the way he was approached and asked to join a union. He says:
"I was approached on several occasions by...a business representative" -- from the union. "Many times these meetings were in a pub. He would buy me drinks and tell me fairy tales about how good union life was; I eventually signed a card with no date on it."
I believe that is illegal.
"He explained that this was so he could have time to gather more support in a three-month period. When he had enough, he said, he would date them, and no one would be the wiser. He did the same with many other of my co-workers; in fact, almost all of the signatures were gained under the influence of alcohol and undated. Luckily, before the vote, I obtained my own information, which dispelled many of the myths he had told me. A large part of his information came from" -- and he names a person here -- "...and union friends. I voted no, as did all of my co-workers but two."
So when they gathered information other than what they were given from one individual, they were able to decide, on the basis of having all the information before them, whether or not they wanted to join a union.
Carrying on with that, I have in my hand information from the Industrial Relations Council on the last 12 certification votes -- up to the time I asked for this -- that took place in British Columbia. This is current information, and these go from approximately September 17 until a date in late October. So over that one-month period, there were about 12 certification votes. Over the past year, there were about 150 certification votes in British Columbia. Of these 12, I note that three of them that took place.... I'll very quickly read down the percentages.
The Chair: Hon. member, the matter you are discussing is certainly interesting to the Chair, but as I've said before, it's out of order, because you are involved in a matter which is not part of this section. If you intend to move an amendment in order to make an argument, as opposed to debating what is before us, then you have the prerogative to do so. But unless there is another matter before the Chair, it is very difficult to permit the line of debate that you're currently embarking upon.
F. Gingell: During the last little while we have had quite a bit of discussion relative to section 23 and the certification process which dealt with the ability of the employer to speak to employees. The point has been made over and over again that the question of certification is not considered by this government to be an issue on which the employer has any right to enter into the debate. But it is clear that if there was a proposed bargaining unit of ten people and the union was able to
[ Page 4381 ]
talk to six of them and six of them signed union cards, the certification process could go through without the other four employees even being aware of what was happening. They may very well have experiences, issues and concerns that they, as fellow employees, would like to express to their workmates. But if there is no notification process such as there was before, these employees will not even be aware that a certification process is going on.
My question to the minister is: in section 23, or in some subsequent section, have you considered a process that will ensure that all employees in the proposed bargaining unit are made aware of the sign-up action, the certification campaign, that is going on, to ensure that they are not barred from making their valid and personal concerns known?
Hon. M. Sihota: Once an application is made for certification, a notice has to go up. So at that point the employer and employees are aware.
F. Gingell: Would it be true then that as far as the process is concerned, even if those four individuals were all against certification, it would be too late for them to convince their fellow workers that they would prefer not to be part of a unionized organization?
Hon. M. Sihota: Under a section that we're not at yet, you will see that an employee can revoke their card any time up to the application for certification -- first of all. Secondly, under a section we're not at yet you'll see also that an employer can question the size of the bargaining unit.
F. Gingell: But there wouldn't be an opportunity, if you and I worked side by side, for me, having been told that an application has been made, to move over to you in the coffee break and talk to you, saying: "Look, don't do it because of this, this and this. We don't need it. It's a mistake in our case." It is too late then, because the card can be withdrawn only up to the time that the certification application is made. The employee who is in the dark doesn't know about it until the application has been made, so there's a catch-22 situation. There's a quandary that is difficult to deal with.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I said during the course of debate earlier on this issue, it's hard to believe that employees....
F. Gingell: It's possible.
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, if you want to get into possible, it's possible that that light may fall down on my head, too. But the fact of the matter is, given the way job sites are, that people talk to one another. They know what's going on. There's lots of chatter. They sit down for coffee all the time. Someone has to approach somebody else with regard to even getting the 55 percent level. They're not going to be 100 percent successful in hitting someone who is going to agree. Anything in life is possible, but on the balance of probabilities -- let's face facts, hon. member -- it's very hard to have this quiet set of phantoms which gobbles up the right 55 percent and doesn't talk to anyone else, and everyone else is just struck out of the dark by some view that they didn't know what was going on. It's just not the real world of work.
[4:15]
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister made some comments just now that certainly are in line with what the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale said -- that in a bargaining unit the employees will know, and the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale said the employer will know. As I made reference to earlier, I was just at a meeting with members, representatives or speakers who were there on behalf of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and they quite clearly stated numerous instances where everything was going along fine and they had signed up 55 percent of the bargaining unit. Once the application was made, in their mind that was where the intimidation took place. That may well be the case. But the reality is that the employer did not know until the application was made that the certification drive was underway.
As in the case the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale stated, it may well occur that that information would get back to the employer. There may be numerous cases where it does not occur, and therefore we do have the same problems with section....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Is the minister asking a question? I didn't hear it.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. Please address the Chair.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the minister has a comment, I'd be glad to hear it afterwards.
There are certainly cases that exist, and they were cited to me by various employees, where the employer did not know that the certification process had taken place until the date of the application. At that point it is no longer possible for members of the bargaining unit or the employees to reject their card, to send it back in and say that they don't want to be part of the certification process despite the fact that they had signed the card previously. That has been the catch-all that the minister has referred to, certainly in this House and in public -- that employees do have the opportunity to rescind their membership in the bargaining unit by turning in their card or making notice to the Labour Relations Board.
The reality is that the employer doesn't have the opportunity, as we stated earlier to the other member when the minister wasn't here. The employer does not have the opportunity and, for that matter, nor do other employees. I think the member for Delta South is correct in stating that there may well be cases where the employees don't have the opportunity. The member for Richmond Centre just highlighted a case where an employee was signed up under dubious circumstances,
[ Page 4382 ]
and the minister has to agree that sometimes that type of thing happens on both sides.
When the member of the bargaining unit was signed up under dubious circumstances and other members of the proposed bargaining unit were signed up under similar circumstances, once that member had gone out and secured information from other employees in the potential bargaining unit or perhaps from friends who had experience with that trade union, they then voted against it. In fact, on sober second thought and without any intimidation in this case by the employer, those employees chose not to become certified. Under this process they would be certified, despite what they had wanted, because they wouldn't have known when the application date was. They don't even know what the date on their own card was. So how could they possibly know when they have to rescind their card by? The only way that can happen is if there's a date set or a time frame -- perhaps it needs to be minimized or policed more carefully -- wherein the employee can go into a ballot booth to make a mark on a secret ballot and decide what they want to do.
So in the aspect that we're dealing with in section 23 and the fact that it deals with automatic certification -- I assume that's why it's called automatic certification -- is that there is no opportunity for that type of communication to take place. I think that's unfortunate. There may be opportunity in some cases, but there's certainly no guarantee that they have the opportunity to go through that process. So I'd ask the minister if he sees any conflict between these two sections, as the member opposite said.
Hon. M. Sihota: I dealt with this issue in a lengthy way this morning; the hon. member knows that. Secondly, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale dealt with the issue. Thirdly, I would draw the hon. member's attention to the words: "If the board is satisfied that...the unit is appropriate for collective bargaining...." So there's a test that has to be met with regard to the board.
Fourth, I would draw the member's attention to the concluding comments that I read from the Plateau Mills case this morning.
G. Farrell-Collins: Clearly we've been addressing this for the last half-hour or so. The minister wasn't here. Perhaps he would like to read Hansard and some of the comments of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale so that he's familiar with what was actually taking place.
The minister states that his reasons for this have been stated already. The reality is that what we are dealing with here is not necessarily the appropriateness of the bargaining unit. That, as the minister states, is determined by the Labour Relations Board, not by the employer or the employees. That really is irrelevant to the debate here. We're not concerned with whether or not the Labour Relations Board is happy with the bargaining unit. We haven't got to that part of the section yet; we're still dealing with subsection (1) of this section.
The question is: in the minister's mind, does he not see that under section 23 there is -- I'll state it very clearly for the minister in hopes that he will answer it very clearly -- a change and a further limitation on the rights of individuals which are given in section 8 and limited by section 9? Does he not see that there is an inherent contradiction there and a conflict, whereby a member, an employee or, for that matter, anyone would not have the opportunities and the rights ascribed to them in section 8?
The Chair: The hon. member continues on section 23.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm trying to be as reasonable and as practical as I can in this line of questioning in debate with the minister. I think that's a fair question. The minister is bringing forth this bill. He brought forth section 23, which is a new section, and we're merely asking the minister for his interpretation of how section 23 may conflict with section 8. As of yet we have not had the minister answer that, but I would hope that he would, because there's obviously a fundamental flaw in the bill. If he'd like to respond to that, I'd be glad.
L. Hanson: Yesterday in the debate on section 23 the minister gave us some statistics as to how many presentations were made to the committee based on the requirement for the vote and the 55 percent automatic certification. If I remember his comments correctly, they were something like 51 employers' organizations that said to leave things alone, and there were roughly 51 other presentations from organized labour that said it should be changed. The minister went on to tell us that the committee that was representative of the employer, the union and the public community had unanimously recommended this change. I wonder if the minister is aware of the recent Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey of the 8,500 British Columbia members where 86 percent wished to retain the vote. How can the minister relate that information to the fact that the three men who submitted to the committee are representative of all the community? One would seem to argue with the other.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I said to your leader this morning, a veteran politician like you should know better, hon. member. You know full well that you can frame any question you want in any way you want, and we all know what argument-testing is. It would be interesting to go through the exercise of asking that question at the outset and putting all of the arguments that I made this morning on the record to people, three of them particularly that came out of the Plateau Mills decision, and to see how those numbers would shift. I'm confident that if the arguments were put forward from both sides, some of the superficial peel would evaporate, and people would arrive at the right public-policy decision, which is a decision that is found in the legislation, that has existed in British Columbia for some 40 years and that is found in eight of the other ten jurisdictions in Canada.
[ Page 4383 ]
L. Hanson: Just for the minister's interest, the question asked was: should automatic union certification be decided by a supervised secret-ballot vote in all cases? That's where the 86 percent came from. This seems to me to be a fairly straightforward question without too many political hooks to it, as the minister is suggesting.
The minister yesterday also quoted that well-known labour expert Mr. Paul Weiler. Actually, I can repeat his quote:
"The trade union gets a piece of paper -- a licence to bargain on their behalf -- which is by no means 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."
I suspect -- and the minister might agree -- that with some other changes where there is the application of a first contract after a period of time, that may not be entirely indicative of what the situation would be today after this Bill 84 is passed.
Hon. M. Sihota: A first contract existed at that time, but I think there is a more salient point than that. Let's not forget that the purpose of this legislation is to try to assist parties to conclude agreements, to try to do it in a peaceful way and to try to take us away from the adversarial and confrontational relationship which has so long marked labour relations in British Columbia. It is true that there are changes now to the first contract system from the way it was at the time Mr. Weiler made his point. But it's important to note that those changes are an improvement from what we had then, in the sense that they're designed to assist the parties to resolve. So it may well be that a union, as well as an employer, can take advantage of those provisions to bring about a resolution. But what's wrong with having a system in place that encourages and indeed assists the parties actively to resolve the dispute? It is true that that provision exists. It exists for a good reason: to achieve the larger objective of the legislation, which I'm sure the hon. member would not disagree with.
L. Hanson: I can't argue with the minister on the principle of what he is talking about. I'm simply saying that the quotation by Mr. Weiler, who is referred to as the guru of labour relations in this province, would not be necessarily applicable today, because circumstances have changed with the rules. It's only fair that if the minister can use that suggestion in the debate, I have an opportunity to refute it. I think the minister mentioned at another time that we have a difference in philosophy, and part of it is related to that.
The minister has already made the case a number of times that we are moving back to the situation that is the prevalent rule in most of the provinces of Canada, although there are, I believe, two or three others that have the requirement for a vote. I think the minister would recognize that British Columbia will again be a first, in having had a secret ballot in the certification process and then returning to the old days where there is no requirement for a secret ballot. Most jurisdictions in other countries that have had the requirement for a secret ballot have not abandoned it once they have it in place, because they recognize the democracy of it and the lack of democracy in the automatic certification process.
G. Farrell-Collins: Because the minister does not wish to answer the question, I assume that he sees no conflict between section 23 and section 8. I have a hard time understanding how he doesn't see the conflict. I think it's quite clear that rights granted in section 8 are limited in section 9, and that the minister intends to further limit them under section 23. Therefore that certainly does not allow for the type of open debate that should take place.
[4:30]
The minister, and certainly the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, were talking about those terrible days under Bill 19. I agree that there were some changes that certainly needed to be made with Bill 19. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale stated that this procedure for a secret ballot that we're being denied in section 23 somehow took place only under Bill 19. In fact, it has taken place as early as 1984. I guess it has all been swept into the hype and the outrage that went along with Bill 19 and -- in the member's mind, anyway -- tends to be included in Bill 19 as one of its onerous provisions.
I would like to ask the minister this specifically in regard to section 23. Does he not feel that in the process of automatic certification as described in section 23 there is any need to reaffirm the members of the bargaining unit to state that they still, as of the date of the application or sometime very shortly thereafter, hold that they are members of the trade union?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca raised these issues earlier in the day, and perhaps the hon. member would like to refer to that exchange in Hansard.
G. Farrell-Collins: I indeed was here for most of the debate this morning and certainly this afternoon, and I'm familiar with what was said. I have no need to solicit Hansard. I guess the question is that under section 23 the application is made, and at that point the members of the potential bargaining unit have no further opportunity to go through the process that the minister has identified, where they can send in their card and say that they no longer wish to be part of that bargaining unit. In fact, it's as of the date of application. How do those members of the bargaining unit know when that date of application is going to be, so that they can decide what their deadline is for when they have to send in their card?
The Chair: The member continues.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know if the minister was intending to answer that question or not.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I'd missed in the past, but my
[ Page 4384 ]
statement from the past stands. Here are the points. One, if the hon. member reads the draft regulation that's attached to the report of the panellists, he will see that there is provision in there that requires the card to indicate that an application will be made. Therefore the signatory to the card is immediately put on notice that there will be an application. Two, at any time prior to the certification application going in, he or she can revoke. Three, once the application for certification is made, then there is a notice on the board indicating that that is indeed the case. So I think those three variables attend to the various fact patterns that the hon. member has in mind.
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that this is not the place to be debating regulations, but since the minister brought it up, I would like to ask him very clearly: is it the intent of the minister and the intent of the draft regulations, which I suppose he intends to bring in as real regulations sometime in the near future, that notice of certification will be given to the potential members of the bargaining unit prior to the date of application as to what that date will be?
Hon. M. Sihota: The draft regulation, which the hon. member has, I'm sure, now had the opportunity to read, says: "In applying for membership I understand that the union intends to apply to be certified...." So they don't give an indication of the date, but they put on notice that there will be an application to certify.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's exactly my point. As an employee, I would assume that if somebody came to me and asked me to sign a union card, their intent would be to certify. I assume they would be intending to apply to certify. That would be the reason. The question to the minister is very clear: how is the potential member of the bargaining unit to know when that application will be made, so that they know what the deadline is for them, if they have a second thought and choose to withdraw from the potential bargaining unit by sending in their card? Is there any way that they will be notified? The minister has stated that they would be notified before the application was to take place. What process is in place to ensure that that happens?
Hon. M. Sihota: They ask their union agent, the person who signed them up. Obviously if they signed up, they're going to be anxious to proceed with the certification. It's only natural that they'll ask, hon. member. That's the way the world works.
G. Farrell-Collins: He is perhaps a little more optimistic than the minister. Once again, I suppose that comes from the sense of bias that we get from one side or the other: we sometimes hear members of the Social Credit say that unions are terrible and there's intimidation; and we have the minister say that employers are terrible and use all sorts of intimidation, and there's no middle ground. The reality is that it happens on both sides, and I think in their hearts people realize that.
There are cases, and we've cited numerous cases throughout the course of the debate. There was a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Sun a couple of weeks ago saying that employees have been pressured to sign union cards. It does happen. They're not likely to pick up the phone and start talking to the person who put them in that position. They don't know when the certification is going to take place. Should there not be some process in place for notification to be given to potential members of a bargaining unit as to when the application for certification will take place so that they have some time frame in mind to think this over and make their decision? Isn't that the least we could offer them?
Hon. M. Sihota: The first point is that if someone has been pressured into signing it, they can revoke their card any time they want prior to the application being made. It may be difficult for the hon. member to understand that people can pick up a phone and get that information from a number of sources, but it usually isn't for working people.
Secondly, with regard to those who have been coerced or intimidated into signing the card, they have the protection of section 9, which I am sure the hon. member understands, because we debated it some time ago.
Third, the hon. member understands that the test that's laid out in section 23 with regard to satisfaction of the board has to be met.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister fails to understand that not all members of a potential bargaining unit are going to know when the certification application will go in. Perhaps the union doesn't know until a day or two before it goes in. Should there not be some process in place to communicate to the members of the bargaining unit that two or three days from now we are going to put forth the application for certification? Should there not be some reaffirmation at that point by giving notice?
It's probably the least of the democratic principles the minister could bring into section 23 to ensure that the fair opinions of the employees are represented. Isn't that the least he could do? He doesn't want to have a vote; he doesn't want to have a ten-day waiting period for the vote; he doesn't want to go through all of that. He wants to have automatic certification. Isn't the least that could be done under this act a provision that would provide notice to potential members of the bargaining unit that within 48 hours there will be an application before the Labour Relations Board for certification? If you want to sign up now, great; if you want to pull your card, that's your opportunity. There's no coercion or intimidation; merely notice given to the bargaining unit without the employer knowing. The employer doesn't have to know; just give the notice to the employees that application is going to take place in a day or two. Then they have the opportunity to make that final, sober second thought. Isn't that a provision that could be incorporated into this bill?
[ Page 4385 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think any useful purpose would be served by doing that. It's always open to that under regulation. We don't necessarily need a statutory amendment to that effect.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that the minister, then, is not going to change the act, but the potential lies there for the minister to make such a change within the regulations. Would he be willing to entertain that thought? Or is he completely opposed to it?
I hear a member saying that it is an unfair labour practice to advise the members of the bargaining unit that a certification is coming. Perhaps the minister can advise us on that. He's shaking his head; I guess he's not sure, or he's saying that it's not an unfair labour practice.
The Chair: Please address the Chair, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm doing my best, but it's hard to have a one-sided conversation when the person on the other side doesn't stand up to answer.
Hon. Chair, in the provisions that we're asking for here, we're working our way down the list of democratic rights that should be accrued to employees. We would like to see them have a free vote or a secret ballot. The one we're trying to bring forth here for the minister's benefit is to at least....
The minister talks about them having the right to revoke their cards. If that's what he is relying on to ensure that the employees have an opportunity for second thoughts, then the employees should know in what time frame they are allowed to have those second thoughts and when that certification application is going to take place. I think it's the least we can do to ensure that the employees have the choice.
I can't see how that's open to intimidation or coercion by the employer, because the employer doesn't have to know. All you have to do is advise the members who are holding cards that an application is going to be made on such and such a day -- two or three days from then -- and they should be aware of it. You don't even have to say: "Sign now, don't sign now or send your card in now." They know. Then they can go home and think: "Okay, I've got two days to make up my mind on this thing. Maybe I'd like to change my mind; maybe I wouldn't."
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member over there is laughing. The reality is that we had a case where more than 55 percent of the people had signed union cards, and all but two voted against. There's no reference to intimidation by the employer, and that's a case where these people had a sober second thought and chose not to vote in favour of the union. And the member laughs. I have no problem recognizing the rights of employees to choose freely whether or not they want to be certified; maybe he does.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member says they've signed their card. Well, in the case that I'm citing -- I don't know if he was here to listen -- those members went to a vote without intimidation. Some of them actually pulled their cards beforehand, went to a vote without intimidation and all but two voted against. In this gentleman's case, for example, he had talked to friends who had been represented by that union before, and he decided that perhaps that wasn't the direction he wanted to go. What's wrong with that? The member laughs, shakes his head and thinks that that's a terrible thing to do.
The Chair: Hon. member, please address the Chair. The dialogue should not be with members who are not in the debate.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I'll wrap up my comments. As I say, it's difficult to have a debate with members who fail to rise in the debate. I don't recall that member even speaking in second reading, so it's hard to debate with him when he won't stand up to speak. But I'll continue with my comments.
The Chair: Please do, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think it's quite clear. The minister has stated that the reasons for section 23 are to ensure that there is no opportunity for coercion and intimidation to take place in the workplace, and that an employer cannot coerce or intimidate the employees in the bargaining unit into deciding whether or not they wish to join a union.
I have absolutely no problem with that goal. I think the way the minister is going about it is all wrong. We disagree fundamentally on the change in principle and the change in this bill. If the minister is really concerned that the employees fundamentally have to decide whether or not they wish to be certified, if he believes that the employees should be free to make that choice without coercion or intimidation, but should know the time frame in which they are allowed to make that decision, and if he really believes in the provision for revocation of cards when they no longer wish to be part of the certification process as a fundamental right of the employee, then he should be making provisions and changes -- if not within the act, then certainly within the regulations -- to have those members who are holding cards notified in advance of the certification application going before the Labour Relations Board.
[4:45]
That is the least the minister could do. If his feelings are as strong as he says they are for the rights of the individual employees, as opposed to the rights of the union, here is an opportunity for him to highlight that. I say that it shows a fundamental difference. Members on this side are very concerned that individual employees should be able to make a free choice, with the full knowledge of what the implications are. The minister is clearly only concerned about the union getting certification and not about whether employees really want it or whether they have access to the information required to
[ Page 4386 ]
make that decision in a logical manner. That's the difference between the two sides.
D. Symons: I'm just having some difficulty with the debate that has been going on here, because as I understand it, we have philosophical differences. They have been mentioned two or three times in the debate. As I understand it, the first philosophical difference is with regard to whether the employer has any right to speak to the employee. It's not really guaranteed in here. Our philosophical difference regarding the freedom of speech seems to be one of them. I heard that from the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. The minister seems to be shaking his head in agreement that that's one of the differences we have here, whether the employer has any right to the freedom of speech that seems to be guaranteed in section 8 but might be removed by section 23.
The second one is the idea of a secret ballot. We seem to have a philosophical difference of opinion as to whether a secret ballot is really needed. I have real concerns with that one. It's very important that the various circumstances mentioned by the previous speaker, and other circumstances, could lead to a situation where what may take place when certification is given -- because the 55 percent is there -- is that it may not actually represent the wishes of the employees at the time. The employees may not have the full picture, because one of the major players is not in it.
The Chair: Hon. member, I would remind you that the line of debate you are embarking upon was decided in second reading. As well, the matter which you are now talking about has also been thoroughly canvassed in committee. I would urge the member to keep that in mind when making his remarks.
D. Symons: Just a point of clarification, am I not allowed to speak on the secret ballot? Is that not what's in this section?
The Chair: Hon. member, as you know, all of the matters have been canvassed. It is left up to the member speaking to use his judgmen in his debate, with the greatest of respect for the standing orders. The Chair is reminding him that the matter has been well canvassed. Hopefully members will discuss matters which are relevant and which have not yet been canvassed.
D. Symons: I'll wrap up very quickly then, because due to the length of the debate, I suspect that many of these points have been made by others, although I have not always been present in the chamber when that has taken place.
The other concern I have regarding the secret ballot is the situation where employees being signed up and who are signing cards might be quickly outnumbered by the infusion into that working unit of people who have cards from a previous job that they worked on. There may be no desire on their part, in their new position, to join the union. But simply because they're holding a card and have not withdrawn it.... From the points the previous speaker was making, unless we know that there's a time at which this must be done, it's quite easy for people to get careless, lazy and so forth. It seems only appropriate that such a provision should be made within the bill, so that employees would know when the certification process will go forward and would know that that is when they must withdraw their card if they wish to or that they must leave it there if they wish to remain in the union.
There are quite a few people in many jobs.... I have one here in which a gentleman comments about his business. He says that it's a small business, but many employees come in.
"A small company like ours may employ ten to 15 regular people, but if we are fortunate to be low tender on two or three bids, our workforce can triple for a short period of time. If the secret ballot vote is in force to certify, we have no problem, because everyone at that particular time has one vote and they base their vote on our company. If a card system is to replace the democratic vote, this could mean that the temporary workforce that we have hired could be all card-carrying members, and our company would automatically be certified."
He goes on to say that they'd basically be certified not in relation to the company they're currently working for but because of the relationship they had with the previous company they were working for.
Therefore it seems highly unfortunate that a bill would be coming forth that's going to deny this secret ballot to the members before the actual certification takes place. It's very important that that take place in a democratic society.
Section 23 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 37 |
||
| Petter | Marzari | Boone |
| Sihota | Priddy | Edwards |
| Cashore | Barlee | Charbonneau |
| Jackson | Pement | Beattie |
| Schreck | Lortie | Giesbrecht |
| Smallwood | Hagen | Gabelmann |
| Clark | Cull | Blencoe |
| Perry | B. Jones | Hammell |
| Evans | Dosanjh | O'Neill |
| Doyle | Hartley | Streifel |
| Krog | Randall | Garden |
| Kasper | Brewin | Janssen |
| Miller | ||
| NAYS -- 18 | ||
| Tanner | Reid | Tyabji |
| Farrell-Collins | Gingell | Warnke |
| Stephens | Hanson | Serwa |
| De Jong | Neufeld | Fox |
| Symons | Anderson | Hurd |
| Dalton | Chisholm | Jarvis |
On section 24.
L. Hanson: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[ Page 4387 ]
[SECTION 24, by addition of the words: "government supervised" before the words: "representation vote" wherever they appear in the section; and by deletion of the words "and not more than 55% from subsection (2), and by substitution of the number '5' for the number '10' in subsection (3).]
On the amendment.
L. Hanson: The amendment covers several issues. One is that we insert in the secret ballot process the requirement for supervision of that secret ballot. I realize -- and the minister, I am sure, will point it out later -- that there is a section of the bill which requires that the ballot, in the case of it being ordered by the Labour Relations Board, be conducted in a manner that the individual's yes or no vote could not be determined by anyone else. We submit that there are situations where a vote can cause some difficulty.
[5:00]
A vote was held just recently in the Kootenay area, and the concern of a member of the union there was -- and I quote from the article: "The union hall was packed and no private booths were provided to cast ballots, so anyone could look over co-workers' shoulders and determine how they voted." While I recognize that the minister's argument may be that the cost to government of supervising the vote is prohibitive, I would suggest that in the interests of ensuring that democracy is carried out the way it was intended to be, he agree to this amendment that would require government supervision of that process.
I know we have discussed a number of times the similarity with or the requirement for a secret ballot process in the electing of our representatives. I know that the minister has suggested that in these circumstances, with the information that was provided to the committee of three, a secret ballot would not necessarily be required -- although I do acknowledge that if a ballot is required, it is required by the legislation to be held in a manner such that no one else could determine how the individual voted.
I would like to remind the minister of a paper that is being circulated by a colleague of his regarding municipal elections. One of the guiding principles in it, which I suspect his government supports, is that the secrecy of the ballot is vital. The integrity of elections should be protected from abuse, and I suggest that it would be quite easy to delete the word "election" and just simply say: "The integrity of votes should be protected from abuse."
An Hon. Member: Would that be for service clubs, too?
L. Hanson: I heard a member of the House, who is a union member, ask if that would apply to service clubs also. We're talking about a very serious process, a very serious democratic process, and I think a remark like that gives some indication to the people of British Columbia how important this government considers that democratic process and the right to secrecy.
Included in the amendment also is a section that would remove the requirement of 55 percent by deleting the words "not more than 55 percent." The minister has, in a number of other sections, suggested that the requirement for a vote is not there any longer if 55 percent of employees are signed up by membership cards, for the reason that employers are interfering in the process. We have submitted as an amendment that rather than ten days for the vote, which is the requirement under the old act, the requirement now be reduced to five days to preclude the possibility of interference from the employer.
Could the minister respond again to the report by the three representatives recommending these changes, particularly in the area of the supervision? I don't believe it is covered in the report in any detail. Could he give us the thinking of the committee that went around the province as to why, though they require a secret ballot, they would remove the requirement for supervision of the balloting process?
The Chair: Before recognizing the minister, I should comment on the amendment before us. The amendment has three distinct aspects to it. The Chair would find the one referring to "government supervised," which implies a contradiction of the principle of that section, to be out of order, as well as the reference to "not more than 55 percent," which also seems to contravene the intent of the section.
However, the one matter of changing the number from ten to five appears to be in order, and the Chair would permit the debate to continue on that basis, if the hon. minister would like to respond.
L. Hanson: Well, hon. Chair, for clarity's sake, I'm not sure I understood your ruling. I understood that you ruled the deletion of the words "55 percent" out of order. There are three distinct parts to the amendment. One is that the act requires a secret ballot, and we're suggesting that the amendment should be that it requires a secret ballot but that the ballot should be supervised. The other section reduces the ten days to five days. Which are you ruling out of order, hon. Chair? I had expected that this probably would be the ruling of the Chair, but you have totally astounded me as to which section you've ruled out of order.
The Chair: The reason I made the ruling with respect to the 55 percent is that we just dealt with that in the previous section, and it was in my opinion a matter that was established and therefore inappropriate to re-debate. However, if there is a case to be made for permitting that based on the comments from the minister, then the Chair is prepared to recognize that. I would recognize the hon. the minister at this point.
Hon. M. Sihota: If I may, hon. Chair, I certainly concur with your view with respect to the 55 percent component of your ruling. Obviously I would concur with the "government supervised," but in order to short-circuit that issue, let me tell the hon. member on the record that a board-ordered vote under this section will be government supervised. That will be dealt with by way of the regulation to the act. Regardless of whether it's in order or not, I'd make the argument that it would be out of order. In any event, I want you to
[ Page 4388 ]
know that that is being attended to by way of regulation.
That then gets us to the final issue of the five days, and the Chair has ruled that that's in order. On that point, I'd love to accept that amendment, believe you me, but I'm advised at this point that it's practically impossible for us to have a vote within that time period -- unfortunately, inasmuch as I'd like to see the time reduced. It's an awkward situation. For practical reasons, of which I'm advised, that would make it difficult to hold a vote within ten days. We cannot agree to the five-day provision, inasmuch as we'd like to. So all round, it's not a bad amendment, except for the 55 percent provision.
L. Hanson: The minister says it's not a bad amendment, but he won't accept it. In any case, Mr. Chairman, I'm still a bit confused, because when you remove the 55 percent -- and I understand why you're ruling that that is inappropriate -- the reduction from ten days to five days really would be withdrawn also, because those two are very closely joined. The issue of secret ballot and supervision of that secret ballot was the one that.... Did I hear the minister say he is going to put in place by regulation later that there be a requirement for supervision of the vote?
Hon. M. Sihota: For board-ordered votes there will be a requirement under regulation for government supervision.
L. Hanson: Mr. Chairman, with that on the record from the minister, I would suggest that we withdraw the amendment, because if we have the minister's commitment to do that in regulation, it would have the same effect.
D. Symons: Just a point of clarification. It's at the end of 24(1), the last few words. They "may order that a representation vote be taken, in accordance with the regulations...." I'm wondering if the minister can just tell me, because we're voting blind unless we know what these regulations would be.... I'm curious. Will that representation vote be a secret ballot? And will that be covered in accordance with this regulation that's mentioned?
Hon. M. Sihota: The member for Okanagan-Vernon has already mentioned that there is a section that deals with the secret ballot, in reference back to this section. Secondly, I have already said on the record that there would be government supervision with regard to this aspect of a vote ordered by the board. So I've already dealt with both of those issues, hon. member.
D. Symons: My concern is whether there are regulations currently in place. If they aren't, it could possibly be that an LRB member would be there, and it would be a raise-your-hand type of vote. I just want some guarantee that that's not going to be the case.
Hon. M. Sihota: I would ask the hon. member to read section 39. The answer is right there in that section.
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that the amendment by the Social Credit caucus has been ruled out of order for a number of reasons, which I understand....
The Chair: Just to clarify, it was not ruled out of order entirely. In any event, it was withdrawn based on an understanding of how to proceed.
G. Farrell-Collins: Again I request the Chair's indulgence a little bit with regard to some of what's taken place in the last five minutes or so. I wasn't here to understand the intricacies of the ruling, so if I step out of bounds I hope you'll advise me.
As far as section 24(3) goes, I understand that part of the amendment that the members from the Social Credit caucus have brought in had to deal with the time frame within which a vote is to take place. I'm just wondering why the minister feels that in cases where 55 percent of the people in the bargaining unit have signed up ahead of time, there's automatic certification. My understanding from the previous debate is that his reasoning for that was to ensure that no intimidation, coercion or unfair labour practices would take place under that section. Then why is it that the minister leaves that same provision in for the 45 to 55 percent? Does he not feel that perhaps there could be some changes to the time frame or some other aspect to ensure that that type of intimidation in fact doesn't occur when there is a vote for that percentage?
[5:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: I agree: the hon. member was not in the House. We would love to reduce the time period, but practically it seems that we can't do it any faster than ten days.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's interesting, because in one of the other sections where we had a limit with regard to three or five working days as far as dismissals go, the minister indicated that it was feasible to work seven days a week and to actually deal with those issues extremely quickly. I give the minister credit for that. I think that that was a good provision. We brought forth an amendment that would specify working days, and the minister assured us that the Labour Relations Board would be able to deal with that handily within three days, whether it was a Saturday or Sunday or both included in that time frame. I think that that was a good motion. It certainly reduces the stress on the employee who's been dismissed.
But as this relates to section 24(3), is there no way that that time frame could be tightened up? If we can work seven days a week as far as unfair labour practices and dismissals of employees go, certainly there must be some creative way whereby that time frame could be changed. Just as an enlightenment by the minister, could he explain some of the practical reasons why it's difficult to reduce that to below ten? If he could do that....
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let's say within. Secondly, if I could reduce it, I would. Third, it's just
[ Page 4389 ]
practical problems from going up to a site, particularly outside the lower mainland -- just getting up there, checking out the cards, getting hold of all the people and reviewing the dates. The experience has been that it often takes two or three trips to deal with issues for those kinds of practical limitations.
G. Farrell-Collins: As I was in my office before I came into the House, I heard on the television that government-supervised votes will occur when the board so designates that a vote should take place. I assume that that is good. As far as subsection (1) goes, it says: "The board...." -- it goes on and on -- "...represent them as their bargaining agent, may order that a representation vote be taken...." We assume that that's government supervised, according to the minister. If the board were in doubt as to what the wishes of the bargaining unit were, shouldn't they then in all cases order a representative vote to be taken? Why are we allowing that type of discretion to be encased when it's clearly in doubt in the minds of the board as to whether or not that representation is a true representation? The only way to find out would be a representative vote. Isn't that the only way? I'm just wondering why it shouldn't say that the vote "will" take place instead of the vote "may" take place.
Hon. M. Sihota: This section has to be read in conjunction with section 23, which we just passed. Section 23 says: "If the board is satisfied...." It then leaves room for dissatisfaction, and that's why the word "may" is used.
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that. Maybe we're missing each other in our discussions. Subsection (1) says that when they are not sure that the representation has taken place.... Maybe I'm off track; maybe the minister and I aren't quite hitting on this one. It is my understanding that the criterion for section 21 is that a vote may be given. I understand that it relates to whether it's 55 percent or 85 percent. If they're not sure that that's a proper representation, then a vote may be called. I'm questioning the minister that if they're not sure, isn't a vote the only fair way to do it at that point? Shouldn't the act then say that a vote "will" be taken instead of "shall" be taken? Perhaps the minister can enlighten me on some of the other procedures they may use to determine whether that is a fair representation.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the 45-55 paragraph of subsection (2) says "shall". Secondly, remember that if you made that change, you would be nullifying the effect of the previous section, and you'd be going to mandatory votes.
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding of it isn't that that's exactly the case. There may well be cases where there would be automatic certification under section 23. An application comes forward, but the board is not sure whether that 55 percent or 65 percent -- or whatever the percentage is -- is a fair representation. In that case, are there other provisions? What other ways could they do it short of interviewing each individual member in private to determine whether in fact that was a fair representation of the actual members of the bargaining unit who want to join the union and those who do not? Isn't there a problem then with section 21? Maybe the minister can explain what other process they would go by without a vote in order to confirm that the representation took place? Would it be an interview or by contacting each individual member of the bargaining unit? How would that take place?
Hon. M. Sihota: You're right. Someone's not understanding somebody here. But look, under section 23 the board has the ability to make some determinations. It has to be satisfied. If it's not satisfied, then it may order a vote. So it has that option. If we put "shall" in there, it would allow an employer to come to the board every time and say: "Here's my argument. Now you shall...."
In any event, read in conjunction, you're right. If the board's not satisfied with a situation, chances are it will order a vote, but if we just give them some leeway.... I can't think of a situation off the top of my head -- if I understand your question right -- where they would want to tell them to do something else. They may want some other evidence because they're not fully satisfied. You don't want to close off their option to do that.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's fine. I think the intent of the minister is quite clear. My understanding is that there is really no other way. If, under section 23(2), they're not sure, they can then go to a vote. However, the reading under section 24(1) is such that this would only happen in the event of section 23(2) being applied.
I'd like to come back to the line of questioning I had in subsection (2) that dealt with the 45 and 55 percent. I know we've dealt with this in other sections. If in principle the vote is not necessary for section 23 at 55 percent, I assume that the vote in section 24 -- the 45 to 55 percent -- is merely to determine whether or not there is a majority. The minister feels, I guess, that once you've got 55 percent as opposed to 54 percent, it should be automatic, and there's no need to confirm that extra 3 or 4 or 2 percent -- or whatever it is -- in between there.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm trying to follow the question. Is the question why we decided on 45 to 55 percent as opposed to simply signing up 50 percent of the cards and off you go? Is that really what you're trying to get at? If I believe what I just said in 23, then how could I have a vote of 45 to 55 in 24(2)? Is that it?
G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, the reverse is the question that I'm asking the minister. Why does the minister feel, if it's a fair process to occur between 45 and 55 percent, that it's not a fair process to occur outside of that? I'm questioning the difference between the two sections and perhaps the conflict in philosophy in them. If a vote can be considered to be fair under section 24(2), then why wouldn't the vote be considered elsewhere also?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think we're all perplexed here, in terms of our understanding of the question. All three
[ Page 4390 ]
of us have a different understanding of what the hon. member is trying to get at. Be that as it may, it is true that a vote of between 45 and 55 percent is required. It is not required from 55 percent and up. It's a matter of public policy. We made a decision that at 55 percent and up, there's sufficient evidence not to warrant a vote. There are some grey areas -- 55 percent and below -- so between 45 and 55 percent we made a decision to preserve that element of the vote. If your point is that there's an inconsistency in the two sections, you're right.
W. Hurd: I just want to ask the minister a question. He will be aware that some of the unfair labour practice allegations with respect to certification votes have come as a result of defining the bargaining unit when the cards are being signed and a vote is held. I'm sure the minister would welcome the opportunity under this particular section, because we are dealing with the potential for a vote.... Where you have such a fine line between 45 and 55 percent, would there not be greater pressure in the workplace to discourage the achieving of 55 percent by somehow manipulating the number of people in the bargaining unit at that time? This concern has been brought up under previous sections of the bill by the labour movement in particular, in defining the bargaining unit. I wonder if the minister would welcome this opportunity to explain how this section will in any way mitigate those unfair labour practice allegations, which have occurred in the past, in defining the bargaining unit at a particular point in time, given the fact that the number of cards that are signed as a percentage of the total workforce has the potential to be changed or for a different percentage at various times during the certification process.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'm not going to answer that question. I'll tell you why. Section 22 dealt with determination of the appropriate bargaining unit, and I draw the hon. member's attention to that section. If he were to read it, he would see that that was the time and place to deal with this issue. It wasn't, and it's got no relevancy to section 24, which admittedly mentions "unit." But the whole question of determination of the appropriate bargaining unit and unfair labour practices was the scope of discussion that fell within the ambit of section 22, not 24.
The Chair: The minister's point is well taken.
W. Hurd: I note under section 24(4)(b) that if "less than 55 percent of the eligible employees cast ballots," the board may direct another representation vote to be held. Surely the minister would agree that the potential exists for considerable workplace harassment to induce employees not to exercise their right to vote even the first time around. I mean, I don't see how in this particular section, Mr. Chairman, given the parameters we're dealing with, there could be any reduction of the kind of unfair labour practice allegations that have occurred. Does the minister not agree that under subsection (4)(b) there might be the possibility of the kind of workplace disruption and rancour that he has talked about, to induce people not to even exercise their right to vote?
Hon. M. Sihota: No.
Section 24 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 36 | ||
| Petter | Marzari | Boone |
| Sihota | Priddy | Edwards |
| Cashore | Barlee | Charbonneau |
| Jackson | Pement | Beattie |
| Schreck | Lortie | Giesbrecht |
| Smallwood | Hagen | Gabelmann |
| Clark | Cull | Blencoe |
| Perry | B. Jones | Hammell |
| Evans | Dosanjh | O'Neill |
| Doyle | Hartley | Streifel |
| Krog | Randall | Garden |
| Kasper | Janssen | Miller |
| NAYS -- 17 | ||
| Tanner | Tyabji | Farrell-Collins |
| Gingell | Warnke | Stephens |
| Jarvis | Chisholm | Dalton |
| Hurd | Anderson | Symons |
| Serwa | Hanson | Fox |
| Neufeld | De Jong | |
On section 25.
J. Tyabji: I'm looking for clarification from the minister with regard to 25(1), which reads: "When a representation vote is taken, a majority shall be determined as the majority of the employees in the unit who cast ballots." Does that mean if you have 40 show up out of a unit of 500 and the majority cast ballots in favour, that that qualifies?
[5:30]
The Chair: Order, hon. members. Please carry on with your conversations outside the chamber in order that we may continue with the committee's business.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair. I know the member for North Coast particularly appreciated that comment and direction from you. I wonder about that member from time to time.
The theory you propose in your question is attended to if you take a look at 24(4), which we just passed. You could do that, in theory, but the board would obviously have the ability to redirect another vote if it were that extreme a situation. Unless there were some very compelling reasons to the contrary, I suspect that it would.
J. Tyabji: If we had a situation where there was a union, and the majority of its members were dispersed across the province, but some of those members had filled in cards at one time or another that had been sent in, could the minister see a situation...? I notice that 24(4) does say "may" and not "shall." But my under-
[ Page 4391 ]
standing, based on the minister's response, is that he did mean that 25(1) would refer to 24(4) as "shall." Could the minister clarify that, please?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I didn't say that at all. I didn't suggest that; I didn't imply that; I didn't mean that. All I said was that the board has some discretion to look at the facts and deal with them. I'm not going to get into hypotheticals; I'll tell you that right now. There are all sorts of hypothetical situations that I am sure we can all think of, hon. member. The fact of the matter is that the board has discretion. We expect the board to look at the facts and exercise their discretion wisely, and I am confident that they will.
J. Tyabji: I would like to get the minister on record as far as the intent of the bill is concerned, when he's talking about a majority of employees in the unit who cast ballots. If the bill is written in a manner that prevents a small representation from the unit showing up and qualifying as a majority for the purpose of the vote.... I do have some concerns. I don't think the minister is addressing it correctly when he says that if 24(4) does not allow for "shall".... We know it's at the discretion of the board, but it is very important to look at possible situations where this would be applied. That's the whole point of being here. So it's not valid to say, well, that's just a theory, and it wouldn't happen. We know it would happen. We know that in a lot of cases you don't get majority representation showing up for a vote. You do have unions where you have members dispersed around the province. So if there are many examples where you don't get a majority showing up to vote....
Hon. M. Sihota: Do you have lots of examples?
J. Tyabji: Well, I'm sure the minister has lots of examples. The minister is asking....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Well, certainly we can get some examples for the minister. But the point is that I would like to find out what the intent of the bill is. Is the intent of the bill to have 25(1) read in a manner that would preclude having minorities of the unit showing up to vote and having that majority carry as representative of the majority? Or does this minister feel that 25(1) would read in a way that...? Let's say 50 percent show up to vote and it passes by a margin of 51 percent of those who show up. That's only 25 percent of the unit voting in favour. Does the minister believe that the bill is written in a way that a 25 percent approval....? I don't know if the minister has followed the numbers I've given him, but for the minister's sake, I hope he's listening. Let's say we have 50 percent plus one showing up to vote, and of that we get 50 percent plus one in favour. Does the minister feel that 25(1) is written in such a way that the board would not review that? Would a simple 25 percent of the entire unit qualify?
Hon. M. Sihota: The board has discretion in whatever situation it wants to order a vote under 24(4). That's the first point. I'm not going to get into hypotheticals, and I would suggest to the hon. member, in all respect, that when she says there are many examples of this, that's just not true, and it's not a problem.
Secondly, let me tell you this: sections 24(4) and 25(1) are an improvement over the current law. The current law doesn't have a 24(4) provision, whereas we put this in to deal with some situations. Rather than dreaming up hypothetical situations which may never happen, the hon. member should be congratulating the government for taking the initiative it did with regard to 24(4).
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding of this section is pretty clear then: as long as 55 percent of the eligible voters show up and vote, as long as a majority of them vote, the....
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. We're not trying to force people to vote. We are trying to give them the opportunity to vote, which is substantially different from what the government is doing.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the members of the government just voted against the right to a free vote, so they obviously have taken away the right to vote.
In section 25, perhaps there's a process in place. The minister can expand upon whether or not he wishes to change that process or on what the process will be if this bill continues as it is. What process will there be for the bargaining unit and the employer to know what percentage of eligible voters actually voted in the vote and what level of support was gained? Was that made very clear to all members?
Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member would just read section 39, he would find the answer to the question.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to point out, hon. Chair, that it took the minister some time to answer that question, because he was flipping around and getting advice from his advisers. Perhaps if he'd read section 39, he could have answered before.
The Chair: Order, hon. member.
J. Tyabji: A point of clarification from the minister. If I'm to understand this then.... I do apologize; I haven't participated in the debate this afternoon as much as I would have liked to.
Based on the comments from the minister, we could have 55 percent of the eligible employees casting ballots, and a simple majority would allow the vote to pass. If that is my understanding, that means you could
[ Page 4392 ]
have roughly 28 percent of the eligible voters carrying the vote. Is that how this bill reads?
Hon. M. Sihota: Conceivably, yes. As the hon. member knows, we elect municipal governments with fewer voters than that.
Section 25 approved.
On section 26.
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding of section 26 is that it is, in fact, a new section, and in my reading of the green book -- that infamous report that was kept silent before the legislation was tabled....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's infamous for its lack of publicity, that's all -- not necessarily for its content.
Interjections.
The Chair: The interjections are not appropriate, hon. members. Please respect the person who has his place. Please proceed, hon. member.
[5:45]
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I accept your comments -- and nor were the interjections pertinent to what we're discussing.
With regard to section 26, it's a new section. Perhaps the minister would wish to explain the intent and the rationale behind the section, given that it is new.
Hon. M. Sihota: This section allows a trade union to request a certification vote when it has at least 45 percent of the membership support, prior to the determination of such matters as the appropriate bargaining unit by the board. This avoids delays in the certification vote process when the appropriate bargaining unit is being determined. With regard to the rationale, the change is consistent with the concern to carry out representation votes quickly when they are required and to avoid opportunities for improper employer interference in the decision to certify.
This section has been restored to legislation from a pre-1984 code, and therefore it is not a new section. It's a new old section.
G. Farrell-Collins: Like many things the government is bringing in, it's new, but it's really very, very old.
The Chair: Order, hon. member.
Interjection.
The Chair: And to the previous speaker as well.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate that.
As far as this legislation is concerned, section 26 is a change. It's a new addition to the code. Whether it existed somewhere else in history is perhaps irrelevant.
The minister rambled off his reasonings fairly quickly from his briefing notes. Perhaps he can explain to us once again in some more detail, what the intent is specific to the 45 percent representation vote.
I really am trying to engage in a constructive debate with the minister. I've been trying to do that for some time. The minister doesn't seem to want to participate. I don't know if he's not comfortable with defending his bill or what. We're asking legitimate questions; we're asking for explanations; we're asking for the intent of the minister in bringing forth this legislation, but we're not getting it. I asked a reasonable question, and the minister rattled off a list of reasons, as quickly as he possibly could, from his briefing notes. I doubt if he wrote them himself; they're written by someone else. Either the minister can send me a copy of his briefing notes so I can understand the implications and the intent of what he said, or perhaps he could do us a favour and grace us with his intellect and renowned understanding of the....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The sentiments that you may feel for the minister are perhaps in order at another point in time, but we are now on section 26. I would ask the hon. member to address the section before us. Would the hon. member care to continue?
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, we're trying to determine the intent of section 26(2). Is this designed as some sort of a straw vote for the union to determine its level of support? We're asking the minister for clarification as to what the intent and possible applications are of this section. I think it's a fair question. We're asking for an understanding of the intent of this section. I don't see why that's a problem.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, it's up to the board to decide. Secondly, it's not a straw vote. Thirdly, if the hon. member did not understand what I read, let me read it slowly so he could understand it.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm glad you're cheering.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
Hon. M. Sihota: This change is consistent with the concern to carry out representation votes quickly when they are required to avoid opportunities for improper employer interference in the decision to certify. That's the rationale.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I won't get into it. There's no point, I suppose. We have constant interjections from the back bench with no recourse, and I'd like some evenness in....
[ Page 4393 ]
The Chair: Order, hon. member. Shall section 26 pass?
Section 26 approved.
The Chair: Is the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands rising on section 26?
C. Tanner: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm rising to adjourn debate, because I think we've had enough for the day.
The Chair: A point of...?
Hon. M. Sihota: You had called the vote on section 26 before the member rose to adjourn. We had answered aye, and I assume the section is passed. That's the only point I want to clarify.
Interjection.
The Chair: The Chair had ruled that section 26 had passed, and the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands rose to move that the House adjourn. That motion takes precedence over all others, as the Chair understands it, and the calling of a division at this point would be out of order. I will consult with the Clerk to be sure.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, perhaps you can explain to me.... My understanding was that the vote was called by the Chair. All those in favour said aye; there was no call for the nays, and the member rose. So my understanding is that the vote was not complete. Do we complete the vote first, or do we deal with the motion by the member?
The Chair: The process that I used was to employ a voice vote, which was responded to by the nays, and I so recognized. There was no call for a division, and it is not customary to ask for the nays and the yeas. It is in some Houses, but it's not our practice. The question was: shall section 26 pass? It was yes. I said the yeas had it, and that's all there was to it. There was no division called. Therefore, when the hon. member for Saanich North rose, that was the next order of business. It is not a debatable matter -- at least, it's a matter that has to be put.
J. Tyabji: Point of order. My apologies, but I would have risen to speak to section 26. However, I thought the member for Saanich North and the Islands was rising to speak to 26, and my understanding was that....
The Chair: As a matter of fact, the Chair thought he was too. But he did put the motion forward.
J. Tyabji: The question I have for clarification is: if I had risen to speak on section 26, my understanding is that I would have been able to do that.
The Chair: Had you done so before your hon. colleague rose to move that the committee rise.
J. Tyabji: The question that I have is: once the motion to adjourn has been decided, can I then rise on 26 because I still had something to say on it?
The Chair: No, hon. member, not unless there is a decision by the Government House Leader to reconvene or some other process is created.
The question now is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada