Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 19 -- Thursday, August 16, 2001



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Introductions by Members		1005

Petitions		1005
	Aziza Hamo's position at Immigrant Services Society of B.C.

Proceedings in Section B

Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 18). Hon. G. Bruce
	Committee stage	1015
	J. MacPhail

Proceedings in Section A

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Water, Land and Air estimates. Hon. J. Murray
	Vote 47: Ministry operations	1010
	Hon. J. Murray
	M. Hunter

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure today to introduce someone who was introduced about a year ago in this House by the member for Port Moody–Westwood, who is absent today. She has been doing a lot of work on some stuff here in Victoria: my daughter Christina. I wanted to have the House please make her welcome.

R. Masi: I would like to present a petition that was received by myself and also the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. The petition contains 250 signatures. The petition seeks to restore Ms. Aziza Hamo's position of employment at the Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, by prior agreement, we will be calling Committee of Supply. For the information of members, they will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. In this chamber we will be calling Committee of the Whole. I call Committee of the Whole for committee stage of the Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: We're going to be doing a lot of work this morning, and I ask for the cooperation of both the Chair — and the Chair has always been terribly cooperative to date — and the minister, because I expect that there'll be amendments flowing back and forth across the chamber.

First and foremost, I need an explanation of section 21(1) and (2). The one that I'm particularly interested in is the striking out of section 26 completely. I gather that the striking out of section 26 is because a representation vote has to be held at all times.

Hon. G. Bruce: Before I answer that, I'd just like to introduce my staff that's with me: my deputy minister, Lee Doney; director of policy, Jan Rossley; and my director of the collective agreement arbitration bureau, Kevin Rooney.

J. MacPhail: Well, we'll get into much discussion about a vote and the necessity for a vote, although we did have quite a bit of information forwarded to the minister in the debate at second reading yesterday.

I have an amendment that I wish to table. The amendment is to reinstate section 26(3) of the act, which says: "The board may direct that the ballot box containing the ballots from a representation vote under this section be sealed and the ballots not be counted until the parties have been given full opportunity to present evidence and make submission."

The way I have approached it is to table an amendment to delete section 26 from section 1. I think I provided a copy of that to the minister. The reason for that is that I don't want section 26 deleted; I want section 26(3) to remain. So that's why that amendment is written that way.

Hon. G. Bruce: I appreciate the amendment and the concern. We believe, though, that under section 22 and section 25(2) these concerns are looked after.

J. MacPhail: I'll speak to the amendment, if I may. Again, the amendment is to delete section 26 from the striking-out clause. The purpose, again, is so that section 26(3) of the current Labour Relations Code, which is now being amended, remains as part of the law. Let me explain why I want section 26(3) to remain in the Labour Relations Code.

Evidence has shown from numerous certification hearings that employer intervention has repeatedly taken place — intervention such as intimidating or firing employees, hiring family members before a certification vote takes place or hiring new employees specifically to vote against a union. All of that is evidence of real and ruled-upon unfair labour practices.

One important remedy now exists for the Labour Relations Board when those allegations of unfair labour practices have been made. The Labour Relations Board seals the ballot box until such time as the Labour Relations Board is satisfied that a fair vote has been held and that only eligible workers have voted. It's quite common practice for the Labour Relations Board to seal the ballot box.

By removing section 26(3), the government has, I think inadvertently, removed this explicit provision in the Labour Code that protects not only workers but

employers, who may also have questions about the vote. And employers have had questions about the vote.

So I'm submitting the amendment. I really do think that this might have been a technical oversight by the government. This does not in any way interfere with their living up to their new-era promises. I would ask government members to support this.

I must say that the minister's comments that this is covered elsewhere in the code, because the LRB can do so under other provisions, is not explicit anywhere. I know that this government's trend is going to be to rely on the law already established through rulings at the Labour Relations Board, but things change at the Labour Relations Board. Personnel may change; corporate memory may change. In order for this not to be subject to challenge — that the Labour Relations Board has the explicit right to seal a ballot box until it's determined whether a fair vote has been conducted should be explicitly included in the Labour Relations Code.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll move the amendment at this point even though we thought that it should have been moved earlier. I move the amendment to section 0.1 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain the amendment for the record, please?

Hon. G. Bruce: For the purpose of clarification, what this does is return to the board discretionary powers. Under section 25(2)…. In the wording that was there, we wanted to make sure it was clear that the board had the necessary discretion. This is done through section 14(4)(f). It's a clarification purpose.

The Chair: I noticed on the amendment there was a section 1. Would the minister please move the amendment at this time.

J. MacPhail: I have tabled two amendments to section 2, and I think the minister has copies of those. Section 2 of the amendment act is changing section 24 of the Labour Relations Code. The first amendment is to section 24(1), and it's to delete 45 percent and insert 35 percent. I'll certainly speak to that first, but just for the record and for the information of the members present — whether they participate or not — I'm also asking, in an amendment to section 24(2), that a representation vote be conducted within two days. Therefore, you'd delete "within 10 days" and replace it with "within 2 days."

Let me speak first to the amendment on…. Well, first of all, maybe I could ask the minister what his view is of proceeding, continuing on, in light of the change of demanding a representation vote for every single certification application. What consultation did he do in that context to continue having a threshold level of 45 percent to obtain a vote?

Hon. G. Bruce: I just want to be clear on procedure. Did I hear you move your amendment? No, it's okay. I'm wondering whether we're speaking to the amendment or if you're speaking to the existing bill that's before the House.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, no. That's a good question from the minister. I will move the amendment. I'll seek this information first, and then I'll move the amendment.

Hon. G. Bruce: What we've done is revert back to the way things were. That's clearly what we had intended to do, and we're following through with that.

J. MacPhail: But when the consultation was done in the early nineties — actually, it was 1992 — by Roper, Baigent and Ready, the discussion around the threshold for a representation vote was in the context of the lack of a requirement for a representation vote if there was a clear majority, 55 percent, indicating by signature that they were to join a union. The 45 percent flowed, then, from the fact that if 45 percent of people indicated their support, that would be good enough to have a vote.

Given the fact that a vote is now required at all points, that organizing campaigns tend to be adversely affected by unfair labour practices and that unfair labour practices increase with the demand for a mandatory vote, why did the minister not consider that fact? Or did the minister consider that fact in the change? He said that he's just carrying on with what the practice was before. What the practice was before was that there was a 55 percent threshold for no vote.

Hon. G. Bruce: Prior to the changes that were made in 1993 — I believe that was the time when these last changes were made — the threshold was 45 percent. Across Canada, as comparisons, I think Alberta is 40 percent, Ontario is 40 percent…. We don't consider that…. I mean, it's 40 percent, 45 percent…. We believe it's fair and appropriate, what was in place prior to 1993. What we're doing is returning it to what it was prior to 1993.

J. MacPhail: I move an amendment to section 24(1) to delete "45%" and insert "35% ."

J. MacPhail: There is a lot of information on the record about how the ability to certify in an organizing drive changes with the amount of time an employer has to influence that certification drive, that organizing drive.

For British Columbians who may not be familiar with labour relations or joining a union, let me just describe what we mean by an organizing drive. The term "to organize" means to organize a workplace in an associated way that allows people to come together and bargain collectively with the employer. That's what the term "organize" means. I know that in a previous life I was describing this to a group of students, and even at the high school level they didn't understand the origin of that word.

Of course, from an organizing drive that brings a collective group of people together to assert their rights with the employer, flows certification. What the Labour Relations Board does is certify a bargaining agent on behalf of that group of employees.

This government is changing the law so that a legal signature on a legal document, and a legal declaration, is no longer valid. It's no longer valid for indicating a person's statement of their wish to join together in a collective way. The employer is saying that a clear majority of signatures on a card that's a legal declaration doesn't really indicate a clear majority, that there has to be another test. That other test has to be a vote, and that vote has to be by secret ballot.

When the law was brought into place to say that a group of employees in a clear majority, 55 percent, who indicated legally that they wished to come together with one bargaining agent and negotiate their wages and working conditions…. That was a good enough indication of the true wishes of the employees. That's gone, as a result of changes brought in by this government. So now we're in a situation where employees have to meet two thresholds. I don't know where else workers have to do this when they want to negotiate with the government. But workers now have to meet two thresholds.

They first have to meet a threshold of 45 percent of them coming together, legally signing a declaration indicating that they wish to join together, and then they also have to have a vote on top of that. We'll get to the period of time in between those two processes. But all workers are doing is exercising their rights under the Charter of Rights in Canada and recognizing International Labour Organization standards of rights. All they're doing is saying: "All we want to do is sit down and legally negotiate with our employer how we work and we're paid."

What I'm saying here is that by this amendment, the government is imposing two tests. The combination of both is far too stringent for employees to exercise their rights under the Charter of Rights in Canada. That's all I'm saying: the initial threshold of 45 percent is beyond the necessity of getting the employees the right to vote. Mind you, I disagree entirely with the government's perspective to eliminate automatic certification at 55 percent of legally signed cards. I expect my point of view won't prevail on that, although I will test it.

The government hasn't even considered the imposition of a double threshold, a double test. They haven't even considered looking at having a different test for that. They haven't reviewed whether it's fair, given the fact that there's going to be a mandatory vote now, that access to that vote should have a different standard. The minister stands up and says that that's the way it was back when he was in government before, under a different political party. He's back now. It's the same old view.

There's been a decade of change. There's been a decade where people now are joining unions in a different way. We have young women joining unions in greater numbers. We have younger people joining unions in greater numbers. There's a mix between the private and the public sector now. Workplaces are constructed in a very different fashion. There's a modern workplace now that disperses workers away from the factory. There's a modern workplace that disperses workers away from the oil field. There's a modern workplace now that doesn't have everybody working in a sawmill. Technological change has rejigged the workplace.

So I'm wondering why none of that was taken into consideration by the government. Why didn't the government say…? Given the context of a different workplace where people aren't all gathered in the one spot, why wouldn't it make sense to have a threshold of at least a third of the workers — that's what 35 percent is — who have indicated initially, legally, that they want to come together and join a union?

Hon. G. Bruce: The number was 45 percent, and there were many, many certifications. That 45 percent certainly wasn't a restrictive number in that process. British Columbia has a very large union component in the province. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think, actually, that under this current situation the union percentage has actually fallen. I think it was higher. I think it was 35 or 37 percent in days past, and now it's fallen to about 31 percent. So I wouldn't say that it's this number that's been the problem, and I won't go down the road of the past ten years as to how hard and difficult it's been for both union and non-union employees alike or people who were generally working here in the province.

The other thing I'd like to speak to is the importance of an individual signature and the somewhat implied dismissal of an employee's signature or a person or a group of people wishing to certify. They would sign their names on the card, as the normal process takes place, and that signed card, if it represents 45 percent of that unit, then proceeds to the LRB for a certification process. So there's validity, and

there's value and worth. It's important that a signature be taken. I wouldn't dismiss that somebody's signature isn't of any value. Of course it is. That's how the process works. It's a little bit of a change in the process.

I think it's fairly clear. This is measured; it's balanced. It's worked very well in British Columbia before. It'll work that way again, I'm sure. It's thereabouts — what's happening throughout Canada….

J. MacPhail: Just to clarify, the minister was making reference to the drop in the percentage of people who belonged to unions. It had nothing to do with the 45 percent of cards signed on an individual bargaining unit basis. I think the minister was referring to the fact…. I was confused initially that in the eighties and nineties 37 percent of the adult workforce joined unions, and that percentage has dropped.

Well, it's exactly because of the changing workplace. I'm trying to discuss with the minister that the workplace is a much different entity these days. We don't have hundreds of workers working in mills. In fact, today there are hundreds and hundreds less working in mills, I might add, because of this government's inaction. We don't have that kind of workplace anymore. We have smaller workplaces. We have workplaces of under 50 employees. It's the burgeoning nature of the workplace.

I bet you anything that's exactly the reason why this government is bringing in these amendments. They don't want the changing nature of the workplace to in any way impede their friends who supported them during the campaign, the employers who are in small and medium-sized businesses — very important people in the economy. But this government sides only with the owners. They don't want the workers in those smaller workplaces to have any rights — none. This is a clear indication that the government has done no review, no consultation, had no input whatsoever about how circumstances have changed. The economic situation, the nature of work has changed in the last ten years. They've done none because they don't care. They don't care about the workers. They only want to assert the employers' rights to have it their way.

The reason why the amendment to reduce the threshold is on this floor — and it's only a threshold; it's only the first hurdle that workers have — is that having 35 percent of people sign a legal card is a good enough threshold to then force a mandatory vote.

Let me ask this question of the minister. The Medical Services Plan budget is over $1 billion; in fact, I think it may be approaching $2 billion. The Medical Services Plan budget goes entirely to physicians. That's $2 billion, 10 percent of the operating budget of this government. The government negotiates with the B.C. Medical Association. How does this government determine the B.C. Medical Association's membership and that the membership is legally constituted?

Hon. G. Bruce: Things have dramatically changed in the last ten years, and I don't think one can just simply skate by and try to come back to certification-decertification when you've already brought up the fact of why there are fewer union members in the province today. It's really clear and really obvious because you've thrashed this economy. You kneecapped the forest industry; you brought it right to its knees. And in action, we're going to have to fight as a government, as a province and as a people to regain our rightful place in the forestry markets because of the actions, because of those steps that your government took — when the NDP was government — in just devastating this forest industry. Every community from one end of this province to the other was affected negatively by your policies.

Let me talk about the mining industry. The pay of the average miner in a union with a good, well-paying job — the type of jobs we want to have in the province — receiving $70,000 or $80,000 a year per member, was cut in half — literally gone. The industry itself has up and moved to other countries. Your government, the NDP government that was here before, thrashed the mining industry which had good, solid union jobs.

So let's actually reflect on what we're talking about here today, hon. members. We're talking about the right ingredients that make an economy grow, be competitive and encourages business and investment. With that investment and those businesses flourishing, it encourages well-paying jobs, and many of those jobs will be good, solid union jobs. Let's be very, very clear on something. To achieve 57 or 58 percent of the popular vote in this province, which is virtually unheard of…. It is the highest number, I believe, that's ever been achieved, and I think in all the elections it's only been three times — correct me if I'm wrong; it might only be two — that a government has achieved 50 percent plus in the way of the popular vote. But to get that, hon. members, you have to have a very large percentage of the union members in this province voting for that party and, in this instance, voting for us as government.

We were clear right through this entire past campaign as to what we intended to do in restarting this economy. I was in more union lunchrooms this time than ever before in campaigns. When I went into those lunchrooms, I didn't have four and five people showing up. They weren't forced to come. You let people know you were going to be there; it's part of the election, part of the democratic process. We'd end up with 20 and 30 in the lunchroom. They weren't just burying their head in their lunchboxes, thinking: "Oh, here's another politician after our vote." They were keenly interested in what it was we as a party were prescribing, what we were intending to do to get the economy going. They had seen their industries, their workplaces, their fellow union members disappearing — let's be very clear on this — because of the policies and actions of the former NDP government.

I think we should be careful how we go along this line. There were ten sawmills, I believe, that closed from 1997 to the year 2000. Ten sawmills. They were all good, solid union jobs.

J. MacPhail: I'll repeat my question. Two billion dollars of the Medical Services Plan fund goes to physicians in this province. The government negotiates with the B.C. Medical Association for how that money is spent and to whom. How does the government determine legal membership in the B.C. Medical Association?

The B.C. Medical Association has a bargaining relationship with the government. It's a bargaining relationship that operates in exactly the same fashion as the bargaining relationship with the B.C. Government Employees Union or with CUPE. They're not subject to the Labour Relations Code, but it's a bargaining relationship that is exactly the same. The disbursal of Medical Services Plan funds is determined by the Ministry of Health through the Medical Services Commission and the BCMA, just the same way that the disbursal of taxpayer dollars between the BCGEU and the government of British Columbia is determined at the bargaining table. How does the government determine membership in the B.C. Medical Association?

J. MacPhail: Just for the record, in case somebody thinks there was a skip in the tape, is the minister going to answer the question that I asked?

Just in case the public, when reading the Blues later on, thinks that there were 18½ minutes skipped on tape or something, let the record show that the minister couldn't answer the question.

I would move my amendment to section 24(2), which deletes "10" and replaces it with "2." Does the table have a copy, and does the minister have a copy?

Hon. G. Bruce: I didn't want to interfere with the hon. member. Did you move your amendment? I'm sorry; I was just getting some advice here. Was that the amendment to delete "10" and replace it with "2"? Is that what you're suggesting?

J. MacPhail: I'll speak to the amendment, if I may. This section deals with the amount of time that can lapse before a representation vote has to be taken. Section 24(2) currently reads: "A representation vote under subsection (1)…." Subsection (1) is the section of the legislation that requires 45 percent of employees to sign a card before a vote can be taken. Then subsection (2) kicks in: "A representation vote under subsection (1) must be conducted within 10 days from the date the board receives the application for certification or, if the vote is to be conducted by mail, within a longer period the board orders."

My amendment says the time that must lapse before a representation vote can be taken can be two days.

We have repeatedly seen that the longer period of time an employer has for application for certification to vote on union representation, the more opportunities there are for unfair employer interference. The Roper, Ready and Baigent report stated that after the introduction of secret ballot votes in 1984 — and again, this is the time that the minister wants to return to, the good old days, the good old Socred days of 1984 — the rate of unfair employer labour practices rose by 100 percent. That's what the minister defines as the good old days: 100 percent as employers intervened to avoid unionization.

Remember, in my opening remarks…. Some wondered why I put it on the record. I described why people join unions. This government is introducing that every single person must have a vote now, a representation vote, in order to exercise their right to join a union. Well, the Roper, Ready, Baigent report — again, a balanced panel, not skewed in any way — said that when votes were required by obligation, employer interference increased and the vote shifted from not being about whether to join a union and negotiate with your employer but about whether you got to continue to work or not.

That's how much the employer interference changed the spectrum on the shop floor. The unfair labour practices increased so much that no longer were workers casting a ballot about whether they could join a union and negotiate with their employer; they were voting on whether they would keep their jobs or not. That's what Roper, Ready and Baigent said.

To continue, a quote from their report: "It is not acceptable that an employee's basic right to join a trade union be visited with such consequences and illegal interference." As the report concluded: "The simple reality is that secret ballot votes and their concomitant representational campaigns invite an unacceptable level of unlawful employer interference in the certification process."

That's one reason why — in addition to B.C. — Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Territories all accept union certification by a majority of signed membership cards. While this government thinks of going back to the good old days of Social Credit government in the

eighties, virtually everybody else in the country has moved on to say a legal signature in the majority is good enough to say that you can join a union. The good old days that this government likes are only the good old days in their own mind. Everybody else in the country has moved on.

This government has already, unfortunately, decided to ignore the advice of this panel of labour relations experts. They haven't replaced it with their own panel of experts. They've talked to the B.C. Business Council and the coalition of independent and small businesses. That's who they've talked to, and, I guess, also Hochstein. That's their grand total of consultation. They've ignored even employer lawyers.

The fact that they've ignored, first of all, the nationwide trend to accepting a majority of legal signatures as basis for certification…. Ignoring that trend, wanting to travel back in time, the least the government could do is reduce the opportunities for employers to unfairly interfere in the certification process. At least they could reduce that period of time by reducing the amount of time lapsed between when an application is accepted and the workers' right to vote.

The Ontario Harris government — a government that the Liberal government wants so much to emulate on so many fronts — has given some recognition to this issue, and they've instituted a five-day period between the application being accepted and the vote of the workers. They actually looked into this. They looked into the lapse of time between the application and the vote, and they reconsidered their initial time period of ten days and reduced it to five. Why did they do that? Because they accepted the overwhelming evidence that the longer an employer has to interfere in an organizing process, the greater the chance is for the workers' rights to be taken away.

We believe that certification by signed membership card — card check, as it's known — is the right approach. That was the approach that was accepted by W.A.C. Bennett, for example. But if there's any concern about unfair labour practices by this government, about workers being denied their democratic rights to join a union, surely this government would agree to shorten the time period to the same standard set by the Mike Harris government.

In fact, that should be only their first consideration. This government could actually reduce the time period even further, as the amendment says, to just two days and further reduce the number of unfair labour practices that would take place within a longer period of time.

Let me pause here, because I expect the minister will stand up and say: "Oh, the Labour Relations Board can't do it within two days." We certainly know that the government's not going to give the Labour Relations Board any extra resources to have a fair and balanced approach from a logistical sense; we certainly know that. I can guarantee to the minister that the Labour Relations Board's workload will be cut down by holding votes within two days, because of the reduction in the number of unfair labour relations applications. It will be a net gain in staff time available for the Labour Relations Board if the vote is heard in a shorter period of time.

As I mentioned yesterday, a recent study by researchers at Queen's University in Ontario examined 420 responses from employers who dealt with a union certification application between 1991 and 1993. Let me reiterate, for the members present, what the study found, because it's clear from the heckling of various members that they have no knowledge of this field whatsoever — none.

This is employers only. The report found that 94 percent actively opposed union certification applications; 88 percent engaged in actions to frustrate union access to employees; 68 percent used direct communications with employees to oppose certifications; 29 percent tightened work rules or monitored employees; and 12 percent admitted to other unfair labour practices during an organizing drive, where all workers were doing was trying to exercise their legal right to join a union.

The study also found that certain types of employer resistance during the organizing drive erode employee support for the union and increase the probability for early decertification. There should be no doubt that employers — and I say this regretfully — cannot resist the temptation to intervene unfairly.

Another study by two Montreal management professors illustrates the problem with certification by secret ballot in the workplace. They found that captive audience speeches by employers to workers have a consistent negative and significant effect on certification.

Yet another study, from Cornell University in 1997, also found that union support and certification probability decline as the number of captive audience speeches increases.

A second British Columbia Labour Relations Code review took place in '97. A person that the Minister of Labour is probably familiar with, because he worked for the Social Credit government when he was a member of the Social Credit government, is Jim Matkin. Jim Matkin was actually Deputy Minister of Labour, and he formerly filled the role of president of B.C. Business Council. Also on the panel was esteemed mediator Vince Ready; former Labour Relations Board Chair Stan Lanyon, who was a mutually agreed-upon Chair of the Labour Relations Board, I might add; and labour lawyer Miriam Gropper. They again, in 1997, over four years after the Labour Relations Code had been brought in, looked at the secret ballot, as that government was wont to do, to make sure that there was consultation and fairness throughout the process.

They looked at the secret ballot on certification again, and they again reached the same conclusion many years later, after the 1992 panel: "We continue to believe that the risk of increased incidence of unfair labour practices during certification outweighs any advantage in using the secret ballot during the certification drive." But that matter has been decided

by this Liberal government. That matter has been decided in their meetings with corporate CEOs, the B.C. Business Council and the small business coalition. They didn't talk to anyone else, but they did decide that.

What this amendment says, in the context of a mandatory vote, now, and knowing full well that every study shows that with a mandatory vote, employer interference increases and that has a direct negative impact on an employees' ability to join together and form a union…. In that context, I am moving this amendment to say that the amount of time available for employer unfair labour practices should be limited to two days and that a vote should be held within two days. I ask the Minister of Labour to support that amendment. And if not, why not?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's important that we remember that in the context of the election and the New Era document and the platform that was laid out by this party, we talked about the certification and decertification process. We said that they should be balanced — that what is undertaken for decertification will also be reflected in what is undertaken for certification. That's exactly what we have done. We have taken the same language for decertification and the same time frame, ten days, and we've applied that to the certification process.

Now, the consultation process — if you'd like to reflect on that a minute — is the highest consultation one can take in a democracy. We announced that. We clearly printed that in our New Era document. It was embodied in our campaign material. It was spoken about in meetings throughout this province. It was debated at all-candidates meetings. There were 28 days of debate. With that, the general public — voting broadly, granted, but on the basis of an election platform that was the most comprehensive election platform that's ever been presented in the province of British Columbia — voted on that. They voted 77 to 2. They voted 58 percent in favour. The consultation was very wide, very extensive and a clear expression of the will of the people of British Columbia.

Now, in respect to the ten days and the two days, it doesn't mean that this has to take ten days. It means that it can't be longer than ten days. If there is a way that is humanly possible that all the parties can get it together and do it in two days, so be it. There's no restrictions on doing it in two days. Your comparison of other jurisdictions, of five days in Ontario…. That's five working days in Ontario. We're talking ten days in total, which would also include weekends. So if you look at that, we get very close. It could represent six working days, in fact, I believe.

The point is that there is the flexibility. If there is a way that the parties can put it all together and do it in two, they can. It's up to ten. The ten days is a true reflection of exactly what we said: certification will be the same as decertification. That's what we've put into effect.

J. MacPhail: What's the average time it takes to get a representation vote now?

J. MacPhail: So the minister somehow says that's going to change, saying there's a possibility for that time period to be shortened. How does he expect that to occur?

Hon. G. Bruce: The minister didn't say that. The minister said that if the parties wanted to do it faster in the time limit you're talking about, that's fine. The distinction is this: the limit is ten. You can't go beyond ten; it has to be done in ten. That's the distinction. If it can be done sooner than that, by all means go ahead and do it. But the distinction is ten. The most important aspect to remember is the fact that what was done in decertification is being done in certification.

J. MacPhail: The minister has failed to present any evidence to contradict the assertion made by me that the length of time an employer has to influence the right to join a union has a negative impact on the outcome, unless he has some studies that he's withholding, and I'd be happy to see that, because I'd be comforted by that. I know working people in the province would be comforted by that. Unless he has those studies, it is a given that the longer the period between the submission of an application and a vote…. It leads to a substantial increase in unfair labour practices and a negative outcome for a workers' right to be certified.

So it's not just a matter of "if the parties can get together," which is kind of like the…. I've heard this from several ministers: "You know, we meet in the corridors, and we have a nice chat," or "If the parties can get together and they have time, let's just let them work it out." It's the government's responsibility to provide the resources to defend a worker's right, just the same way it's the responsibility to provide the resources to defend an employer's right. So it isn't a lackadaisical thing. It's the government's responsibility to ensure the protection of those rights.

This amendment guarantees the government's obligation there. This amendment says: "Labour Relations Board, you have to do it in two days." You know what flows from that, then. The government has to make sure that it does. They can't cut and slash programs. They have to actually provide the resources. I know that the Labour Relations Board could do this, because they won't be dealing with unfair labour practices. Instead, they can put their energies positively to conduct the vote.

The minister admits that the average length of time is eight to ten days. So there's eight to ten days where there's going to be the opportunity for interference. Perhaps the minister could suggest how he's going to provide resources to the Labour Relations Board to ensure against unfair labour practices.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move the amendment to section 2 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a grammatical error, Mr. Chair. The editor's error, in grammatically changing the placement of the word "that," may inadvertently cause the board to think there's a change in timing. This floor amendment provides greater certainty that there is not a change in time.

J. MacPhail: I understand that staff had briefing on this. I still don't understand it. What's the problem that the minister is trying to resolve here?

Hon. G. Bruce: It was a drafting error, in the sense that you have two "thats" in there. We didn't want the board to think the change that had been made was a reflection of will or direction, so we are reverting it to the way it was, very clearly, so there is certainty in how the board looks at these things. We're just putting it the way it was supposed to be.

	YEAS — 67
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Neufeld
Coleman	Penner	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Belsey	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	R. Stewart	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 1
	MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, if I could refer to section 1 of the floor amendment. I move the amendment to section 1 that's in possession of the Clerk. That was the changes needed to be made in section 1 by deleting "of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244." This was just an editorial correction because of the amendment that was section 0.1. This is just a clerical adjustment — all right?

J. MacPhail: I have absolutely no way of following these amendments as they cross the floor. I have to accept his word that these are floor amendments of a clerical nature.

Hon. G. Bruce: I appreciate that. We did attempt to give you a briefing. I appreciate that you….

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, on all this, but not on this particular one. All I'm saying is that I appreciate your confidence, and by the same token we were trying to also keep you completely apprised of what we were doing. I believe we were able to brief your assistant on the others. That's all.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could explain the necessity for this section.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, could I have short five-minute recess? We're just waiting for our deputy to return. He was just checking something and will be here shortly.

J. MacPhail: My question before we recessed was: could the minister explain section 3, please?

Hon. G. Bruce: This section is when a vote is taken. If the union receives a majority support in the secret ballot vote that is required under the new section 24, and if the board is satisfied that the unit of employees is appropriate and after an investigation under section 22…. This is subsection (2). Subsection (3) is in respect to the board making sure that the majority of votes…. If they are not in favour of the trade union representing the unit as a bargaining agent and they're satisfied that the unit is appropriate for collective bargaining, the trade union may not be certified as a bargaining agent for the unit.

J. MacPhail: I take it this is the section, as the minister has explained, in which the process is for determining certification. It's a two-step process, as I see it. One is that there has to be a majority of votes, and secondly, there has to be an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.

I want to continue the discussion under this section — again, it's another two-step process — about the requirement of a representation vote being used to frustrate unionization. There are some even more interesting statistics that need to be put into the record.

In the four years before certification by a majority of signed cards was introduced in 1992 — that's where if 55 percent of workers signed a card to join a union, that was good enough to form a bargaining unit and a bargaining agent; that is, in the four years before the law changed to allow automatic certification at 55 percent — unions applied to certify 1,227 new bargaining units, and the LRB granted fewer than 75 percent of them.

In the four years after a worker's right to sign a union card to join a union was restored — i.e., the automatic certification at 55 percent…. It had been there under W.A.C. Bennett. It was removed under Bennett Jr. and carried on by Premier Vander Zalm and then restored by Premier Harcourt. When that automatic certification was restored, unions applied for 1,907 bargaining units, and the LRB approval rate climbed to over 90 percent — the same legal body, the same independent tribunal, those changes in statistics. In those four years 38,000 workers became new members, more than double the amount certified when workplace votes were demanded and employers interfered in the certification process.

The certification process is rightly only the business of the employee. Virtually every academic body agrees with that. So when the automatic certification was brought in, 38,000 workers became new members who probably wouldn't have under the old rules that are now back in place. So I think it's a bit out of place in this chamber for the minister to stand up and say that all he's doing is restoring democracy to the workplace. This legislation — and this section confirms this — is all about helping employers keep their workers from joining a union — pure and simple. That's what this is about.

The minister says that he's just restoring the symmetry between certification and decertification. Well, what symmetry? There's no symmetry in the outcomes or the goals of those two processes. Employers support decertification, and they oppose certification — most employers. What symmetry? What's the requirement for a vote? We've seen the evidence already that employer interference in certification, because they don't want a union, harms certification. Why would an employer interfere in a decertification? They want decertification.

So for the minister somehow to stand up and say that this is about democracy, restoring symmetry…. If the Liberal government actually is really concerned about workplace democracy, let's see them bring in votes for workers about working conditions and making sure that workers can get family leave to take care of their family or a sick kid or take an elderly parent to the doctor. Let's see them bring in workplace votes on those matters, things that non-union workers have lost their jobs over. If we want to introduce workplace democracy, let's have workplace democracy on health and safety issues so that workers can take a vote on whether or not to risk their lives working on unsafe equipment and in hazardous areas.

No. This government and this section represent that. All this government wants to do is legislate a vote where it will only lead to fewer workers joining a union — absolutely guaranteed. It's not about greater democracy; it's not about symmetry or balance. It's simply to reduce the number of working people who will be able to join a union. Section 3 confirms that and is the process in place for working people to be denied access to joining a union.

Hon. G. Bruce: This section doesn't deny people from joining a union. This simply, as we've said before, balances the process of decertification with certification. There's nothing untoward in any of this. It's straightforward enough. You have a situation here, where there's some philosophical debate that's been had, and that's fine. This section clearly lays out how the process is to be undertaken.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a consequential amendment to section 28(1) of the Labour Relations Code to delete reference in that section to the repealed section 23.

J. MacPhail: Just to clarify. Does the minister's previous explanation apply to section 6 as well?

J. MacPhail: I've tabled an amendment with the minister. I don't know whether the Clerk has a copy. I seek the guidance of the Chair. We're moving into a brand-new area here, and it will take some amount of discussion. With that, I wonder whether we should rise.

J. MacPhail: No, I actually have a question, first of all, for the minister about section 7 here. Let me read into the record. The current legislation says it's about voting requirements. Section 39(1) of the current Labour Relations Code is about how and when voting has to occur amongst working people. It says: "All voting directed by the board or by the minister under this Code and other votes held by a trade union or employers' organization of their respective members on a question of whether to strike or lock out, or whether to accept or ratify a proposed collective agreement, must be by ballot cast in such a manner that the person expressing a choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed." That's the current law.

The minister wants to change that to strike out "must be by ballot cast," and he wants to put in "must be by secret ballot cast." I wonder what the minister thinks these words mean: "must be by ballot cast in such a manner" — these are the words — "that the person expressing a choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed." What does the minister think those words mean?

J. MacPhail: Yesterday the Premier ordered all of his ministers to put in place…. If they wanted one regulation to be put in place, they had to delete two regulations that were unnecessary and unwanted. Today we have a minister who wants to add a word that is completely redundant. He probably took a lot of staff time to figure out the way that was to be achieved. We have a minister who stood up and said that the phrase in the legislation now — "must be by ballot cast in such a manner that the person expressing a choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed" — means "secret."

My gosh, I expect that legislative counsel is extremely busy these days. The Premier is very wary about resources that government uses to impose unnecessary regulation. He stands up and says: "Ministers, bring me two for every one you want to put in place; bring me two heads for every one you want to add." And here we have a minister who somehow thinks that people won't understand the phrase to mean "secret."

The Chair: Member, according to standing order 84, this amendment is inadmissible. It actually renders the section…or deletes the section or the intent, so it's out of order.

J. MacPhail: No, and I require some time to debate this section, with the permission of the Chair. So I would move that the committee rise, report progress and leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. Murray: I'm pleased to present the estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection for the fiscal year 2001-02. This government is committed to turning this province around and restoring a vibrant, competitive private sector economy. At the same time, we've embraced the challenge of doing so in a way that respects the strong environmental values of British Columbians.

Every British Columbian wants a clean and healthy environment. We all want to leave a legacy of an environment that has been protected and improved to our children and grandchildren.. Visitors from around the world are drawn to British Columbia because of our province's great beauty and the uniqueness and quality of our environment, and the people who buy our export products want to know that we're protecting our environment.

Our government wants to build on this natural legacy. We've made a commitment to create a new era of environmental management based on sound science, cleaner air, cleaner water and sustainable practices. We can achieve this goal while pursuing our principal objective of creating a thriving private sector economy by leaving behind old polarized attitudes of business versus the environment. By working together with individuals, organizations and communities, finding solutions and innovations and new technologies, we can reduce our impact on the environment and, at the same time, generate economic opportunities.

My job and the job of this ministry is to provide the framework, policies and guidance that will enable British Columbians to enjoy the benefits of world-class environmental management through a scientifically based and principled approach to environmental issues that ensures sustainability, accountability and responsibility.

Some of the environmental improvements that this government has promised in our election platform include passing real, comprehensive groundwater legislation to improve the quality of British Columbians' drinking water; maintaining the long-standing ban on bulk water exports; opposing the Sumas 2 power project and phasing out Burrard Thermal over time; acquiring and preserving Burns Bog; passing a living rivers act to protect and improve B.C. river systems with scientifically based standards for watershed management; and promoting clean and renewable alternative energy sources, like wind, thermal, solar, tide, biomass and fuel cell technologies.

My ministry has many dedicated and capable members who are ready to serve the public interest. However, in order to get the best possible results in terms of a protected and improved environment, we need to do two things.

We need measurable goals. We must define British Columbians' long-term goals for environmental improvement and define how to measure them. What kind of environment do we want to have a generation from now? How will we know if we're on the right track to achieving that? What kinds of objective measures can we use to make sure we're making progress? What near-term targets can we agree will allow us to reach our long-term goals?

Secondly, we also need to change and improve our processes for environmental management and for protection, monitoring and enforcement. That will happen in a number of ways.

Through the use of science. This ministry will use the best available science to guide our environmental policy decisions.

Through sustainability. The ministry will work to foster a common understanding and commitment to the principles, practices and opportunities of sustainability — that balance of economic, social and environmental outcomes which will result in the next generations having an equally healthy natural environment.

Through accountability. Our ministry will develop a customer-service approach through which we can offer reduced red tape and bureaucracy as well as the consistency, timeliness and certainty that we need in our pursuit of the public interest in environmental decision-making. Clearly measurable targets, progress and outcomes will provide a basis for this accountability.

Lastly, through responsibility. We will provide leadership as we pursue British Columbians' common purpose of protecting and improving the environment. We'll clarify where responsibility for action really lies. We will work with people to define the required results, and we will allow people in organizations to find their own ways to achieve those results.

Within the mandate of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection there are five main areas of responsibility. The first is to ensure a healthier environment by regulating waste and pollution and responding to environmental emergencies. This government has already demonstrated its commitment to the people of the province in this regard by seeking and being granted intervener status against the Sumas 2 power project and by doubling the tax credit for alternative-fuel vehicles.

The second area of responsibility is to manage and protect our park system. This is both for conservation and research benchmarks and for the use and enjoyment of British Columbians and tourists. To that end, this government committed to making decisions on new parks in public. That's a promise that we've kept. At the first open cabinet meeting in late June we

confirmed our intention to work with the federal government to create both provincial and national parks in the Gulf Islands and to acquire and protect Burns Bog.

Thirdly, our responsibility is to protect fish and wildlife and their habitat, to ensure sustainable populations and species diversity and to manage them for recreational use. Many of our efforts in opposition, such as calling for the protection of the Upper Pitt River and opposing the Kemano completion project, were in pursuit of these goals.

Fourthly, the ministry will play a strong role in interprovincial and international environmental issues such as airshed protection, climate change and biodiversity. Along with my cabinet colleagues I will be taking British Columbia's agenda to national meetings of environment and natural resource ministers, taking place early this fall.

Last, but certainly not least, this ministry will provide leadership in encouraging environmental innovation through all sectors of the economy. We will work with the environmental industry, the business community, environmental interest groups and individuals in communities to promote new approaches to environmental stewardship and to further demonstrate that a clean economy is a competitive economy.

Hon. Chair, the budget allocates a total of $184.535 million to the ministry this year to carry out the responsibilities that I've outlined. In closing, I would emphasize that in the coming months the ministry will be working very closely with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and other ministries, and we will create a framework for protecting and improving the environment in a way that ensures sustainable social, environmental and economic benefits for all British Columbians.

M. Hunter: I'd like to ask a question with respect to one aspect of the ministry's regulatory responsibilities under the Fish Protection Act, and that is the streamside protection regulations. I ask these questions with a 25-year background in and around the fishing industry of British Columbia, in my former life, so I'm asking them understanding the needs of fish in our environment and the need to protect them. I perhaps understand that a lot more than many people.

I think, minister, you made a comment towards the end of your remarks that you were wanting to work with communities on new approaches to environmental stewardship. I have to agree with that, because when I look at the streamside protection regulations and the outcry I have had this week from my constituents in the south end of Nanaimo, who have just been subjected to the passage of an official community plan by the regional district of Nanaimo…. On the issue of streamside protection regulations, and particularly the prescriptive approach that those regulations take to setbacks from stream banks, I would like to submit to the minister that there are probably better ways of providing protection to fish-bearing streams than the current regulations provide.

I'm aware, of course, that the previous government passed these regulations. They apply to the lower mainland, east Vancouver Island and the southern interior. In the documentation around the regulation, it is asserted that these are regions of the province where "current urban development practices are destroying critical fish habitat at alarming rates." In the area in which the official community plan in the regional district of Nanaimo was passed the other night…. It would be hard for me to describe the area of Cedar as being one where current urban development practices are destroying critical fish habitat. This is an area of hobby farms, two- and five-hectare parcels, retirement homes. But where water courses actually go through the land — if these regulations are finally passed by the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and approved by him — we'll have people who will find, at their own homes, that there's a whole bunch of land, 15 metres either side of a stream that they are not going to be able to use.

In looking at some of the ministry's documentation on the old MELP website — and that may have changed since I looked at it earlier this week — I have a couple of questions. I'd like to get your response on how you see the streamside protection regulations, as they are now in their prescriptive approach, tying in with your objective of a new relationship with communities in seeking more flexibility — my words, not yours, but new approaches to environmental stewardship.

The ministry documentation suggests that there are science-based threshold guidelines that are widely accepted by the scientific community for the streamside protection regulations. I don't expect that the minister will have the answer to this right now, so perhaps I can ask that this be put on notice. I'd like to know what scientific citations would support that assertion on the public website of the ministry.

I am also concerned that the impact of these protection regulations on my constituents is going to have an impact on property values. Yet the ministry website, again, asserts that in fact property values might be increased. It doesn't cite anything, but it says that studies indicate that in areas where measures are successful in improving streamside habitat, property owners living next to watercourses may expect to see their real estate values increase between 10 and 15 percent. I'd like to ask the minister, on notice, if she could provide some citations which support that statement, which is used on the ministry website to justify and give some reasons why these streamside protection regulations are good for us.

Fundamentally, what I find is that these regulations do not apply to Crown land, which is 93 to 94 percent of our province, or FLR and ALR lands, another 5 to 5½ percent. You add those up and you're left with 1½ to 2 percent of the province to which these regulations

apply, minus all the areas of the province to which they do not apply. It seems to me that, while I support very much and endorse and will work hard to support this government's attempt to maintain appropriate, healthy, acceptable and productive fish habitat, I have to ask whether these regulations are not a little bit like taking a sledgehammer to kill a gnat.

I would like to ask the minister for her response to this so that as we move through this debate on estimates, I at least have some guidance as to what the intentions of the ministry might be in reviewing these regulations — part of the core services review or an internal review — and whether or not we can anticipate some flexibility and a new approach as time goes by.

Hon. J. Murray: In response to the member's question, healthy fish populations and habitat are an important public good. The streamside regulations to limit negative impacts on streams have been enacted, but the municipalities have been given a five-year period to implement the regulations. I have had a number of meetings with groups who've expressed concerns that are similar to yours, and my goal is to ensure that fish habitat is protected in the most effective and cooperative manner possible.

I would be more than happy to meet with you and concerned citizens from your community to find out more about what the issues are from your community's perspective. I would have to take questions on any scientific assertions on the website back to my ministry staff, and we'd be happy to answer those kinds of specific questions.

M. Hunter: I just want to say thank you to the minister. That response is very helpful. I will be looking to the minister to pursue some specific inquiries and, perhaps, meetings. I don't have any further questions.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY