1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1389 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government advertising. Mr. Harcourt –– 1389

Mr. G. Hanson

Miles Miller employment offer. Mr. Miller –– 1389

Voter registration. Mr. G. Hanson –– 1390

Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 1390

Mr. Rose

Sooke school arbitration. Mr. Jones –– 1391

Langford intermediate-care facility. Mr. Sihota –– 1391

Ministerial Statement

Establishment of cabinet committee on traffic safety. Hon. Mr. Michael –– 1391

Mr. Miller

Industrial Relations Reform Act (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson)

–– 1392

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Miller

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Rose

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Loenen

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID :

In the members' gallery today is a very close friend of mine, a former

resident of Chilliwack who then moved to Terrace as a small businessman

and has now moved to Sidney and opened up a little business there. He

has finally found time today to come in and watch the debate on Bill

19 — to watch it pass this afternoon. He's my special friend and

guest, and I wish the House would make him welcome: Mr. Bruce

Carruthers.

MR. BLENCOE : In the galleries today is a

constituent from Victoria, Mr. Tom Chatham, and he has a special guest

from Hungary, Mr. Joseph Batiki. Would the House please make them both

welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN : In the gallery are two women from the White Rock–Surrey area —

Agnes Dafoe and Betty Olynick. Both have been very active in seniors

networking and helping their community. I'd like the House to bid them

a very warm welcome today.

HON. MR. DUECK : In the

gallery today we have two fine young gentlemen from Central Fraser

Valley: Mr. Edward Fast, a lawyer, and George Groening, chairman of the

Columbia Bible College. They will be here watching our debate.

MR. BRUCE :

In the gallery today are two friends of my family and constituents of

Cowichan-Malahat, Ken and Betty Harry, and I would ask the House to

make them welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Tell us more.

MR. BRUCE :

More? As many members will know in the House here today, starting

tomorrow Cowichan-Malahat is the home of the B.C. Festival of the Arts,

and I would hope that this House would join with me in congratulating

the many volunteers who have helped and done a remarkable job in

putting this festival together. What in other years has taken 10 to 12

months, we in Cowichan-Malahat, a very progressive, enlightened

community, have been able to do in just three months.

MR. LOVICK :

You know, Mr. Speaker, to judge from the length of the previous

member's introduction, everybody in the galleries would have been

covered, but in the event that they haven't, will all the members of

this House please join me in welcoming all of you here who have not

been introduced.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. HARCOURT : I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary a question.

Yesterday he said that several ministries had contributed from their advertising

budgets for the Bill 19 propaganda campaign. He also said that eight ministries

are cooperating on the JobTrac program. I asked him to give a very simple yes

or no answer yesterday, and hopefully he can find the ability to do that today.

Was the money spent on Bill 19 ads money that had been allocated for advertising

the JobTrac program?

HON. MR. VEITCH : No.

MR. HARCOURT :

Could the minister then tell us where the funds for the Bill 19

campaign came from? Which particular part of the program for

advertising government initiatives did that come from?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I want to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his question, Mr.

Speaker. JobTrac is a program involving several ministries, as I stated

yesterday. Funding for its promotion will be apportioned from those

ministries. Bill 19 radio and print ads are the responsibility of the

Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services and will be paid for from that

ministry's information budget. The combined JobTrac and Bill 19 TV ad

with the Premier will eventually be cost-apportioned between the

Ministries of Labour, Consumer Services, Advanced Education and other

ministries involved. No money — not one dime — was hijacked from

the JobTrac information budget to pay for the Premier's TV message. I

hope I've answered your question in its entirety.

MR. HARCOURT : Can the Provincial Secretary tell me when the advertising budgets were rearranged between yesterday and today?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I'm afraid he's going to have to ask the question of the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), because I can't help him with his hearing

problem.

MR. G. HANSON : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

to the same minister. Is it not true that because of the public opinion

polling that's being done, and the fact that the popularity of this

government is dropping like a stone, you're stealing from the

information budgets of all the ministries where that money should be

going into job creation in this province? Is that not true?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, it is not true.

MR. G. HANSON :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given the direction of this so-called

fresh-start government, can the minister advise if Bill Bennett has

been hired as a consultant on strategy?

HON. MR. VEITCH : No. Neither is there any truth in the rumour that Bill Barrett is now working for Dunsky.

AN HON. MEMBER : Bill Barrett!

MILES MILLER EMPLOYMENT OFFER

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Highways. I'm sure the

minister is aware of the shabby treatment received by Mr. Miles Miller

of Langley at the hands of his ministry, and I assume he does not

condone that. Can the minister advise the House that this matter is

under

[ Page 1390 ]

investigation, and that Mr. Miller will be given full redress? By the way, he's no relation.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, and I can assure the

member that the matter is under investigation by the minister.

[2:15]

MR. MILLER :

Supplementary to the Minister of Highways. I'm advised that in the

course of all of these transactions Mr. Miller consulted his MLAs on

several occasions regarding that job, and that the cancellation of the

job may have had some relation to that. Can the minister advise the

House that this particular aspect, which in my opinion is the most

critical, will be fully investigated and that a report will be made to

this Legislature?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter will be investigated and a report will be given to the Legislature.

MR. MILLER :

The minister's executive assistant, when commenting on this issue, in

my opinion happened to make some pretty arrogant and callous

statements. I quote: "It happens. That's the way it goes sometimes." We

have a person who's out a considerable amount of money and has only

four days' residency left in his present dwelling. Would the minister

assure the House that he's going to admonish his executive assistant

and advise him on the proper way to respond to these kinds of

happenings?

VOTER REGISTRATION

MR. G. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) is arguing, under a phony guise of abuse in the electoral system....

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

On a point of order, we've had that member for Victoria use the term

"stealing"; we've had him use the term "phony" in direct relation to

ministers. I think he should withdraw.

MR. G. HANSON :

I'll be happy to withdraw, because the issue is too important to the

people of this province to be hung up on any word or sentence.

Mr.

Speaker, this Provincial Secretary Because of sloppy enumeration

procedures in this province, many hundreds of thousands of British

Columbians were left off the voters' list in the last provincial

election. The Provincial Secretary has introduced legislation to take

away the right to vote on voting day and register at the poll. Is it

not true that the problem is more with the enumeration procedures in

this province than with any abuses by the citizens?

MR. SPEAKER :

I think the hon. member will realize that that bill is just before the

House, and there will be a lot of time to discuss this during debate.

MR. G. HANSON : I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I'm directing my

remarks to the remarks of the Provincial Secretary — public remarks outside

of this chamber — where he has alleged widespread abuse, when he is not able

to point at people double-voting, but simply the fact that they have moved from

one location to another and may not have known whether they were federally,

municipally or provincially enumerated. Would not a full voter enumeration procedure

answer the questions, and not this abuse that he's alleging?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, there will be lots of time for us to defend this bill and

for the people of British Columbia to understand what it's all about. I

will not offend this House by talking about something that is already

on the order paper and that we'll have ample time to discuss. We can

discuss it in the hall. I'll provide the member with all the

information he wants.

MR. G. HANSON : Mr. Speaker,

there's a very important issue at stake here, and that is the right of

the citizens of British Columbia to have easy access to express their

opinion on voting day in the coming election. Has the minister decided

to have a full voter registration when the writ is dropped?

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. member, once again I must stress that the bill is before the

House, and there will be plenty of time to discuss that matter when it

gets into debate during second reading and committee.

ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS

MS. EDWARDS :

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture.

Yesterday at 2:15 the minister advised this House that he had not

decided to introduce admission fees at the Provincial Museum, Fort

Steele and Barkerville. Later yesterday afternoon he advised the media:

"All attractions that come under my ministry are currently being

considered for a user fee."

Was the decision to impose

charges made yesterday afternoon shortly after question period, or was

the minister deliberately trying to hide his activities?

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to answer the question in relation to....

"Being considered" was the comment I made to the media. It is being

considered. There are attractions in the province which are currently

in need of drastic repair. Because the repair funds are not available

within the government, there is the possibility of charging to attend

the attractions on behalf of the requirements to improve the facilities.

MS. EDWARDS :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to begin to get the

answers to the question I posed yesterday. But I'm wondering why the

minister opted for potentially misleading answers, instead of coming

clean with information that he had.

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, if the question yesterday had been consideration rather

than the direct question that they had been finalized . . They are not

finalized right now. This is an open government. We are consulting with

all the communities out there about whether they want the facilities

improved. If they want them improved, then we have to get the people

who utilize the facilities to pay part of the costs. The tourists

coming to the province are telling us in record numbers that the

facilities we have are the best in the world but need improvement, and

if we can improve them they'll come back. They're prepared to pay to

see the great facilities we have, but the improvements are also

necessary.

[ Page

1391 ]

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Speaker, is the investigation the minister is doing

into the imposition and the possible imposition of admission charges going beyond

a certain small group, or is it going to tourist bureaus? Is it going to chambers

of commerce? Is it going to people within the tourist industry? Or is it simply

going to small community groups?

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, that would be considered future policy, and I'm prepared to answer that at a later date.

MR. ROSE :

Supplementary. The minister spoke of improvements. I wonder if the

refined Minister of Culture could tell us whether he's considering

improving his own attitude to the House, because yesterday was an

example of complete contempt.

HON. MR. REID : If the

opposition House Leader would be so inclined as to read yesterday's

question period, he would find that the answer was entirely in relation

to the question asked.

SOOKE SCHOOL ARBITRATION

MR. JONES :

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour and Consumer

Services. I understand that Jack Gallagher has recently been appointed

the sole member of an arbitration board to deal with the contract

dispute between the teachers and the board in Sooke. Was the minister

aware, when he made this appointment, that Mr. Gallagher had served on

a number of previous occasions on three-member arbitration boards, and

on the side of school boards in those disputes?

HON. L. HANSON :

When I was first approached to appoint Mr. Gallagher as the arbitrator,

I did not know that; but before I approved it, I did know that, and I

feel that he will provide a fair and reasonable arbitration in the

situation involved.

MR. JONES : Supplementary to the

same minister. I understand that the teachers in Sooke are meeting

today to try to decide whether or not to boycott this arbitration. Can

the minister tell this House, in all fairness — and he used the word "fairness" in his decision —

how he expected that both parties in this dispute could accept somebody

who had been so clearly partisan in previous arbitrations?

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, I think we're dealing with a hypothetical situation, where

the teachers' organization may refuse to sit in on part of the

arbitration. That will have to be dealt with by my ministry when it

becomes a reality.

LANGFORD INTERMEDIATE-CARE FACILITY

MR. SIHOTA : A question to the Minister of Tourism. The minister has

placed a restriction by way of an order, which frustrates the Minister of Health's

(Hon. Mr. Dueck'

s) rightful decision, on the construction of an intermediate-care

facility in Langford. Will the Minister of Tourism, who I'm sure has had

the opportunity to discuss the matter with his seatmate, now agree to lift that

order and allow immediate construction of the hospital in Langford?

HON. MR. REID :

In answer to the question, I will not, the reason being that there is

currently also a request that the sewage question be resolved at the

proposed site prior to any demolition or construction of a hospital.

Ministerial Statement

ESTABLISHMENT OF CABINET

COMMITTEE ON TRAFFIC SAFETY

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, members will be aware that earlier today the Premier

announced the establishment of a cabinet committee on traffic safety.

As chairman of that committee, I wish to make a brief statement to this

assembly on our objectives and purposes.

I expect that most

hon. members have at one time or another been personally touched by the

outcome of a highway accident. For some, the tragedy has indeed been

deep. Many of us have had members of our families, or our friends,

killed in such accidents. Even more of us are aware of someone who has

been injured. Far too many of these injuries have had lifelong

implications. In addition, there is the matter of huge property losses.

All of us in this chamber — certainly we in government —

are here to represent the interests of society at large. I'm sure all

of us will agree that traffic safety must be a priority. The

Attorney-General, who is responsible for the Counterattack program and

policing, and the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, who is

responsible for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, will be

joining me on the cabinet committee. Our first priority will be to

bring some coordination to the traffic safety programs now administered

by our ministries and relevant agencies.

I know that in my

ministry alone we will be able to achieve much more in the area of

traffic safety now that all government agencies will receive guidance

from a single cabinet committee on traffic safety. The Attorney-General

will be interested in enforcement, the police system and the potential

of the criminal and civil justice systems for enhancing our traffic

safety record. The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, as

minister responsible for ICBC, will be addressing questions of greater

coordination of the corporation's programs with those of our

ministries. Therefore establishing the cabinet committee on traffic

safety means government intends to tackle in a direct way not only the

concerns of many public authorities and volunteer agencies, but also

those that have been expressed over the years in this assembly.

All

of us have a responsibility to make our highways safer. I want to

assure all hon. members that the cabinet committee of which I am

chairman will earnestly apply itself to the enormous challenges

presented.

MR. MILLER : First of all, I congratulate

the government for setting up this committee. I think the area that the

committee is looking at is an important one, and obviously of some

significance to a number of people in this province. I have some

question about priority generally in terms of these kinds of

committees. At the same time as we now have a committee dealing with

traffic safety, there are a number of things happening that could

impact: for example, we have a committee dealing with perhaps the

liberalization of our liquor laws. Certainly one wonders if the

sequence of events has been properly outlined or considered by the

government

[ Page 1392 ]

in terms of setting up these kinds of committees. Nonetheless, I don't want to condemn outright.

number of areas that the committee should immediately turn their

attention to seems to come quite readily to mind. First of all, I'll

deal with the question of deregulation, which was promised in the

throne speech. If we look at jurisdictions where transportation

industry deregulation has been brought in, some things come immediately

to the fore. One of those, of course, is the lowering of overall safety

and the increase in accident rates in the trucking industry. I think

that can be tied directly to the instability created in the marketplace

by the new and smaller outfits coming in, by the squeeze that's put on

existing outfits in terms of longer hours, poorer maintenance. A survey

in March in the United States, for example, revealed quite an alarming

increase in the incidence of the use of alcohol and drugs by

long-distance truckers, and that's since the introduction of

deregulation in the United States. So certainly that's one area that

the government should immediately turn its attention to.

[2:30]

The second — and again perhaps the most obvious — is that

one of the casualties of the 1983 restraint program was the

mandatory....

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Time!

MR. MILLER :

Am I under a time limit, Mr. Speaker? No? Would you kindly advise the

first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser)? We're looking forward

to hearing his stirring debate on Bill 19 later today.

One

of the casualties was the whole area of vehicle testing that was

cancelled by this government. There have been numerous cries to bring

that testing back in. Testing can indeed save lives and save money.

So without continuing, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude my remarks on this subject.

MR. SPEAKER :

Before recognizing the opposition House Leader, I might just mention

that ministerial statements and replies are supposed to be

non-argumentative — not to be a debate. I just point that out for future reference, to both sides.

MR. ROSE :

Because it was overlooked by my colleague from Prince Rupert, I'd like

to thank the Minister of Transportation and Highways for extending us

the courtesy of having the statement in advance. That could well be

emulated by other ministers, because it's pretty important that we

have....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE : After

that, he might change his mind. But I think if we're all guided by the

rules, it is really much better to have an informed reply, even though

it might hurt a little bit, than one that's just off the top of one's

head, so to speak. We like to have this kind of courtesy extended to

us, having notice of the statement.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 19.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 5 as amended.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to having some dialogue with the

Minister of Labour, and I am only sorry that my colleague from across

the way, the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), isn't here,

because I know his usual refrain: "The member for Nanaimo is lecturing

us once again." I'm sorry 1 don't have that opportunity, because indeed

I propose to do some lecturing, simply because so often I see an

absolutely perfect case on the other side of the House for compulsory

education. I'm therefore looking forward to that, as I say.

Let me start my remarks on

section 5 of this bill by posing a question directly to the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. members, this committee is in session. If any of you have private

conversations you'd like to carry out, or have a little committee work,

it would be much better if you'd do it out in the hallway. The Chair

will give you a moment or two to settle down, and then we'll get back

to this committee on Bill 19. All right, the Chair recognizes the

second member for Nanaimo. Please continue.

MR. LOVICK :

1 shan't repeat what I've said already. I want, as I say, to begin my

comments about

section 5 of the proposed bill by posing the question,

first rhetorically and then directly: why? We know that in the

explanatory notes to the bill it says that

section 5 "preserves freedom

of expression and prohibits discriminatory practices."

The

obvious question that comes to mind, of course, is that if, indeed, we

are in

section 5, adding a subsection to two existing clauses in

legislation in the original Labour Code, namely

section 2 has

subsection (1) and subsection (2), the intent of

section 5, as we know,

is to create a subsection (3) with various other subsections there.

The

obvious question then arises, certainly: did we not have freedom of

expression before? Is it the case, then, that the existing Labour Code,

the one we are charged now with amending, apparently somehow deprived

us of freedom of expression? Certainly that would seem to be the

intention, and I will take my direction from the minister at this

point. Perhaps, to begin, he would like to respond to that question.

HON. L. HANSON :

In response to your question, I think there is a very good rationale

for ensuring that there is, in fact, freedom of expression, and

certainly if the member opposite subscribes to that philosophy, there

can certainly be no harm in enshrining it in legislation.

MR. LOVICK :

I guess the issue surely is whether we need to state that freedom,

given it is already embraced in law and, for that matter, in many, many

hundreds of years of common-law precedents and tradition, not to

mention in the Charter of Rights.

What I'm suggesting is

that the moment we explicitly state that we are going to put all of

these things in a bill that has to do with industrial relations in this

province. then inevitably and predictably what's going to happen is that

[ Page 1393 ]

people

are going to say there must be another agenda. That point I think was

made very effectively by my colleague the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) yesterday when he quoted at some length from Paul Weiler's

book which is now, of course, a textbook on the subject of industrial

relations.

You will all recall, I am sure, that my

colleague suggested that the minister had indeed read that. The

minister assented that, yes, that was indeed the case, but obviously

the minister was also saying he disagreed, then, with the conclusions

that Weiler drew. The conclusions were that there are parts to be

played by the two sides in this business called industrial relations;

and in the business of certification, or decertification for that

matter, the employer interest ought not to be represented.

The

minister suggested that he did not accept that proposition. In other

words, though he's read Weiler, though he's read the textbook, he

disagrees with the conclusion Weiler derives. My concern, and I think I

can say that this is the concern of all of my colleagues on this side

of the House, is that the creation of this specific

section 5 and

plugging it into the Code, the proposed legislation to govern

industrial relations in this province, is effectively to open doors

that increase the chances for management to keep out trade unions.

That's

the contention; certainly that was the conclusion that Weiler presented

to us as articulated by my colleague the member for North Island. What

I want to touch on is just why that is, indeed, the case, why we

aren't, I think, being alarmist or suggesting that the sky is falling

when we make those claims about how this

section does have the capacity

to make it possible for those who would keep out unions to do so with

relative impunity. Let me suggest to the minister that this document,

as written to us —

section 5, subsection (a), (b), (c), (d),

etc. — is a really a document written for another time, another

place.

It's

a document that is, dare I say, pre the revolution of the unconscious

or the subconscious or psychology, pre the age of electronic media, pre

the age of our recognition of all those other subtle forms of

persuasion. Let me see if I can explain precisely how that works. I am

sure that the minister, or at least his advisers, will be familiar with

that whole new literature developing in the United States that goes by

the euphemistic terminology of preventive labour relations.

Indeed,

I sincerely hope that the minister has read Kilgour's book on that

subject, because what we discover there is that, first of all, the

terminology is, as I suggested earlier, a euphemism. "Preventive labour

relations" means keeping out unions or getting rid of them if they are

already in place. The language, the very title of the book, the very

use of that nomenclature gives us the clue as to the problem that I

want to sketch out now.

What

that book — and it is

about 450 pages in length, by the way; it comes from a guy who calls

himself a professor of industrial relations at Cornell University in

the United States — does effectively is say: "Here's how you can

beat the law. Here's how you can beat phrases like" — take note,

please, Mr. Minister —

"'intimidation, coercion, threats."' Those are all those things that we

kicked around yesterday at great length when we talked about the

amendment to

section 5. I am suggesting that what that book by Kilgour

says is: "Here is the way you can keep out a union. Here is the kind of

campaign you can run so no law court in the country will ever be able

to get you for somehow violating what we consider to be the normal

rights of free speech."

Surely the minister and his

officials are familiar with that, and surely then they know that to

anybody who is at all bloody-minded, at all smart and at all committed

to keeping out unions, all of the force of this language doesn't amount

to a thing. It doesn't matter. It is not going to prevent anybody from

engaging in what we traditionally call unfair labour practices.

Before

I begin to develop that further, I will give the minister another

opportunity. Would he choose to respond to my references to Preventive

Labour Relations and perhaps share with us his knowledge of that case I

just outlined?

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Chairman, first

of all, the Industrial Relations Council is not bound by the American

textbook in developing its policy. Second of all, the suggestion that

there is a hidden agenda is, I assure the Hon. member, not the case.

I have

some difficulty in understanding the opposition of enshrining in

legislation the ability of people to communicate. In a society such as

ours communication becomes very important, and communication then leads

to decisions that are fair and reasonable on the part of the

individuals.

I think that the member on the opposite

side is suggesting that this thing is only directed at the employer's

ability to communicate with his employees. I would suggest that the

member should look at the wording in the various sections. It says: "Nothing

in this Act deprives a person of his freedom to express his views

provided he does not use undue influence, intimidation, coercion or

threats." Then I would suggest that the hon. member go to the

interpretation of "person." It deals with all segments of collective

bargaining and their ability to reasonably and freely communicate

without using undue influence.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before

the second member for Nanaimo continues, I would just like to bring to

everyone's attention that we are dealing clause by clause here. It

seems to me, from the discourse that has gone on up to this point, that

we are in some ways canvassing back into our second reading when we

were dealing with the principle of the bill. I know the second member

for Nanaimo is very capable in this regard, so I would expect that he

could continue and keep his comments strictly toward

section 5 as it

applies now.

[2:45]

MR. LOVICK : Thank you, Mr.

Chairman; I accept that caution. Indeed, if I am on the threshold

somehow of violating that restriction, I would ask you please to so

inform me and then I will certainly change my approach.

I thank

the minister for his answer to the question. Sadly, however, I don't

think he quite dealt with the particular case I was making. What I am

suggesting quite simply is that it has been documented at great length

and corroborated by numerous people who have studied in the field that

this kind of language — this great rousing cry to freedom of

speech and the good old-fashioned John Stuart Mill kind of libertarian

principles — doesn't mean a darned thing in the context of

contemporary labour relations. That is what Kilgour's book is about.

is also the case that there is a burgeoning industry primarily in the

United States, but one certainly that shows signs of spilling across

the border — of people who are professionals, legal firms and others, who say: "We can

[ Page 1394 ]

guarantee,

you employee who is threatened with or confronted with the possibility

of having an organized workplace, to show you the tactics and the

techniques that will keep out unions. We can do so regardless of what

kind of legislation is written that talks about free speech and the

limitations on speech and that talks about unfair labour practices in

this kind of way." That's my contention, and I'm suggesting to you the

evidence is there. It's available; it's documented; there's lots of it.

Regarding

the minister's comment about no hidden agenda, I am perfectly willing,

Mr. Chairman, to suggest that the minister truly believes there is not

a hidden agenda. But let me suggest, given the current history we have

already had with Bill 19 and a number of different things that have

come to light in the course of the debate and the course of the

discussion, where the minister has in fact said: "That was not my

understanding of what the legislation meant. I am horrified. I am

surprised by that, and therefore I will amend and withdraw certain

provisions...." I would suggest that that demonstrates that in the

minds certainly of labour, they have every reason to suggest there may

be a hidden agenda available. Again, I'm not suggesting culpability on

the part of the minister, but I'm saying the evidence is certainly

there that would enable labour to draw that conclusion.

want to also respond briefly, because it's one of the things I want to

deal with at some length and in some substance, on the business about

our focus. The minister is quite right to point out to us that we seem

only to be looking at this issue from the perspective of the employees

rather than the employers. The minister suggests, of course, that this

freedom-of-speech clause effectively also gives certain powers to those

who would get organized as well as those who would keep them from

becoming organized in the workplace.

want to pick up on

that by carrying on from comments made by a couple of my colleagues who

spoke yesterday. The one I recall specifically was the anecdotal

experience related to us from a former labour organizer: namely, my

colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), who made

the case, I think very effectively.... Again, it's one of those things

that people who study industrial relations know full well: the deck,

quite simply, is stacked against those who would get organized. It's

stacked against them for economic reasons primarily. It's also,

however — and this is the point I want to touch on — stacked

against them in some other areas that are, for want of a better term,

more abstract, more grey, less tangible.

want to suggest a concept that's borrowed from sociology on the one

hand and political science on the other; you know, sometimes we

academics have something to contribute to the debate. The concept is

called political culture. What a political culture is, in effect, is

simply the total value system that guides and animates a given society,

that effectively says to a society: "This is what's allowed and this is

what's not allowed." Our political culture in North America is

essentially small-l liberal, individualistic, democratic. We set up a

system, we envisage a system, at the heart of which stands the

authentic, free, independent, decision-making individual.

The point about that, though — the other side of that —

is that the collectivity, the group within our society, is always

coming from the perspective of being suspect just because it is a

group, because it represents an interest that is not purely and only

individual. What happens as a result, then, is that individuals

nurtured in, brought up in, our society, our value system and our

"political culture," become conditioned to believe that, as the Frank

Sinatra song says, "I did it my way." Everything is focused and based

on the rights of the individual, and how much the individual can

achieve.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : I didn't sing it, take note, members who are smiling at me.

Everybody

is conditioned, if I can use that terminology, in our society to

believe that all success is the result of only what the individual has

done. We don't acknowledge the validity, say, of a class consciousness.

We don't have a sociological consciousness in this country, if you

like; instead, we have a psychological consciousness. That sounds, I

grant you, pretty airy-fairy on the face of it, but let's translate it

into some concrete terms — which I think will demonstrate quite

clearly to the Chairman, who I can see is anxious to find out about the

relevance of this — which will translate very clearly and very

directly into the point about Bill 19,

section 5, which I am talking

about.

What

that political culture means, in effect, is that individuals who are

asked to embrace a trade union as their identity within a society are

asked to embrace something that is already a minoritarian culture, is

already suspect. Because we believe in our value system. Given that the

individual is at the centre of that system, we believe that, well, if

you have to belong to a trade union, you're probably a relative

failure. Because, after all, if you were really successful, you'd be

self-employed or you'd be a manager. You'd be able to handle yourself

in some marvelous kind of rugged, individualist environment. You

wouldn't have to combine with others.

That, I like to

think, for all of us who pause to reflect on it, is a pretty silly kind

of conclusion to derive. I would suggest, however, Mr. Chairman, that

that is precisely the culture we live in. Individuals in our society do

not have much in the way of force or influence to make them want to

embrace the concept of collectivity. Instead, we are taught from day

one, and it's reinforced every single day of our lives, that the

individual is where it's at.

One case in point: think about

the difficulty we had with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this

country. The reason we had such difficulty with that Charter is because

what we did actually acknowledged the validity of something we call

group rights. If you want to get a sense of how important that

development was — and it caused us considerable anguish and soul-searching, by the way —

try this out. Do you think that our counterparts in the United States

of America could ever endorse in their constitution or charter

something called group rights? The answer is obviously no, they

couldn't. They couldn't, because in the United States of America the

political culture is completely realized as liberal, individualistic,

democratic. There is no place for a collectivity in American political

culture.

Happily, in Canada we have a little bit of room

for that, and thus we have examples that I think make our society, with

all due respect to the Americans, somewhat more civilized, insofar as

we are willing to say that there are times when we must do things

collectively which we cannot do individually, and that is a legitimate

part of our political culture.

The point, though — in case anybody has missed it thus far —

is that the culture we live in is alien to things like trade unions.

That's why trade unions have got to continually, regularly reconvert

their members. That's why trade unions

[ Page 1395 ]

have

fought so bitterly and passionately to ensure things like compulsory

check off, so that the union dues will be paid without the union having

to go and get them.

What has happened in fact is that all

trade unionists, even the most knowledgeable and the most

labour-literate, have this faint perception that, "Gosh, maybe I'm a

failure insofar as I am" — pardon the terminology — "working

class." That's the other dimension of the political culture I'm

referring to. It is not only that the culture discriminates directly

against the collectivity and the group identity within a society, but

there is also a class dimension in construct, which I want to touch on,

albeit briefly, now.

I shall pause for a drink of water, if

I may. Given that I have the minister's undivided attention, I'm sure I

can pause for a drink of water.

AN HON. MEMBER : This is like going to college.

MR. LOVICK :

The concept of class is, of course, the economic appendage to the group

construct I have been discussing thus far. In the nineteenth century,

and indeed in the early and formative parts of Canadian trade union

history, organized labour tried desperately hard to inculcate among its

members a sense of pride in being part of the working class. That has

not, however, obtained for a very long time. Indeed, most people who

examine the problem say that there is no such thing as class

consciousness among organized labour today. They're perhaps right. The

important question for our purposes, though, is: why? I suggest that

the answer is simply that individuals who are part of a trade union,

who discover that because of the reality of economic circumstance they

need to combine together and form trade unions, are, in the eyes of so

many people within our population, effectively admitting that they have

not succeeded as we measure success within our society.

have gone on now at some length. I want to thank the minister for

apparently paying attention and making some effort to understand those

comments. Maybe I can pause for at least a moment and ask him if he

would like to respond to any of those utterances.

HON. L. HANSON :

Well, two very quick things. First of all, I don't subscribe to the

fact that anyone who belongs to a union is a failure. I'm sorry that

the member feels that way. Secondly, I never said I was horrified at

anything disclosed in the bill. I simply said I was surprised at an

interpretation of the wording that was produced.

[3:00]

MR. LOVICK :

One of the terrible frustrations in trying to talk at a level beyond

nuts and bolts or bread and butter is that so often one is

misunderstood — whether consciously by the listeners or simply

because of an inability to comprehend, I would not presume to say. But

to suggest for a moment that I am arguing that to be part of a trade

union is to be a failure is simply silly. Quite frankly, that is

offensive to me. What I am suggesting, for those who have the capacity

to comprehend, is that our culture is such that precisely that point is

the unstated message that defines us. For heaven's sake, I am not

saying anything new when I say to you that if you ask any group of

students from about grade 6 onward, who've begun their process of

political socialization — that is, learning the way the game is played, learning what their society is about —

what "working class" means, I guarantee you, as sure as God made little

apples, that they are going to say "ignorant, uneducated, selfish" and

so forth. That's the problem we have in this society

I see

somebody opposite shaking his head. Indeed, I can hear it shaking. The

point, though, is that whether we want to deny it or not is irrelevant,

because it's part and parcel of our socialization. It's part of our

culture. It's the way we've been raised. None of us, given the

situation in which we have to explain that bias, that prejudice, would

for a moment try to defend it. We would all say: "Not me, certainly not

me." But for heaven's sake, it's precisely that sense that what our

society demands above all else is aspiring onward and upward — if

you're a success, you're a manager; if you're not a success, you're a

worker. Sorry, friends, but that is indeed the name of our culture, the

one that we have all been conditioned to accept. We may deplore the

fact, but the fact remains. I hope that will clarify for the minister.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I started to outline my concerns about this

section, and was unable to finish, so I'll take the opportunity today.

dealing with the section, one can have no other opinion than that this

section really deals with the rights of employers in relation to their

employees. I'll go back again to what someone said earlier — on

the basis that the Charter alone guarantees freedom of expression, one

wonders about the need to add this new part to labour legislation,

which in essence, I presume, just duplicates that, but in practice will

have a much greater impact.

I note in reading the

minister's response yesterday that he said that the only reason to add

it was this: "We wanted to make it very clear what the relationship in

communications was with the employee and employer and therefore have

created those changes...." Now that relation is clearly spelled out in

the following

section of the legislation — the employer's right to communicate.

talked yesterday about the difficulty that working people have in

forming unions, and how easily that process can be undermined, quite

often in ways that are extremely subtle, not on the face of it

intimidation or coercion or, I suppose, by some stretch, even undue

influence. Nonetheless that situation does exist. I used an analogy of

an operation in my constituency where through the hiring practices that

the employer used, it was virtually guaranteed that the employees would

not have the opportunity to join together and form a trade union. One

other example that I think is worth quoting is the very long struggle

that bank employees engaged in in their attempts to unionize the

workers in the banking industry.

I suppose in some sense

when we get in this chamber it's easy to dismiss the personal tragedy

that many people have happen to them as a result of a simple thing, a

thing that at least in legislation we pay lip-service to: that is, the

right to belong to a union. We tend not to acquaint ourselves or be

familiar with the real personal tragedies that have resulted from

people trying to achieve that result. I know that in trying to organize

the workers in the banking industry, there were people who lost their

jobs. Despite legislation that says there's lots of protection and that

everybody has freedom of expression, people lost their jobs, and

employers were able to justify that, and they were able to justify it

on some other basis, as they quite often are. So why the minister feels

that there has to be this extra edge given to employers — these disadvantaged employers — really escapes me.

[ Page

1396 ]

You

talk about the phrase "freedom of expression." Certainly you can't deal

with that term in isolation. On the face of it, it simply means that we

all as individuals in this society have the right to stand up and to

say what we think, and to do what we think, within the confines that

what we do and say does not have a material harm to someone else. We

can't stand up and slander somebody, except here. We can't preach hate.

But we tend to think of that freedom of expression as applying to

individuals, and we disregard the weighted advantage that some

individuals have in this society, and that corporations, companies,

groups or organizations may have in relation to an individual.

look at the legislation that exists now about the rights of employers

to impart their views to employees, and we look at the

section dealing

with — and I'm relating this to the section, Mr. Chairman —

unions' rights in terms of trying to organize workers, and we see that

unions are not able to go to the workplace: there's a bar; there's a

gate; there's a barrier. If you want to organize and you're a union

person, you can't go to that employer's workplace. You can't contact

people where it's most easy. There are barriers in the way. There are

no barriers in the way of employers. Many people are captive in the

workplace, in terms of the employer's ability to talk to them.

I've

had grievances that I fought years ago.... Sometimes you'd get bosses

who weren't trained too well; rather than try to solve the problem on

the shop floor, they somehow thought that they had to exercise their

rights as managers in a kind of bureaucratic way. On one occasion I

said: "Look, we have a serious problem on the floor. Let's you and I

sit down and talk about it." "If you want to talk to me, " he said,

"you come to me after hours." "Well, that's fine; I can do that" — and

I did it. But the guy didn't last long, because he didn't realize that

it was far more important to deal with the issue at the time, and to

develop a kind of relationship between me, the shop steward, and him,

the foreman, and solve these problems, rather than go on to deal with

them at arbitration or somewhere.

Employers have those

rights to be obstreperous, to have instant access in terms of their

communication. If you're an employee in a factory, or wherever the heck

you are, and the boss says, "Come into my office; I want to see you, "

you don't say: "I'm sorry, this is working hours. I'm not going to do

it. I'll talk to you after work." You say: "Yes, I'll be right there."

Or the employer can say: "That person disobeyed an order. I'm going to

fire him." Maybe the minister thinks I'm using a bit of hyperbole. I

don't think I am. I've seen lots of situations in my working life that

I thought were completely unjust. It became clear to me as a relatively

young man that in terms of the rights, if you like, of working people

in relation to the boss, the boss had a heck of a lot more. What we had

for our protection was labour legislation. Quite frankly, it wasn't

until 1973 that the document came along that really allowed what I was

talking about to take place: that is, the resolution of disputes on a

kind of equal basis.

We talk about freedom of expression.

We can't view that in isolation. We have to talk about it with the

knowledge that some people have far more influence in this world than

others. It's a bit of a con job. I think we might see this later on in

this legislation. We've seen it and heard it in debate about this bill

being about guaranteeing democracy in the workplace, somehow suggesting

that there is no democracy, that somehow working people are not allowed

to exercise any kind of freedom of expression in the activities of

their trade union. I can certainly tell you, as a person who has done

every job in a trade union from shop steward right up to president,

that that's certainly not the case. The people who are on the receiving

end of that freedom of expression, quite frankly, are often the union

officials — and sometimes it's not very pleasant, but that goes with the territory.

don't understand this need to insert clause (3) under

section 2. It has

no particular meaning. I've heard no justification. The rights of

parties are clearly spelled out in following clauses in the

legislation. It fails to acknowledge that there's a weight of advantage

that some parties have. It's almost a symptom that runs through this

legislation, that seems to run through the government's thinking, that

somehow employers need to be protected, and we're really dealing with

big labour. I think they ignore the fact that in many instances labour

is not big labour; labour is simply men and women deciding to join

together to try to improve their conditions, whether it's conditions on

the job, wage levels or their benefits package — that's all it is, purely and simply.

Labour fought many, many battles —

and not on their own; there were lots of politicians throughout the

years who stood up and championed those rights as well. We see an

attempt here to undermine, to reduce, to take away — and I mean

that. Unfortunately, the result of that is that people in the labour

community, those working men and women I talk about, draw an inference

that this government somehow has a bias against them. I say that not as

a political statement; I say that as an accurate reflection of the

things that are passed on to me when I'm in my constituency, and in

other places. Not five minutes ago an individual I was talking to, who

felt aggrieved by some other process, said: "You know, we're losing

rights, and now they want to take more rights away under Bill 19." The

minister purports to give rights under

section 5, but quite frankly I

have not heard a rational argument from anybody on that side that can

justify the inclusion of

section 5 in the amended bill.

I'm

going to cede my place at this moment, but I'm feeling quite strongly

about the inclusion of this clause in the legislation, and I intend to

comment further on it. If the minister wishes to respond I would be

happy to hear.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry

that the Minister of Labour is not going to be responding to the fine

words uttered by my good friend from Prince Rupert.

I want

to raise a couple of issues as we deal with

section 5 in particular.

Perhaps the best way to start out is by reflecting on my days at law

school. In my second or third year at the University of Victoria, I

chose to take the labour law course, and the guest professor that year

was Innis Christie. Dr. Christie had served for quite some time as the

chairperson of the Labour Relations Board in Nova Scotia. At the same

time he had served as a professor of law at Dalhousie University and

had chosen to take a sabbatical leave to teach at the University of

Victoria. When we got to this area of labour law, this whole matter

of.... And it is a contentious issue; I don't think there's any debate

about that: to what extent ought an employer to have the opportunity to

influence the decisions of employees as to whether or not they wish to

certify or seek certification and form a trade union.

[2:45]

The

issue is clear; it is one of whether or not the employer properly has a

role. The philosophical debate on that, which is captured largely by

this section, is, as I'm sure the Minister of Labour would agree, a

philosophical debate that has taken

[ Page

1397 ]

place

over and over again in chambers like this one elsewhere in this

country, let alone in the United States. I think it is fair to say that

the approach we've taken in Canada is one that is quite distinct, and

I'll tie this back into what Prof. Christie had to say when we were at

law school. The process in Canada, and the end result of those debates

in Canada, has been quite distinct from the end debate in the United

States. In the United States, there has been in general terms an

acceptance of the principle, if you want to call it that — or

certainly an embracing of the philosophical point of view — that

the employer ought to have some say in this process of certification.

That is based largely, as I understand it and recollect it, on the

concepts of fairness and due process that the Americans have come to

play with.

That has been the philosophical embrace south of

the 49th parallel. North of the 49th parallel, the embrace has been

totally different, in that it has been recognized that employees ought

to have the sole right to determine whether or not they wish to engage

in forming a trade union. That has shifted, much as all these debates

do, and the pendulum has swung back and forth. But if one were to

analyze labour law history in this country and look at legislation, I

think it would be fair to say that the gist of it in Canada is that

employers ought not to be a part of the certification process, that

there's an immunity there. Employees are shielded, and they decide

among themselves which way they want to go. In labour legislation in

this country we have seen different ways of applying that principle,

and clearly there is a way in which that principle is applied in the

existing — if I can call it that — Labour Code. That's one example.

emphasize the extent to which this legislation represents a radical

departure from the traditions and heritage that we've embodied in

Canada in dealing with our labour legislation, a cogent example is a

Nova Scotia situation. It comes back to Prof. Christie, who was, as I

said, the professor of labour law. During his tenure as chairperson of

the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board, not only did they embrace the

view that the employer ought not to have any say — this immunity that exists with employees —

but in that labour legislation during the seventies they went so far as

to say that once the union is of the view that it has majority support

of the employees at any site, it then goes to the Labour Relations

Board and requests that there be a certification vote. That vote

has to be taken within five days. What they found, with respect to

section 5....

We're on 5, right?

Section 5 as amended —

that's what I'm talking about. If the good member for Vancouver South

is lost in reading on to

section 6 and dreaming that we might get there

sometime this afternoon, maybe I could put this in the context of why I

am dealing with it in the way that I am, is because I think this is a

pivotal section. In my view, it represents a change in philosophy

that's very fundamental.

Going back to the point with respect to

section 5, in Nova Scotia it was deemed

under their legislation that that certification vote had to happen within five

days. I haven't seen it the latest figures on it — it's been some time

since I left law school — but the experience was that 80 percent of the certification

votes were passing. The reason for putting that five-day rule in was to minimize

the input that an employer could have on employees deciding whether or not they

wished to engage in collective bargaining and form a trade union. They found

by putting in this five-day provision — there was a high number of certification

votes — that it limited the potential, because it became apparent, once the

application was made to the board under their system, that there was a union

at play, and it made it very difficult for the employer to begin to interfere

with the process.

That

was the extent to which the Nova Scotia legislation had embraced the

philosophical point that has become, in my view, the very fabric of the

Canadian tradition on these types of matters. In Nova Scotia they

decided that not only did they philosophically agree with the fact that

employers ought not to have any significant input, but they tried to

achieve that philosophical end through this five-day provision in the

legislation.

There are a lot of other things I want to talk

about with respect to

section 5, but I want to pause here and ask the

minister whether or not, during the course of his deliberations and

considerations with respect to

section 5, and particularly subsection

(3) thereof, they considered the Nova Scotia experience that I've

outlined; and if so, why was it rejected?

HON. L. HANSON : Without wasting a lot of time, no, it wasn't considered.

MR. SIHOTA :

Then let me go back and ask perhaps a more fundamental question. Does

the minister agree with the philosophical attitude embraced by that

provision in Nova Scotia?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The minister can answer that if he wishes, but I really find it hard to relate that directly to what we're dealing with here.

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty in responding to that. I subscribe

to the philosophy of freedom of speech, so that people are properly

educated and can make a value decision as to the future of their life,

whether they wish to be organized or not. In

section 5 that's what

we're ensuring, and we're also protecting undue influence on he part of

the employer, the union or anyone else to intimidate or coerce the

individuals to make up their minds in a particular direction.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, first of all I apologize if I'm straying, but I don't

think I was. I think I was clearly within the four comers of

section 5,

because the question was designed to ask about the

freedom-of-expression provision, as it's labelled, within this section.

Let's

take it now a step further, and I won't fire a question at the minister

for a few minutes, because I want to lay out again what my thinking is

on the matter. I think it then again invites another question to the

Minister of Labour.

The Minister of Labour says, in

response to the question hat I just fired over there, that he wants the

employees to make an informed decision. I can't see how anybody on this

side of the House could argue against people making an informed

decision. In fact, we like to think that if they made an informed

decision in October there would have been a different outcome on the

22nd. So we're all in favour, as citizens of this great province, in

terms of having informed decisions. We'd like to have all the facts

before the people who are making the decision. But the central question

here is what that decision is that is being made by the employees? If I

can answer that question, the decision that's being made by the

employees in these circumstances is a decision to unionize or not to

unionize.

[ Page 1398 ]

During

the course of their decision, what kinds of questions will they

reasonably be asking themselves during the course of coming to a

decision, so they can inform themselves as to whether they should

unionize or not? Let me suggest to the minister that there are a set of

questions that I think they should be informed about, and which I'd

like to think we could all agree would be questions that they would

want to reasonably be informed about.

They would want, in

my view, to be reasonably informed about who makes up this trade union

that they're thinking of joining. What is its constitution? What are

its bylaws? How does it operate? How do they interact with that trade

union or with that constitution and those bylaws?

Clearly,

they should be informed about that aspect of it. There's no two ways

about it. But who's to inform them about it? The employer? What right

should the employer have to inform — to use the minister's words —

employees? Remember, we're talking in the context of freedom of speech.

We'll get to freedom of speech a little bit later on. But what has that

got to do with the employer? What special knowledge does the employer

have about the constitution, bylaws and the structure of the trade

union?

My submission is that the employer has no knowledge

of the constitution, bylaws and so on of the trade union. That is

obviously a question that one can conceive that employees will

reasonably ask themselves, but one cannot reasonably say that it's the

employer who will provide them with the answer to that question so they

can make the informed choice. The people who are going to be able to

provide them with the information to be able to make that informed

decision are going to be the employees themselves, who go to the union

and secure the information necessary to make that informed choice.

it seems to me that that's one reasonable question that you would

expect employees to ask. I don't quite see how it is, or why it is, or

how it could possibly be that the employer would be in a better

position than the employees to tell them about the structure, the

constitution and bylaws of a trade union. In my mind, that reinforces

the argument that you keep the employer out. But that's only one

question.

[3:30]

The member who spoke before me talked about big labour unions versus

small labour unions. Once again it would seem to me that if we're

dealing with a case of big labour unions, the employees who are

considering joining a trade union are going to want to know that

they're going to have a say in that large trade union. They're going to

want to know how they would fit into, let's say, the BCGEU, or any

other large union. They're going to want to know how their autonomy is

going to be affected. They're going to be worried about whether or not

they're just going to become a lost entity in a larger entity that's

being controlled by some leaders that they don't have any access to.

They're going to be concerned about that.

In order to

evaporate that concern, they're going to have to go to somebody to

evaporate it. Can it be reasonably said that it's the employer who's

going to be able to evaporate that concern? 1 say no, it can't be

reasonably said that it's the employer who has the ability, the

understanding or the means to be able to inform them on this sense of

belonging within a trade union.

Again, we're talking about

freedom of expression. I'm reacting to what the minister had to say,

and I know he said it yesterday as well in response to another question

about an informed choice. Well, the way they're going to find out is

that they have to get the information themselves, not from the employer

but from the group that is trying to persuade them to join or become a

part of that union. Therefore it seems to me that it cannot reasonably

be said, Mr. Chairman, that the employer has that special knowledge.

Somebody else does, and therefore it cannot reasonably be said that the

freedom of expression provision ought to sit in this legislation.

Another question: it's obviously going to be in the minds of employees,

when they're considering whether to unionize or not.... It's going

to be, I think, a question that will always come up: whether or not, or how

much, they are going to have to pay in terms of union dues. What's the quantum

of the fee that's going to be deducted from their paycheque? That's

obviously a concern. Now again, if I haven't driven the point home yet,

the question to be asked is: is it the employer who has the special knowledge

and the ability to answer those questions? Of course not. It is again for the

employees to secure that information from the group that they want to join,

or that wants them to join up. That's where they're going to go for

that information in order to make the informed decision that the minister talks

about.

Now

I've tried to raise at least three examples, and as I stand here on my

feet a number of them go gushing through my head, in terms of other

ones that I could lay out. But I'm sure the minister doesn't want me to

gush on and talk on and on on the point. I think the point has been

made that when you begin to look at the psychology of deciding whether

or not you want to become members of a trade union, and if you

agree — which I say I do — with the philosophy that the

minister has articulated with respect to making an informed choice,

then it does not stand to reason that the employer ought to have any

say in making that informed choice, because the employer does not have

at his or her disposal the very information that employees are going to

need to be able to make that choice. That's where the flaw is in terms

of the minister's thinking on that point.

I see the minister has another telegram of support, I would imagine.

I'm

not so naive as to think that obviously one of the other thoughts

that's going to come across the minds of employees, particularly in the

case of a small shop, is not going to be: "Well, what is the employer

going to think about us unionizing?" Now that's obviously a thought,

and I want to deal with that thought. It seems to me that the presence

of that thought may in itself have resulted in the incorporation of

this

section into the legislation when it talks about freedom of

speech. When you think about that for a moment, the question is: what

is the employer going to think? But that in itself raises another

question in my mind: what should it matter what the employer thinks?

Because the employees are making a decision among themselves, trying to

determine in their own minds how it is that they want to deal with

their employer.

I understand what the motivation is in part

to put this

section in, but the decision that the employees are making

is about how it is that they want to represent themselves in dealing

with the employer. It is not a question, as I think members on the

opposite side like to phrase it, of what the employees are thinking in

terms of ways in which they can sabotage the employer, if you catch the

difference. It's not a question of sabotaging or undermining or

threatening the employer; it's a question of deciding how it is that

they want to sit down and talk to the employer about things that every

[ Page

1399 ]

employer knows employees want to talk about — wages and benefits and so on, working conditions.

my own experience.... And I want the minister to know in the context of

this debate that not only have I belonged to trade unions, but I've

also run my own business. I've also run my own law practice, and I have

an understanding, of course, of what it means to run a business. I

would submit that running the law practice, particularly a small one

like I run, is also a business in the real sense of the word. I know

what the considerations are in terms of overhead, administration,

staff, making a buck at the end of the day, and getting a good or

decent return on your investment. I understand all that stuff. It's not

as if the people on this side of the House are totally immune to that

kind of thinking; we understand that. But at the end of the day my

employees, whether in the context of my law practice — no matter which business I was involved in —

are going to ask me about a wage increase this year, about having

Mondays and Fridays off, or Mondays and Fridays off during the summer

on a rotational basis. Or they're going to ask me about an increase in

holidays. They're going to tell me they're working too hard, and all

that kind of nice stuff. It's within my right as an employer to talk to

them about those issues, but it is not within my right, I would submit,

to determine how it is that they arrive at the decision to determine

which issues to put on the agenda, how they want to represent

themselves and how they want to make their submissions to me.

don't think it's a question of sabotage; I think it's a question of

deciding how it is that they want to represent themselves. Therefore

I'm sure that if my employees wanted to unionize, one of the

things — like I say, I'm not so naive as to think this wouldn't be a question —

they may want to ask themselves is: "What's the employer going to

think?" But when you begin to think about that, it's really none of the

employer's business how it is that they, the employees, come to talk to

you about things that are your business — you know, the various

working conditions that are freely negotiated under a collective

agreement. That's the other question. As I said, a number of them would

gush through my head. But when you begin to analyze it, not only in the

context of that last question but, more importantly, in the context of

the minister's reply to my original question, it becomes evident that

it is impossible for the employer to provide the very information that

employees need to make an informed decision about forming a trade union.

Maybe

I'll pause at this stage because there are other things I want to get

into, but I would hope that the minister will now see the flaw in that

thinking. I would like to know if the minister has a response and if he

thinks there's a flaw in the argument that I'm making.

MR. ROSE :

I was intrigued by the line of questioning embarked upon by my

colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew and points north, and I was

hoping the minister would get up and respond. I was waiting with bated

breath to hear the minister. But if the minister hasn't got sufficient

information from the member to respond adequately, perhaps the member

might flesh out his question.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before I

recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, it would seem to the

Chair that the question has been fairly well fleshed out. I would like

to point out that I listen very carefully to everything that is said,

and about 30 percent of what has been said up to this point has been

very relevant, and the rest of it I've had some difficulty with. We've

been on this

section for quite some time; it has been very well

canvassed. But seeing that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has

more to say, we'll recognize him.

MR. SIHOTA : I do

apologize, Mr. Chairman. I've really tried, as I understand the rules,

to restrict my comments.

Section 5 talks about freedom of expression,

and I've tried to restrict my comments to what the minister had to say

in response to my earlier question. If I've deviated by 70 percent, I

apologize. And I'm sorry to see that we're not getting into that kind

of debate in this chamber. Like I said, I think it's becoming evident

that one of the reasons so many of us on this side of this House are

talking about this

section is because it is a pivotal

section in the

legislation. It really does represent a different form of thinking and

a radical departure from the philosophy that we've embraced in this

country in the past.

Having said that, I want to move on to

something else which I hope will in itself generate a response from the

minister. Again, it's headed towards another question which hopefully

this time will result in a reply.

The

section here talks

about freedom of expression. I want to talk a little bit about freedom

of expression. I'm not going to deviate into a huge Charter of Rights

dialogue in terms of what freedom of expression means, and provide a

lecture on that, because that's clearly not my intent. But I want to

make one very quick comment about that, and the quick comment is this:

in my opinion, those words are very cleverly used within the context of

this section, because — the minister would agree with me, I am sure —

there are indeed restrictions upon freedom of expression as we know it.

There is always a tension between freedom of expression in the real

sense of the word and freedom of expression in a practical sense. We

have always had in this country a recognition of that and we've had

laws, both common law and statute, that have placed restrictions on

freedom of expression. I don't want to be facetious, but I think we

have also seen this to some extent since this session started in the

context of events that have taken place outside on the steps of the

Legislature.

But let's go on from that. There are always

tensions between freedoms and rights within a given society. Freedom of

association is another attribute that is a component within our

Charter, and it can be another clever way of developing language in the

act. I think that it is well recognized that in this society we have

the freedom to associate. We have the freedom to associate with

political parties, with organizations, with trade unions. I don't want

to get into the nuances of a recent Supreme Court of Canada case,

because I think there are a lot of

interpretations on that case and

there is a lot of intrigue in terms of the three-three-one vote on

that — because someone will argue that it was a split decision,

that there was no decision, and others will argue that it was a

decision against freedom of association.

[3:45]

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Before

I talk in length on the matter of freedom of association, I think the

minister would recognize that freedom of association does exist in this

country. We have allowed it to become a part of our institutions. We

have allowed it to become a part of the Charter. If freedom of

association — and I don't think I am wrong in this assumption — can be

[ Page 1400 ]

interpreted

to allow people the freedom to engage in trade unions, the question

that arises is: to what extent can that freedom of association be

restricted by freedom of expression, particularly expression along

these lines? My opening question then to the minister is: in drafting

this section, did the minister consider or seek the opinion of counsel,

either internally or through the Attorney-General's department, to see

what the interplay is between this

section and what we've talked about,

freedom of expression and freedom of association?

HON. L. HANSON :

Yes, we did seek legal advice, and their

interpretation is that it does

answer the concern that we were raising in our original intention. I

think that it was mentioned earlier by the opposition members that the

rights of freedom of speech and association and so on are enshrined in

the Bill of Rights. I suppose that if they do subscribe to that as

being a reasonable and just cause, then there is certainly no harm in

stating it again in our labour legislation, because that certainly is

all that we are doing. As long as there are reasonable controls that it

is not used in a discriminatory or an unduly influential manner, it

should be allowed. We feel that is fair and just in our society.

MR. SIHOTA :

Okay, Mr. Chairman, let's talk a little bit about the minister's

response to that question. In itself, it raises a whole new set of

issues in my mind.

The

minister acknowledges that within the context of this

legislation — and we are dealing with the

section as amended

now — there has been placed the phrase "undue influence." Tagged

along with those words in

section 2(3) — which is

section 5 of

this legislation, which is where I get confused from time to

time —

is the notion that although the employers are free to express their

views, they are not to exercise "undue influence, intimidation,

coercion or threats." It seems to me that in injecting those words into

the legislation, there is an acknowledgement on the part of the

minister that the employer can play and, indeed, does play a role in

the certification process which can be interpreted as persuading

employees not to engage in trade unions. I take it that those words are

the limitations on this freedom to express.

But it strikes

me that the minister has come to the conclusion that there are some

things that employers can express to employees and other things that

they ought not to express to employees. My question to the minister is

this: can he, for the sake of my better understanding of this section,

provide me — and I'm not asking for an exhaustive list — with

his thoughts on what kinds of things he thinks the employer ought to be

allowed to express to employees? I want to make it clear that I'm not

asking the minister to define what he means by "intimidation," "undue

influence," "coercion" or "threats." I'm not asking for a definition of

those, and for the purposes of this debate I'll accept the fact that

those matters can be defined by a labour relations board. So I won't

focus in on that; that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what things it

is that the minister, in putting this

section in, thinks are

appropriate for an employer to express to employees.

MR. R. FRASER :

Well, Mr. Chairman, I didn't really intend to speak a great deal on

this particular section. While I was tempted by the second member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who gave us one of the most arrogant displays

I've ever heard in the House, I'll let that one go by.

But

this one is kind of interesting because, as I recall, the minister told

us that the words "undue influence" were added at the request of the

trade union movement. I want to add to the question from my hon. friend

across the floor. In addition to answering his question, would the

minister kindly tell us if, in fact, those words "undue influence" were

added at the request of the trade union movement?

HON. L. HANSON :

It's certainly an interesting discussion, Mr. Chairman, but as the

former Chairman who was in your spot commented, I have some difficulty

relating some of the discussion to

section 5. Be that as it may, I

think that the member opposite is.... I would like to point out to him

that freedom of speech and expression is not limited to employers.

We're suggesting that everyone — the union organizers, the

employees, the employers —

should all act in a manner that does not use undue influence,

intimidation, coercion or threats. I think that the insinuation by

members opposite that the whole

section simply gives employers the

opportunity to speak their piece is in error. I might add that the

question of undue influence — which to me is really immaterial,

because I think it's a reasonable addition or amendment to the

Code — did come from organized labour.

MRS. BOONE :

My comments are a little more basic, and deal with some of the things I

can see happening with regard to the influence that an employer can

have, with implied influence the effect that an employer has on his

employees without actually saying or doing anything intimidating.

Sometimes it's not what is said, but how it is said. For example, if an

employer discovered that his employees were organizing, were seeking

talks with unions, just a comment such as, "I understand you're talking

to unions," can carry an implied threat to many people and can have a

profound effect on many people. When you're talking about some of the

sectors that haven't been unionized, or about some of the traditional

women's positions, which are usually in lower paid areas and frequently

in areas that do not have a lot of influence, sometimes just having an

employer speak to employees can have an influence on them. I guess my

question to the minister is: does the minister not agree that

intimidation can be achieved without actually saying anything

intimidating?

HON. L. HANSON : Well, certainly, I

agree with the member opposite, and that's why we've put those words

in. But again, I think it's a very narrow outlook on the clause, in

that we're protecting the freedom of speech to everyone. The same can

be said in organizational drives. There were many accusations that

there was undue influence used by some of the people trying to

organize. I'm not suggesting any of that was true; I'm just simply

saying that the clause applies to everyone, that they should act in a

fair and reasonable manner. I think that any one of us can be subject

to unfair threatening gestures, or whatever, in our normal life; but

there's recourse for that. That's why we have the freedom of speech in

the bill. That's also why we have a dispute-resolution mechanism. If

there are accusations brought up that are contrary to the words in the

act, then there is a method of resolving them.

MRS. BOONE :

I don't think any of us wants to see any kind of intimidation or

threats used. But in the past the employers haven't been able to speak

to their employees.

[ Page 1401 ]

They

weren't able to use any such things, or even acknowledge; therefore

there wasn't any implied threat; it wasn't possible. What rights does

an employer have to influence a decision of his or her employees to

organize themselves in a way in which they can best defend themselves,

or present themselves, or whatever? What right does an employer have to

influence in any manner — and you're saying "undue

influence" — that decision of the employee to organize? All they

are doing is organizing.

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the conversation from the other side of the

floor, I keep getting the idea that everyone on the opposition bench

thinks that everyone on the government side of the House is against

union organizations. I can assure you that that is not so. I could also

assure you that there are lots of employers who like the collective

bargaining process, who want the collective bargaining process; yes,

like one of my colleagues for Dewdney. In fact, my own company had a

trade union which worked very well. So the negative approach that you

speak of is defeating the purpose of the legislation, which is to give

people an opportunity to converse with each other freely and fairly, so

that they can collectively — the employee or the employee —

solve the problems of the day, like keeping that business going and

their incomes going. That's what it's all about.

would seem to me perfectly logical that employer and employee would

talk. It would be unrealistic to separate them so they could not talk.

Here we have some legislation which simply says: yes, you may talk to

each other, but you can't be unfair — either side. It's either

side we're talking about here: he can't be unfair. That's what it does.

That's very simple. I suspect that every logical person would like that.

MRS. BOONE :

I honestly don't. I find it very hard to understand that the member for

Vancouver believes that an employer can give information to his

employees regarding organization. What information could an employer

impart — an employer that is not up till then organized? What

pertinent information would he or she have that could influence their

decision, other than a threat as to, say, their keeping their business

going, or their job functions. Those are the very things that I think

will probably happen when an employer decides that his employees are

organizing. I can see them coming in and saying things around possibly

closing down their store, or possibly closing down their business, or

having to reduce their staff if it becomes unionized — using all

kinds of implied threats there, which, although you say they're not

allowed to do, they can be taking place in ways that are not very overt

but are actually taking place there. The employer has no place in the

decisions of the employees as to what kind of bargaining unit they

have. The employee is the group that decides how it organizes itself;

and that is the only people that should be making a decision with

regard to how it's organized.

[4:00]

HON. L. HANSON :

It's sort of interesting to listen to this conversation, because I

think I heard a member opposite ask earlier why we were putting this in

when it's there already and they had the ability to do that. Now I hear

another member get up and say that they could never do this before.

Obviously, if there's any confusion....

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON : No, no. I think it was the lady right there.

Anyway, it's obvious that there's some confusion.

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON : Read the Blues tomorrow, instead of arguing about it today.

It's

obvious that there's some confusion in the minds of the members

opposite about whether the ability is there or not. What we're saying

is that the ability is there. It's effective to both sides, but you

can't use intimidation or coercion, whether you're trying to convince

an employee to belong to a union or not to belong to a union. But that

freedom of speech to empower the individual to make an informed

decision is paramount and should be there.

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER : I really like living in this city, so if we can keep it through the summer, I could be here all summer.

Actually,

I think I would like to suggest that this addition of words which we

went along with would be quite useful, because it would, as was said a

minute ago, prevent an employer from coercing his employees into

joining a union, and I know that's been done.

AN HON. MEMBER : Oh, oh!

MR. R. FRASER : It has been done.

it's very important that the influence either way be avoided. That's

how fair this legislation is, and that's what you want to talk about.

You always come at it from the wrong end. It's astonishing how bad it

is.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, since the Minister of Labour is out of the roomv....

HON. MR. REID : He's listening.

MR. SIHOTA :

Well, I wish he would listen. The minister opposite, who is not even in

his seat, is now telling me that the Minister of Labour is listening.

Well, he should have listened months ago, when he went on his great

tour of the province. Was he listening then? To keep within the context

of this section, who asked for this section? How many of those people

who appeared before those panels said: "Yes, we want the freedom to

express. We want to be able to talk to our own employees"? Well, of

course you can talk to your employees right now. You know, there's no

law on the books that says you can't talk to your employees. There's

just a law on the books that says that you don't talk to them or you

don't intimidate them; you don't talk to them when they're deciding

among themselves how they want to talk to you, that's all. Where was

the minister when people were talking to him about withdrawing this

legislation, and not coming forward with

section 5?

Where

was the listening? The minister opposite said it was 24 hours a day.

Well, if he was listening, we would have seen something more than 48 or

49 amendments, or how many other flaws it was that they found in this

corpse of a legislation. Instead, what we got was something that doesn't

[ Page 1402 ]

amount

to freedom of expression, or freedom to make people have an informed

decision; it amounts to freedom of intimidation. That's what I want to

tell the minister over there. This amounts to freedom of intimidation,

and the minister knows that.

The minister should also

know.... And I'd like to know whether or not he was one of those sacred

employers that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) was

just talking about a few minutes ago. The Minister of Culture (Hon. Mr.

Reid) over there — did he go to his employees and ask them to

unionize as well? Did he say: "Yep, I want you to unionize, and I'm

using my freedom of expression to tell you that I want you to unionize

right now. Please unionize. In the name of free enterprise, will you

begin to engage in free collective bargaining?" I think it's ludicrous

to expect that any employer, with the exception, of course, of the

Minister of Culture and the member for Vancouver South, would go to his

or her employees and say: "Yes, I want you to unionize." I find it

difficult to believe that there is a galaxy of employers out there who

are going to their employees, running right away, the moment they set

up their shops, and saying: "I want you to unionize."

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, there is a reason for that. The reason for that is that the employer wants...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Members, please....

MR. SIHOTA : ...to deal with his or her employees....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. First of all, hon. member, I think if you would address

your comments to the Chair, and the other members would refrain from

this type of discussion, we'd get along somewhat quicker.

MR. SIHOTA : My apologies, Mr. Chairman, but I was getting the other side excited a bit, and I will address my comments through the Chair.

think it was the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) who was raising the issue of: "Well, why do you think that's

the case?" Well, the reason for that, I think the Minister of Social

Services and Housing would agree.... I didn't see him going down to

his radio station asking people to go in and unionize. If I'm wrong in

saying that he's the operator of a radio station, I apologize; I'm

operating from memory here.

But the point is that I'm sure he didn't go running to his employees,

because he would prefer to deal with his employees on a one-to-one basis, and

to do whatever he would prefer to do with each one of the employees, instead

of with the employees on a collective basis. Because there is strength in collectivity,

and there is not necessarily strength in terms of individual bargaining. There

is a democratic process in terms of employees deciding what they want together,

one and the other, and then carving out the agenda that they want to take to

the employer, rather than each employee coming up separately and, with the employer,

sort of deciding to grant favour and advantage to some over the others. Those

are the reasons, and I would like to think — and I'm sure the Minister of

Social Services and Housing will assure me of this — that he doesn't have

an anti-union bias either.

Let's

get back to the debate we were engaged in before all of this talk

started to happen across the floor. I'm glad to see that the second

member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) wants to see us get back to this

debate, and I look forward to his comments on

section 5, as we proceed

with the debate this afternoon. Let's get back to the point I was

trying to make earlier on, before the member for Prince George spoke.

The minister is now arguing in this House that it's not a case of

employers; it's a case of people — persons — having the right under the

legislation to express their opinions, and that our attack, if you want

to call it that, is a misguided missile, a loose cannon, or whatever

you want to call it, when it comes down to our comments on

section 5.

The fact remains that the minister must understand that the definition

of the word "persons" includes employers, and it's within that context

that I'm raising my points. Of course, the word "person" can

incorporate a lot of other entities, and it can incorporate trade

unions. I take it that the minister's argument is that he wants to make

sure that trade unions cannot use intimidation, coercion or undue

influence in expressing their point of view; that there are other

people who may be interested in what's going on in the workplace; and

as I understand it, he wants to place those same restrictions on their

freedom of expression as well.

But what the minister loses

sight of is that the one person who clearly can use this

section to his

or her benefit the most is an employer. That's why we are dealing with

employers, the potential abuse and the radical departure from the

philosophy we've previously had in this country. It's for those reasons

that we're beginning to use the employer as the example. I think it

highlights the potential abuse in the section.

So I want to

pose this question again to the minister, with the understanding that

the word there is "persons" and that it applies to a whole spectrum of

entities, things and beings — if I can use the provisions of the

Interpretation Act, where it deals with the definition of "person":

what kinds of communication does the minister think it proper under

this

section for an employer to make? Again, I'm not asking for a

definition of "undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats." But

within the context of the certification process, what kinds of comments

does he think this

section ought to allow the employer to make?

HON. L. HANSON :

To the hon. member, I think that he realizes as well as I do that later

on in the act we will be dealing with some other sections.... If I

can refer to the old act, the Labour Relations Board would determine

that in the course of their receiving evidence in making decisions that

are relevant to the wording of the act. For me to hypothesize about

what wording or situation would be contrary to the act.... That's why

we have a Labour Relations Board, as we know it now — soon to be

replaced by another board. I think that's a matter of adjudication, and

it will be determined as each case is presented to them.

MR. SIHOTA :

You know, that argument can be made for every piece of legislation —

that it's not up to the minister to decide or to explain what a

section

means; that in the long run, whether it's a specialized board or

tribunal like the Labour Relations Board or the courts, who also

interpret

[ Page 1403 ]

legislation, it's up to them to decide. You can always duck the question on that basis.

I'm

just pausing here, Mr. Chairman, largely because I see that the

minister is engaged in a conversation with the Minister of Education,

who just went through this process on Bill 20. I'm not too sure if he's

giving him tips on.... The Minister of Education almost drove me out

of the House on Bill 20 when he said that he didn't want to listen to

lawyers anymore.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Are you better prepared now?

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm far better prepared on Bill 19, Mr. Minister, than I was on Bill

20, and I can also tell the Minister of Education that even the

Minister of Labour has said that he finds this discussion interesting.

So we'll continue with it.

The question I ask the minister

is this: is he the one who drafted this legislation? He's the one

responsible for this legislation. Therefore he must have had some

thoughts as to what those words meant and what that

section would

involve. I'm asking the minister within that context. I understand that

there's a role to be played by the Labour Relations Board and the

courts and all those types of entities when dealing with it, but at the

end of the day the author of this legislation is the minister, and I'm

asking the minister for clarification. Why did he put those words in

there? What's his understanding of those words? What's his

understanding of what it is that employers ought to be allowed to say?

What is the intent that the minister saw when he drafted this section?

[4:15]

HON. L. HANSON :

It's sort of interesting to hear this debate go on with them wishing me

to deal with hypothetical cases. I think that what I've said earlier as

to the philosophy of the

section is still the reason for the section.

We want to ensure that those employees who are making a decision — and

now we're only dealing with the very narrow confines of

certification.... This, by the way, applies to certification,

decertification; it

applies to all of the votes that the employee may make relating to his

working conditions in the workplace. What we're saying, quite simply,

is that the employee should be entitled to the best information that

it's possible to provide him so he can make an educated decision with

all the information that is reasonable on whatever the issue is. We're

simply saying that no one should use, including the union, including

the employers.... Within reason, not using undue influence, not

using intimidation, not using coercion or threats, they should make the

employee aware of their thoughts on the issue.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, let's bring this back within the context of my comments

about an hour ago, which were as follows: let's talk about this within

the context of a certification process; let's talk about this within

the context of employees wanting to make a decision in terms of

deciding whether or not they want to form a trade union. I tried to lay

out to the minister at least three and possibly four examples of issues

that one would reasonably expect to come up in the employees' minds

during the course of a decision to certify or not to certify. Will the

minister, within that context, tell me what it is that he sees as

special information that the employer would have at his or her disposal

which would somehow help these employees make an informed decision

about a trade union?

HON. L. HANSON : Again, Mr.

Chairman, it's obvious that the member over there wants me to come up

and say: "Thou shalt not." All we're saying — and we're saying it again

and I've said it so many times — is that it's simply freedom of choice.

The individual should have the ability to get all of the information

that gives him the ability to make the best possible and most wise

decision that he can on the issue.

If it's relating to

certification, if the employer is not communicating information that

uses undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats, what is the

difference if it is not of any value to the employee? It doesn't do any

harm if he doesn't do anything like that, and I think that there are

many instances that it could. I'm not going to be drawn into the

situation where I suggest that this is the right wording or that is the

right wording or this is what he can tell. I'm sure that there's

information which the employee should have that goes with an

employee-employer relationship that doesn't relate to intimidation,

coercion, threats and using undue influence.

I have great

difficulty in understanding the opposition's great concern with the

ability of the employee to get that information.

MR. MILLER :

Perhaps, Mr. Minister, since we've been accused of going at this from

the wrong end, we'll try it from a different end. Let me rephrase that

question. I think it's a good question and it strikes at the heart of

why this amendment is being brought down, why it's put in. The minister

says that it's not up to me to interpret. Could I ask the minister,

then, what information he feels employees weren't getting that caused

him to bring this amendment in? What situations occurred and what

information was not being passed on to these employees so that they

could make a logical determination as to whether or not they wanted to

form a trade union? Surely it's central to the amendment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'd just like to make a couple of remarks, since the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) brought my name into it and

referred to the business that I used to manage. I would suggest that

it's not the minister who's coming at this from the wrong end; rather

it's the two members who have just spoken from the opposite side. I

don't know the backgrounds of their previous employments as well as

they know mine, it seems, but maybe they assume wrongly that it's only

the management or the owner who wants to talk to the employees. Such is

not the case. I know from firsthand knowledge that very often the

employees want to go and talk to management to make an informed

decision.

This happened in the business that I used to run;

and you're quite right, Mr. Member, I used to run a radio station in

Kamloops. My competitor became unionized during the time that I was

running the station. There's nothing wrong with that; there are a lot

of fine radio stations across this country that are unionized, and

there are a lot of fine stations that are not. But the point is that

when that happened to my competitor, my employees, with whom I had a

good working relationship, came to me and wanted to talk about this,

because it was a phenomenon, and it was big news in our town, in a

two-station market, when one had become unionized and the other was

not. It was big news and they wanted to talk about it. We had a good

working relationship. But I cautioned them. I said: "Under the present

Labour Code I have to be careful talking to you about it, because at

what

[ Page 1404 ]

point

do you decide that you want to certify? Once you pass that point and

make that decision where you may want to take a vote, then I'm not

allowed to talk to you any more." I think that's nonsense. My employees

had a lot of confidence in me, and I in them, and they wanted to come

and talk about it. 1 can't see anything wrong with that.

it's not always the "big bad employer" who wants to go and talk to the

people to try to talk them out of joining a union. In fact, I did

nothing of the sort. But we had some good informed discussion about it,

and they had every opportunity to try to form a union, as my competitor

up the hill did. So I submit to you, members opposite, that it isn't

always the employer who's the big bad guy. A lot of employees have a

lot of confidence in the people that they work for and work with.

That's the type of relationship that we had. I repeat: I didn't try to

talk them out of certifying, like my competitor up the hill. I said:

"You do what you want." But we had some good informed discussion about

it. I was even on dangerous ground because I didn't know at what point

I was not allowed to talk to my employees any more. And that's

absolutely nonsense.

MR. LOVICK : This is dangerous ground.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

No, I doubt very much that it is. I think it's you who are coming at

this question from the wrong end. Many times the employees wish to

discuss it with the management of the company. I see absolutely nothing

wrong with

section 5.

MR. GABELMANN : It's

unfortunate that the Minister of Social Services and Housing, at the

time he was running his radio station, hadn't read the Labour Code,

section 3(3)(g): the employer has the right to "communicate to an

employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to

the employer's business." It's been there for years. You could have

done all the talking you wanted to do. So to raise the red herring,

such as he's just done, to say that he was nervous about talking to his

employees, who came to talk to him about the unionization down the

street, is absolute nonsense. He could talk to them all he wanted, and

in fact could talk to them about any opinion he might have held, if he

held it reasonably. That's the problem with this debate. For years

we've had in the labour legislation a clause which allows employers to

talk to employees if they have a view that's reasonably held. As

decisions of the LRB have come down over the years, that right even

includes to say to employees: "I'm going to have to close down the

business." That decision is clear in labour board decision No. 247-86,

just last year.

I think what we're trying to find out..... I want to pursue this later, after the other members have had a

chance to pursue this line of questioning. We want to find out the need

for this amending clause, when in

section 3(3)(

g) of the Code, as it

existed and will still exist, employers have the right to communicate

views reasonably held. What's this particular clause all about, given

that the LRB has made decisions which allow employers to talk about

what might happen to their business? What's it for?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify that I was aware of the previous

Labour Code. It says: "with respect to the employer's business."

Period. It's very explicit. I have it right in front of me, and he's

right. It's

section 3(3)(g), and it says: "with respect to the

employer's business." In other words, that's the only thing that an

employer could talk about. If his employees came to him and said, "We'd

like to discuss this whole matter of certification with you, " he could

not discuss it. It was very clear. There were even decisions — and I

can't quote them, because 1 don't have them — handed down on that

section.

I was just merely making the point that many times

employees like to come and discuss those kinds of matters with their

employer, and I don't see anything wrong with that. This

section 5 just

gives the employer and the employee the unfettered right to sit down

and discuss it. Not coercion or threats about shutting down the

business or anything. That happens, I suppose, but very rarely. It

didn't happen in my case. We had some good informed opinion of it, and

they had every right to seek certification in the company that I used

to manage, and they chose not to, for whatever reasons.

MR. MILLER : I think we've come full circle and back to the question that I

originally posed, and taking the comments of the Minister of Social

Services and Housing.... My

interpretation of what he's saying is

that the existing labour legislation did not allow him to go and advise

his employees about whether or not he thought it was a good idea for

them to form a union. That's what he's saying.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

Well, that's the way I interpret it. They wanted to come to you, and

you were prevented from giving your advice as to whether or not they

should form a union, and somehow you felt hampered by that, and that

employers generally feel hampered, because they're unable to advise

their employees who come knocking on their door and say: "Gee, do you

think we should form a union?" I'd suggest first of all that it's

highly unlikely that that scenario takes place, given the history and

the struggle that employees have had to form unions in the first place.

Secondly,

I'll rephrase or reput the question to the Minister of Labour. What is

an example of the kinds of things that were not allowed under the

existing legislation and that therefore made the minister feel

compelled to bring this amendment to the bill in — that employers could

not advise their employees about whether or not they should form a

union?

HON. L. HANSON : Madam Chairman, this

discussion is interesting. 1 really do have some difficulty with all of

the concern that is being raised. The

section is very simple. It

preserves the freedom of expression and prohibits discriminatory

practices. It guarantees freedom of expression for all persons — and I

underline "persons" — and it prohibits, in that freedom of expression,

intimidation, coercion and threats. What can you possibly have against

that?

MR. SIHOTA : Well, the minister is the author

of this legislation. Everybody in this House can read and see what the

section says. Some of us are asking the rationale for introducing this.

What was the problem that the minister was trying to remedy by putting

this in? These words are not meaningless. They're designed to have some

intent, and we're trying to find out from the minister what it was that

he was trying to remedy. What flaw was there out there? What was it

that the previous legislation was not addressing that this

[ Page 1405 ]

section now allows to be addressed? That's the question to the minister.

[4:30]

HON. L. HANSON :

Madam Chairman, I think that we're losing sight of the intent here

again. You know, in the Code it did say that the employer had the

ability to communicate within certain bounds, I guess, with his

employees. But we're not talking about that; we're talking about

freedom of expression between the individuals — persons; and we're

talking about the ability of the trade union organizer to act in a

reasonable and responsible manner and communicate it; and we're talking

about the individuals within the employees to have the right to

communicate with each other. There's no great mystery behind it.

There's no great hidden agenda, and I don't know how many more times I

can answer this question. Read it as you see it. Don't read anything

into it that isn't there. You can read it. One of the members, I

believe, is a legal authority. Form your own conclusions. It's very

straightforward and very simple.

MR. SIHOTA : Madam

Chairman, people always had that opportunity to converse with one

another. The question to the minister is this: what was wrong with the

old Labour Code, if I can put it that way? What flaw did he see in the

old Labour Code that would warrant this

section being introduced?

MR. LOVICK :

We just heard a sound emanating from across the floor. I would dearly

hope that the member would actually stand up and articulate in plain

the murmur aright, that there is no free speech. I posed that question

about an hour ago, and of course it was dismissed out of hand by the

minister. I said at the time: "Are you trying to tell us that prior to

this bill and this amendment there was indeed no freedom of speech in

this province? If so, then by heaven, 1 think you owe it to us to say

so."

I think, however, that was probably a rather frivolous

comment as opposed to a serious comment. I sincerely hope so, because I

want to suggest that the minister owes this House and the people of

this province an answer to the question put by all of us who have

spoken thus far on this amendment. We have all asked the same question

from different ways, notwithstanding that we've used somewhat different

language: please demonstrate to us what was missing or what was wrong

with the old legislation that this new wording is somehow going to fix

up. Explain that to us. That is not a question offered for debating

purposes alone. If anything, it is the kind of question that ought to

appeal to people on the other side of this House who claim to be

enamoured of some kind of small-c conservative ideology, because surely

part and parcel of any small-c conservative ideology is that the onus

of responsibility for change lies in the hands of those who would

advocate and move the change. We have a status quo that, thank you very

much, has functioned quite effectively.

We are suggesting

to the minister and to this government that it is your responsibility,

therefore, to demonstrate to us what is wrong with the status quo. Show

us what in fact will be accomplished by this new section. So far we've

had bafflegab; we've had evasion; we've had no direct answer. I suggest

to the minister that he has an obligation to give us a direct answer to

that question. I implore the minister to do so.

MR. SIHOTA :

We're again not getting an answer from the minister. I see that the

Premier is here. During the course of the election campaign.... In

fact, I think I heard him talk on the radio about open government,

about answering questions that are put to government about openness.

All we're trying to get out of the minister here is an answer. I don't

know whether or not the Premier agrees or is backing down on that

thought. I would like to think not. I'm sure the Premier would like to

think not, so let's see it in practice here in terms of seeing whether

or not the members of this House, particularly the minister

responsible, is willing to engage in a debate to explain what his

motivation was in introducing this section, what flaws he saw in the

previous Labour Code.

I see the minister is rising, so I'll sit down in respect to the minister.

HON. L. HANSON : That polite gesture in sitting down is very much appreciated.

is interesting. I'm getting the impression.... I guess I have to

state it again. I have stated the reason for the amendment: that there

is a requirement for the ability of people to freely communicate so

that they can make value decisions knowing all of the facts. If the

members on the other side continue to say that that is there, that's

fine. I think that's great. But if it is there, then there is no harm

in restating it. The difficulty seems to be that the members don't get

the answer they want; they get the answer, but it's not the answer they

want. So they continue.

I'm not sure what you're looking

for. The fact is, we're trying to ensure that there is freedom of

expression, freedom of communication, and that's what is in

section 5.

MR. SIHOTA :

The harm lies in the situation that I raised earlier in the House with

respect to the certification process and communication between the

parties during that process. I opened my comments by talking about what

the former chairman of the Labour Relations Board in Nova Scotia had

done, how they had dealt with this issue, how it had become ingrained

in the Canadian fabric of collective bargaining in this country: that

employers do not talk to employees with respect to these types of

matters. That is why in Nova Scotia, as I pointed out earlier, they

have this five-day provision.

I then tried to lay out to

the minister, when his response was exactly what it is now, the things

that would come across the minds of those who wanted to unionize, and

asked which one of those things the employer would have any special

knowledge in, and which of those situations would entities other than

the employer have. It's clear, I would think, to everybody in this

House that all of the things that were listed, with one possible

exception, were items that somebody other than the employer would have

a special knowledge of. That's where the minister's argument falls down.

But

let me then ask the minister this: does he think that employers ought

to be able to talk to employees during the certification process about

whether or not they should unionize? Yes or no?

HON. L. HANSON :

Well, first of all, if, and I agree that he's right.... My critic

suggested that they already have that right in

section 3(3)(g), I

think it is, so there is absolutely no harm in that. Secondly, what

harm is there, even if the employer doesn't have any special

information available to him, in ensuring that all the information is

available to the employee to make his decision?

[ Page 1406 ]

But

again, it's not dealing with certification only, or decertification;

it's dealing with all aspects of communication between the employee,

the union and the employer.

MR. MILLER : I'm getting

the feeling that the minister doesn't appreciate the history of trade

unions and the difficulty in terms of forming trade unions and the

struggles that really took place — or, without overstating it, the

lives that were lost in terms of that becoming a right for working

people on this continent.

The minister wrongly suggested

that the labour critic, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann),

said that employers have that right under

section 3(3)(g), in terms

of communicating with their employees. In fact, that

section reads that

they can "communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion

reasonably held with respect to the employer's business," a fact that

the first member for Kamloops, the Minister of Social Services and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), complained about — that he was restricted.

We're

trying to get at the reason for the clause. The minister did not answer

the question, and the question is: does the minister think that under

this

section employers should be able to advise employees about whether

or not they should form a union?

HON. L. HANSON : I

think it's only fair and reasonable, just as the act states, that they

should be able to communicate to the employee anything, as long as

they're not using undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats.

If an employee comes up to the employer as an individual and says,

"Shall I join the union or shall I not join the union?" I suppose the

individual is going to answer that question with how he feels. It's a

fair question, and I think that that can be communicated. But I also

think that if it goes further than that and uses intimidation, coercion

and the other things, that isn't correct.

MR. GABELMANN : It's taken them some time, but we're finally beginning to get somewhere.

MR. MILLER : Two hours.

MR. GABELMANN :

And yesterday afternoon, too. We're getting now to the point where

those on this side of the House are saying clearly that employers do

not have the right to tell prospective union members whether or not

they should become union members. They do not have the right — we say —

to suggest to employees whether they should bargain individually or

collectively; we've said that. It's clear now from the minister's

answer that he believes that employers do have the right and should

have the right to say to their employees: "I wouldn't join the union if

I were you." The minister qualifies that by the words in the

prospective law which prohibit coercion, threats, undue influence or

intimidation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Just unions are allowed to do that.

MR. GABELMANN :

No, no. That's not true. No persons, to use the term that describes

more than people, have been allowed to use intimidation, coercion or

threats in the past, and the labour board has held that on a number of

occasions.

I want to cite a set of circumstances to the

minister and ask him, given that these circumstances occurred under the

language that is now the law — not the changes, the existing Labour

Code.... If required, I will be more specific about the name of the

employer and all that kind of detail, but I will leave it out unless

people want me to include it.

There's an organizing drive

on Vancouver Island, a crew of about 18 people. The crew had problems.

They had no statutory holiday pay, no rest periods other than a

half-hour for lunch, no call-in, no seniority rights, etc., and were

being paid $5 to $6 an hour. So they approached the IWA to see if they

could form a union.

The IWA was forced to conduct an early

vote prior to having canvassed the entire 18 employees, because

somebody went to the employer and said this was happening. One of the

employees went to the employer and said: "There's a union drive going

on." The vote was taken on May 29, before the organizing had completed,

and it was 9 to 6 in favour of unionization. The next day the employer

shut down half the plant and laid off half the people, and then

proceeded to refuse to bargain for ten months, until the employees,

half of whom weren't working because they'd been laid off, were in such

desperate shape that a decertification vote was applied for. It turns

out that during the initial campaign the employer had said, "Should you

choose to join this union, I'll have to shut down half the plant, "

which he did the next day, after they were certified.

its decision the labour board said: "We find that" — the name of the

employer