Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 5, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 199

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

M. Lee

D. Ashton

J. Rustad

N. Letnick

T. Halford

M. de Jong

K. Kirkpatrick

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. B. Ma

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. H. Bains

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Mental Health Amendment Act, 2022

T. Halford

Hon. D. Eby

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Child Care (continued)

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. J. Whiteside

R. Merrifield

C. Oakes

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

A. Olsen

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2022

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call continued second reading, Bill 10.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued estimates of the

Ministry of Education and Child Care, to be followed by the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

M. Lee: Just continuing on from where I left off before the break. I was

speaking to what this is about, this bill. Certainly, to recap, we have

not seen this government look to the recommendations of the

panel.

[1:05 p.m.]

I’ve talked about the protections against unfair labour practices

that are there in the Labour Relations Code, the fact that the minister

has yet to demonstrate, since the changes that were made to the Labour

Relations Code under Bill 30 — with the extension from the three-month

period to the six-month period for validity of union certification

cards, as well as the reduction in time between the application and the

vote — that there have been considerations around any unfair employer

interference as a result.

That certainly is something that I know the critic for Labour, the

member for Shuswap, as well as other members here, will be questioning

the Minister of Labour on as we get to the committee stage.

I was also talking about the political opportunity. I know that

other members of the official opposition have talked about that — as to

why this government has pushed on to do this in light of the fact that

the public opinion is not there, that the support amongst workers is not

there and that the Premier, yet, has made it no secret that he intended

to scrap the secret ballot for union certification and transition to

card checks as soon as he had the opportunity to do so.

He tried to push that through in 2019, but then stopped on that.

As I mentioned earlier, we’re talking about the former leader of the

Third Party, who wasn’t in favour of that. But also, again, from the

panel report point of view, that strong recommendation that the secret

ballot be maintained, providing that there were sufficient measures to

ensure the exercise of employee choice.

We recognize, certainly, the collective changes here that are

being proposed. We’ve seen changes by this government to favour certain

unions only representing 15 percent of the workforce, under the

community benefits agreements. We’ve seen the largest donations in the

political history of B.C., to the United Steelworkers, back in

I would say that in terms of the community benefits arrangements,

not only have they led to an increase in costs, delays and reduced scope

for projects on public infrastructure projects; also, there is a concern

beyond just that. That is that under the Election Act, there are no

third-party spending limits during the pre-campaign period, nor before

the pre-campaign period, with a limit of $150,000 during the campaign

period.

We know that under related project labour agreements, that

requires 32 cents per person per hour to go to unions themselves. Now,

these are not just any unions. These are the specific unions that are

part of the Allied Infrastructure and Related Construction Council of

B.C., the NDP-approved unions that represent and employ less than 15

percent of the construction workforce in B.C.

We know these unions historically have been significant political

and financial supporters of the NDP. Under the 2018 Election Act

amendments, unions can no longer be financial supporters. Unions

certainly can be political supporters, both in third-party advertising

efforts and in organization of volunteers. Under the Election Act,

third-party sponsors must be registered, so there is some

transparency.

I would suggest that the removal of the secret ballot and the

delivery by the Premier and this Minister of Labour on that promise to

their particular support base is similar to what they’ve done on the

community benefits agreement, because community benefits agreements

effectively enable public taxpayer funds to be diverted to NDP-favoured

unions, which represent less than 15 percent of construction workers in

B.C. This amounts to funding of the unions who support the NDP. This is

politics and what we’re talking about here.

I talked earlier about the need, coming out of the pandemic, to

consider stability and balance in the workforce. That’s why, with the

lack of consultation, once again, that this government has demonstrated,

that has been articulated by the 23 employer organizations that wrote to

the Premier back on April 25…. The member for Shuswap cited that letter

into the record.

[1:10 p.m.]

The Leader of the Official Opposition talked about the lack of

consultation and what that means to British Columbians, but again, this

government is demonstrating that they’re not listening and finding the

right balance. This minister is not doing what he was asked to do in his

mandate letter from the Premier, which is to go out and consult and

listen.

Now, this minister may say: “Well, that’s the reason why we did

the panel report.” The panel report certainly, back in 2018, did some

consultations, but again, the panel report recommended the secret ballot

be maintained.

The panel report also recommended that other protections be done,

and that’s what this government did in Bill 30 — again, the extension

from three months to six months for union certification cards and the

reduction of the period between ten and five days between the time of

the application and certification vote. This back-and-forth is not

helping the labour stability in British Columbia at a time where we are

needing stability coming out of this pandemic.

Of course, we know that the elimination of secret ballots under

Bill 10 is not the only concern with this bill. Clause 1 would also

allow union raiding to take place in the construction industry between

the months of July and August of every year, as opposed to every three

years, as was previously allowed. This

section and clause of the bill

goes directly against the recommendations of that 2018 expert

panel.

It was also the subject matter of an amendment, the only amendment

that the official opposition was able to make, with the support of the

Third Party, to that Bill 30. The magic number 43. Forty-three members

of this House voted to approve that amendment. It was led by the

initiatives of the Leader of the Third Party and the member for Shuswap

and the former member from Chilliwack, to get that amendment across,

which would make annual raids consistent with what is set out in the

panel report, and that is on a three-year basis.

Again, this concern has deviated from that. When you look at the

panel’s report, it states that “raids are divisive and disruptive to

employers, unions and employees. In the public consultation process,

there was considerable support from unions and employers for reducing

the frequency of the open period for raids to correspond to other

Canadian jurisdictions. The annual open period in B.C. is the exception

in Canada.”

Why would this government see fit to deviate from what every other

Canadian jurisdiction has done? And why would this government see fit to

deviate from the unani­mous recommendations of the panel that they

appointed?

The panel’s commentary goes on to say: “The development and

evolution of a productive bargaining relationship requires time. In the

case of a newly certified bargaining unit, the possibility of a raid

immediately after certification is problematic. In our view, the

frequency of open periods in other Canadian jurisdictions provides a

more balanced approach, which recognizes the disrup­tive effects

of raids.”

Again, this begs the question as to why this government thinks it

knows better than any other jurisdiction in Canada. Why would it deviate

from the panel recommendation? We know that even with the B.C.

Federation of Labour unions, including B.C. trades unions, they will

certainly speak affirmatively about the employees’ right to

choose.

Interestingly enough, they have all banded together to create what

are known as non-raid pacts. That is to say that if employees are

experiencing poor service with one B.C. Fed union and ask another B.C.

Fed union to represent them, they will say, “No, work with your own

union,” effectively denying an employee’s choice. The only target of

this legislation is quite obvious, and that’s the independent unions,

the ones that, in fact, do give their members the ability to choose.

Again, B.C. Fed unions have donated millions of dollars to this

government over the years. Again, this is what’s at stake.

[1:15 p.m.]

This is just political payback. We know that when you take an

example…. The members on this side of the House certainly know about the

Highway 1 expansion and the impact of the project labour agreements on

those projects. If you assume for a moment that work commences one

particular summer, this summer, and the workers on this project were to

choose to be represented by another union this July, then the effect of

this Bill 10 would be that the new union could apply to the labour board

to have that agreement terminated, thus ending the agreement between

B.C. Infrastructure Benefits Inc. and the group of the selected unions,

some 90 days later.

They are creating, under this Bill 10, uncertainty, instability.

We know that we need that stability in the face of these raids. As we

look forward to the impact of community benefit agreements…. I talked

about the indirect way in which funding goes back to these same unions.

We’ve seen, then, in the course of affordability, needing to make more

housing supply in this province. The ability to have annual raids on

construction sites is only going to undermine that level of work that

needs to take place. Government has only made a small fraction of

progress on their promised 114,000 housing units.

We’ve seen, under CBAs, that they’ve added as much as $4.8 billion

to the costs of public infrastructure projects. As we look at Bill 10,

we do not see the basis for these changes. We see the recommendations of

the panel, back in 2018, that are not being implemented or adhered to.

We’ve seen the debate in this House on Bill 30, and it’s back again now,

here in this Bill 10.

I expect that at committee stage, we will be seeing, at length,

the kind of demonstration that we will see from this minister and this

government to demonstrate what they’re seeing since the changes were

made in Bill 30, only over a year and a half ago. We know that unfair

labour practices are being dealt with under the Labour Relations Code.

We know that there is an ability and a right balance to ensure that that

is the case. Secret ballots ensure that there isn’t that level of

coercion that could possibly take place.

This is something that, as we look at the opportunities to work

forward, we need to find that right balance. We need to maintain that

balance. Those 23 organizations — their voice, the level of consultation

that they should have had on this bill, have been dismissed. I

understand from this government that they’re quite concerned, as we all

are, about British Columbians’ rights to work safely, with fair

compensation and be treated well on the worksite. But it’s also the

employer’s responsibility, and it’s our responsibility to ensure that we

have the right legal frameworks for employers and employees, union and

non-union, to work together.

When that balance is upset, when it’s undermined, as this

government is doing now, for political benefit, either through CBAs, the

backdoor funding to these unions, these specific unions, or other

mechanisms — the promises that the Premier has made politically to get

elected — that doesn’t make for good labour relations. That’s what this

code is about.

As these members on the government side continue to throw up noise

around worker safety and, in the case of the current member from

Chilliwack, U.S. labour laws, which have no application in a Canadian

context…. We need to bring this debate back to and root it on the

ground. If political parties are unable to deal with good policies, then

we should be looking at the recommendations of the

panel­.

[1:20 p.m.]

That’s where the balance was achieved. That’s what members of this

House did when we amended Bill 30, and that’s what this government has

done in adhering to many of those recommendations.

Again, at the committee stage, we look forward to the minister and

this government demonstrating the reasons behind the concerns from an

unfair labour practice for what’s being proposed under this

bill.

In the absence of that, I join my other colleagues on this side of

the House to oppose this bill.

D. Ashton: I’m here today to take my place in the second reading of Bill

Before I start, I would just like to thank my peer from

Vancouver-Langara. I greatly appreciated the comments and the points

that he brought forward. I really do hope, sir, that they do stick with

government. I hope that government does listen to some of the points

that have been raised not only by the official opposition but, I’m quite

sure, by many, many people that have been talking to their respective

MLAs both on the government side and from what we are also hearing on

our side.

I just want to revert back a little bit. I was incredibly

fortunate as a kid with playing in community sports and all that. I

started my career — other than picking cherries, which we all did —

working in the gas station at the top of Summerland hill. It was

convenient. I could walk over from school. I could get a ride home with

friends, usually, going down the hill, or my parents could come up and

pick me up.

Through a hockey connection — I’m going to call him Coach, because

that’s what we all called him — I had heard through the grapevine that

Northwood Mills, at the time, which became Weyerhaeuser, hired kids,

hired students that could show that they were up to the task of working

hard and working in an industrial situation. They’d hire you to do

cleanup on Saturdays. Then a bonus was that if you were off for

Christmas time or off at Easter time/spring break — we called it

semester break at the time — you could also pick up extra

shifts.

You’d be bagging lumber or additional cleanup. If you were

unfortunate, you got stuck on the green chain, which none of us wanted

to do, because those guys were pretty big and burly or at least they

knew how to do it compared to us little fellows. It was phenomenal. If I

remember correctly, I was earning $1.25 pumping gas and wiping

windshields — back in the days when you didn’t do it yourself. You had

people there to do it — checking oil, checking tire pressure and

everything else.

Lo and behold, I got asked by Coach if I wanted to work. I said:

“Absolutely.” I got a job at Weyerhaeuser. I became a member of the

first union in my lifetime — international woodworkers association.

Great people. Absolutely great people there.

However, when I got hired, the first Saturday I was asked to show

up, lo and behold, they were on strike. Here was me, a kid driving my

dad’s Volkswagen van. I got to the gates, and there were all these

people across it, expressing their discontent, which is part of our

democratic system. But I didn’t know why I couldn’t go through those

people and go to work for Coach.

After a few coarse words were said to me by a few people while

trying to drive around them and get into the yard, a gentleman that knew

Coach very well came up and asked me…. He actually knew my parents. He

said: “What are you doing?” I told him I was a new hire and that I was

going to work. He said: “Well, you’re not going to work today. We’re on

strike.” So he says: “Go home.” He says: “I’ll talk to

Coach.”

Coach phoned me a couple days later. He said: “Okay, when the

strike’s over, you can come back to work.” That was my first

indoctrination into unions. It wasn’t a bad one. It was a real pleasant

one, to be honest with you. They gave me a phenomenal wage. If I

remember correctly, it was over $4.50 an hour — $1.25 pumping gas, and

$4.50 doing way more interesting things.

[1:25 p.m.]

It gave me the opportunity to learn, because — sorry, Dad — after

work they would take me down to the local establishment in OK Falls. You

know, you look a lot older when you’re wearing a hardhat and you’ve got

grubby clothes on and everything else. The guys would buy me a cold

beer. I was under-age, but they got me in there. So I had a wonderful

opportunity. Mark my words, there were lots of things talked about,

because I came from a retail family, and that was my first kick at

it.

Through my entire life of work, I have been very fortunate to be

in a position where I belonged to five unions, and every one of them

treated me with an incredible opportunity of wages that were not normal

for somebody growing up. It gave me an opportunity to see the other

side, when you come from a family owning a business and having your own

employees. It gave me a total different perspective on it, and I had

nothing but the admiration for it.

So international woodworkers association of America — maybe it

was, at the time, IWA. Teamsters. The railroad union — I don’t remember

the name. But I worked for CP, first of all, as a

section man and then

came home, because I’d learned in Lake Louise that a

section man spends

his whole life in the wintertime shovelling snow off of all of the

switches.

By the way, it snowed that much one night in Lake Louise, and the

switches weren’t heated. You had to shovel off. Then when you got that

all done…. You know the Spiral Tunnels in Lake Louise? We all spent our

time in there chipping ice. I thought, “Boy, I am not going to be a mole

for a whole winter and be underground.”

I went back home, and I was able and fortunate enough to get on as

a brakeman, because I was already in Canadian Pacific railroad. I pulled

between Penticton and Spence’s Bridge, and I did the shifting of the

cars and everything else in between there, so I was classified as a

front-end brakeman.

Interjection.

D. Ashton: Yeah, it was a learning experience, MLA.

Then going back to school and everything else and then being able

to be fortunate enough to be hired in a construction job. If I remember

correctly — maybe the member can help me — it was 602, Construction

Workers’ Union, which did underground work. When I say underground, like

water and sewer work. That was phenomenal.

Then my years spent at university. I was fortunate. I worked for a

produce warehouse in Penticton, and it was Retail Wholesale Union. That

was again….

As a kid, again, I was so fortunate. I never had to take a student

loan out. My parents didn’t have to help me go to school, and it was the

benefit that I derived being a member of the union that helped me with

wages, far exceeding what my friends could earn working in retail or far

exceeding what my friends could earn working in the orchards — which we

also did on the weekends, because if you own one, you’ve got to work in

it.

To make a long story short, I have nothing but respect for the

people that are working hard and diligently to make a difference in this

incredible province and this incredible country that we all call

home.

I was a little bit taken aback, and I’m glad, actually, that I got

the opportunity to speak today, because some of my fellow MLAs in here

were a little bit chastising to people that maybe didn’t work in a union

or maybe didn’t work in labour — that maybe were owners of companies, or

maybe managers of companies.

There are exceptions all over in work and in management styles and

in ownership styles. I did take exception to it. I didn’t take exception

to the individuals. I took exception to how it was presented, and I hope

when those individuals left the House and the candour and the rigour

that takes place in here sometimes, they are able to leave that at home,

because I don’t think it belongs anywhere.

We all have had the opportunity of different lifestyles, and we

all come from different sides — no pun intended, different sides — of

the tracks, but we’ve all worked hard, and we’ve all worked hard for our

families and worked hard for businesses. I think that kind of candour,

with all due respect, Madam Speaker, shouldn’t be in here.

I said that 99.999 percent of the time we all get along in here.

There are some issues that have flared up, and unfortunately, Bill 10 is

one of them. You’ve heard me speak about the opportunities that unions

have provided me. But you know what? They also taught me other

things.

[1:30 p.m.]

One of the things they taught me was the opportunity of how

important your vote was to get a union or to maintain a union in a

business or in a company or in a situation where you’re working for a

large organization like Weyerhaeuser — i.e., Northwood Mills.

I just think the government’s going about this wrong; I really do.

Again, I mean no disrespect to the government. I mean no disrespect to

the minister. I mean no disrespect to anybody who has a different

opinion than me on this, but this is not the way to do it. It is not

democratic. Some of my friends here — I think, on both sides of the

House — have talked about when they ran for school council to get on to

be a school councillor.

Whether you ran for council, like I did, for a school board or for

one of your local organizations where you could get elected to an

executive position — which meant you worked twice as hard, as we all

know, on volunteer stuff — it was all done by secret ballot.

That’s something that we’re so fortunate to have in this country

and in this province. We don’t need to look any further than the front

pages today of newspapers or magazines that we get — or the cell phones,

where we get the instant news of what’s going on in the world. We can

see, when democracy is taken away, what happens.

There are reasons — my peers have said this; the government has

tried to justify it — for why they’re doing this, but the most important

thing about democracy is to be able to vote — to be able to sign

something or put an X beside it, to vote without anybody else seeing

it.

One of my peers talked about what their parents had said to them

about voting, and said, you know: “Who do I vote for?” “Well, you make

up your own mind.” My dad did that. He said: “Here’s where we’re going

to go. You make up your mind. You go read about it. You go do what’s

right, what you think is right. Learn.”

I just really hope that the government…. They’ve brought this

forward before. Our peers in the Green Party…. I don’t know why — there

seemed to be some sway at that time — it didn’t come forward. It’s now

coming forward again, where there’s a majority. I just hope that the

government not only listens to us here in opposition, to the Greens in

opposition, but I hope they listen to the people that they represent,

too — the vast, vast majority of citizens of British Columbia that vote.

I hope they take it upon themselves to think this one

through.

Nobody likes favouritism. Again, I don’t know what this is about,

to be honest with you. I hear all kinds of things. I make up my own mind

on it. If it is about favouritism, don’t do it. That’s old-school.

That’s not the way that the populace today wants this to work

anymore.

We all get branded: “Oh gosh, you’re a politician.” I hate to say

this, folks, but the last survey I saw, used-car salesmen — nothing the

matter with them; they’re working hard — rank higher than we do in

trustworthiness. Hmm. I wish that wasn’t so.

What I really hope is that government will step forward, make a

change to this and go back to a system where a person has a free vote,

where a person has an unintimidated vote. Whether that intimidation is

done by their employer or by their peers that want them to sign

something, that want them to vote, they have to remember, and they

should remember back to the story that some have told in

here.

What I’m saying is that my parents said: “Go learn about this. Go

experience this yourself.” You vote, and you see the consequences of

signing a piece of paper or putting an X beside something.

What I really think is that the government should step forward.

You’ve heard my peers talk about what I have listed here, about why the

fundamental changes are taking place — the creations of stopping,

through costing, freedom of information. You’ve heard that my peers have

talked about how in 30 of the last 38 years a free vote has taken place

in British Columbia. You’ve heard my peers talk about where else, in

this wonderful country of Canada, free votes take place.

What you’ve also heard, and I’ve heard on numerous occasions, is

that the secret ballot is something that the majority of British

Columbians want. They want that opportunity to vote.

[1:35 p.m.]

They want that opportunity to select the people that they want to

represent them in whatever capacity it is, but they want that

opportunity, also, to have it close to their chest. It’s their own

personal business as to whom they’re voting for. It’s their own personal

business that there shouldn’t be any collusion or intimidation — again I

say this — from either side: from the employer or from representatives

that want something to go in a direction that maybe the individual is

not quite so sure should take place.

What I see happening, unfortunately, is that the government wants

to scrap this. For the life of me…. I don’t think so. We heard from my

peer from Vancouver-Langara who said there are other opportunities and

other ways that the government, through their various bills in this

House, can make a difference to the direction they may want to take the

province at this point in time. They have that opportunity.

To take away that sanctum, that opportunity of having a democratic

vote, from a party whose second word in their official title, New

Democratic Party…. That’s what they stand for — their name. Let’s keep

it. Let’s keep democracy in place. Let’s not do what happens elsewhere

in the world today, unfortunately, in so many locales, where thou shalt

not be given the opportunity to express thine own personal opinion, not

be given the opportunity to live how we are so fortunate to live here in

British Columbia.

Whether you’re working…. Whether you’re working for a company,

whether you’re working for a company that is unionized, whether you’re

working for yourself, we have these incredible opportunities here. Why

does the government want to take this in a different

direction?

If there was discussion that had taken place during the lead-up to

the majority, if there were promises made, sit down. Let’s talk this

through. Let the government talk this through with those individuals and

see if we can get it back. Because to be frank, in my opinion and many

others’, this will be a black mark on the government, on those that

desire it and those that are pushing it.

There’s still time. There’s still time for the government to take

a look at what they’re proposing here and come back to some form of

compromise, some form of reasonability, not just for them but for the

entire populace, not only of British Columbia but of Canada.

I can’t help but wonder if this is the thin edge of the wedge.

What else is coming through here? We’ve seen other things…. Not only

ourselves in opposition but other individuals — including people that

are hired by the province of British Columbia and stamped by us that

work independently of us, independent officers — have raised questions

about some of the direction. I just don’t think it’s right. I really,

really hope that the government will consider….

One of the other aspects about this bill is the opportunity for

individuals…. You know, I had mentioned the Teamsters and the Retail

Wholesale Union. The produce warehouse that I worked at was….

Originally, I came in underneath the Teamsters, and Retail Wholesale

came in and raided. Cut to the chase; they raided it.

I was away at university. When I came back for my summer job, not

only did I have a substantial raise increase by going to a different

union — the company had to pay more — I was also blacklisted with the

Teamsters and told that I could never, ever have a job with the

Teamsters again, because the Teamsters that were present in this

organization moved over to a new union, and the Teamsters went: “Nada.

Not going to happen. You’re not going to work.”

I went: “Well, what do you mean? You mean that if I wanted to work

as a truck driver somewhere under a unionized situation where the

Teamsters were…?” We were told point-blank: “You ain’t working that way,

kid.” All right, well, I didn’t. But there was a raid that took

place.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now, did it benefit the people that were working at the produce

warehouse? Yes, it did. It made a huge benefit not only in wages but

also in the opportunity for a whole bunch of other benefits. But can I

tell you what happened? Four years later the company came back and it

was called ATO, accumulated time off. All of a sudden, these workers got

X amount of days for X amount of work off.

There was one man there, a wonderful man. He’d been there since

the creation, when it used to be just Slade’s and then it became Slade

and Stewart. If I remember correctly, he had 21 weeks a year off. The

owner of the company told us that he had to hire an additional

1-point-so-many people just to cover the ATO for everybody else working

there, per employee.

They went back to the union. Again, this is a small, local firm

that was unionized. Again, good people. Good union. Please don’t get me

wrong. But they went back and said: “We have to compromise on this. We

can’t do this anymore.” The union went: “No.” The company said: “Look,

we cannot exist this way.” The union said no.

They were probably answering to somebody from somewhere else,

because the shop steward was local and everything else. The long story

was that before the end of that summer, it was gone. Nineteen employees,

not counting us summer employees, when it’s so busy with the tourists

and everything coming in, me being a swamper and working on the repack

bench back in produce. It was gone. That’s where I think a compromise

should have taken place. I’m a lot older now and looking back on

it.

I also look now at what’s transpiring here in this House. We have

the opportunity to work together. I hear our Premier talking, the

Premier of British Columbia talking about wanting to work together.

Well, there is an opportunity right now to get some form of compromise

with Bill 10 that can make a difference to those that have asked for it

to come forward, whatever shape and size it is, and to those that are

questioning it. That’s what we, as the official opposition, are doing

right now — questioning this.

There’s still time where we could sit down and preserve what I

talked about so much at the start of this — that vote, that opportunity

of a democratic vote. That opportunity to have a vote to yourself, to

not be…. I don’t want to say the words coerced or pressured into it,

because it works both ways.

We’ve heard from the government about some organizations that were

not good employers, but we’ve also heard about some not-so-good

employees that can be manipulative — on both sides, on the ownership

side and on the employee side. I think there’s a really good opportunity

in here.

To quote the Premier, we should be working together on a lot of

these things. I think there’s an opportunity. We could step forward,

preserve that right of a vote and make sure that the people of British

Columbia, and especially the people of the unions that have been

mentioned, and the employees that are represented by the unions…. The

unions that my peer from Langara has said have an opportunity of a

democratic vote, not maybe a vote that shouldn’t be taking place at the

time.

One of the other things that worries me is the opportunity of

individuals in some unions, at the direction of whatever, to come in and

raid — do what happened to the workers at Slade and Stewart, the 19

workers plus their families, that went from here to here, but then, all

of a sudden, it’s not affordable. I don’t think doing that during the

peak of construction season…. Don’t forget we’re still in the north.

We’re north of the 49th. We get winter here. Things do slow

down.

During the peak seasons of employment, the peak seasons of

building, union representatives can come in and try and change

individuals’ minds about working with another union. I think that needs

to be reconsidered also. There’s ample opportunity at all times during

the year for them to sit down.

I’m probably not letting the cat out of the bag, but a very good

friend of mine and very good friend of our family and a very good friend

of the people where I live…. Strong union. Strong union shop. Very

strong union shop. Good, good people work there.

[1:45 p.m.]

Great employer. An incredible employer. Sitting with him and

discussing it…. My dad died in ’93. Sitting with him, an older

gentleman, trying to learn the ways of his wisdom…. Our family had a lot

of respect for him, and I have a lot of respect, although the gentleman

is gone now.

He told me that the union representatives would come in to discuss

the new contract, the three-year contract. He said: “I’m a busy man, but

I was always there, along with the people that were picked to be the

representatives to the union in my business. We would sit, and I would

give them as much time as possible.” Then he would say: “What’s the

bottom line?” The union would say: “This, this and this.” He said:

“Fine. I agree to this, this and this, and I’ll give you $2 more an

hour. I don’t want to see you for three years.” They signed the

papers.

There’s a gentleman that took it the other way. He had a great

working relationship with the union. He had a great working relationship

with his employees. He wanted everybody to be happy. He had the capacity

to do it. But he was there making a difference. I can tell you, again

from him, that their sick time, their away with leave time and their

productivity was through the roof. That’s what happens when you get

people wanting to work together instead of this.

I really hope that that kind of stuff goes away. That was the

stuff that many of us probably went through in our younger careers and

business careers, where there was a lot of confrontation in this

province. It seems to have drifted away from that.

We’ve seen that unionization has been decreasing. Some will say

it’s because of employers doing this and this and, you know, collusion

and everything else. I’ll say that unions, I think, have made a

difference to the way an employer thinks. Just like my friend, how he

thought, our family friend. They’ve made a difference. They’ve raised

the quality of life. They’ve raised the quality of earnings. They have

expectations. But they also have to toe the line, because there’s no

such thing as a free lunch. Everybody has got to contribute, whether you

belong to one or not.

I think that from what happened years ago, what we saw, to what’s

happening now has changed a lot, and I think it’s changed for the

better. I think, personally, that’s probably one of the reasons that

there has been a decrease.

For those unions that are looking to say: “Well, if we do this,

this and this, we can increase our scope on it….” Maybe look at it a

different way. Maybe look at it being a little bit more cooperative, a

little bit more consulting, a little bit more working together with that

entity. Maybe it’s a pipedream on my behalf, but there are opportunities

where you don’t have to start fooling around with people’s democratic

right.

I look at you, Madam Chair, with one eye, and my other eye is

looking over at the Minister of Labour, and I’m just hoping that the

government will make a difference. Bring something forward that is

working together for all of us, working together looking after the

people of British Columbia, working together so those families can have

good jobs, where their parents are working or their kids are working in

situations where they’re safe.

This Saturday I’m at a labour event in Penticton, making sure that

everybody comes home safe. It’s incredibly important. We all know,

coming from municipal government or school boards, that there’s nothing

more important than making sure that the people that are working in

those organizations come home safe to their families.

I would just ask the government that they reconsider what they’ve

proposed here in Bill 10, that they reconsider this not only for those

that are asking for this but for the entity, for all of those that work

in British Columbia that are not in those specific unions and that want

to maintain and must maintain the opportunity of a democratic process,

the opportunity to vote for who they wish without any interference from

the company or any interference from those that want to utilize their

vote for something that is probably not right.

[1:50 p.m.]

Thank you for the opportunity today. I would like to thank

everybody in here that spoke about this. It’s an incredibly important

issue, not only right now but for the next long time here in British

Columbia. Let’s think this one through.

J. Rustad: I rise today to speak to Bill 10. I want to start, when I’m

thinking about Bill 10, in particular, that the changes here to the

labour codes, to the way that we’ll be able to organize and do things in

this province…. I actually want to start recognizing that the first

actual unionized effort….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. If you’re having a conversation, could you step outside

the chamber, please.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Madam Chair. Heckling I don’t mind, but it’s tough to

talk over other conversations, as the minister well knows. I’m sure that

he will get involved in this conversation as we go on.

I bet you that a fact he doesn’t know in terms of this, which is

where I wanted to start, is that actually the first recorded unionized

effort in British Columbia was in 1859, 1860, and it was bakers that

were organizing way back then. I just found that an interesting thought,

because we’re talking about that. It was one of those little things that

I didn’t know, so I decided I’d look it up. I was wondering: when did

the labour movement start and unionization start in the

province?

Obviously, it has a very long history in British Columbia, as it

does throughout the world. I think about our labour codes that we have

today, the benefits that we have today with so much. The labour movement

was huge in delivering on so much of what we have today through the

codes.

As a matter of fact, I think, quite frankly, we’ve been so

successful in the labour movement in moving forward labour laws and

worker protection and all of these sorts of components in the province

that we’ve actually seen a fall­off in membership of unionization

and of unions in the province. I would suggest that unions perhaps have

been a little too successful in terms of whether people want to be part

of a union.

Ultimately, this bill has a lot to do with just that. The question

is…. Unions have provided such benefits and they’ve created such

positive environments for labour throughout British Columbia over time —

certainly, since the first union in 1859 — that you wonder: why is

membership dropping off? Why is it that we have a very low rate,

particularly in the private sector? It is very, very low. People are

free to organize. There was a secret ballot. People could vote to be

able to do this, but they’re not doing it.

That’s a question that I think the minister needs to answer. Why

are people choosing not to be part of a union? It’s not because of a

card check. It’s not because it’s difficult. It’s a secret ballot.

Anybody can go in. Everybody in this Legislature, everybody in British

Columbia, knows what a secret ballot is. You go in. You mark your vote

one way or another. Nobody can know which way you vote. That gets filed,

and then it gets counted. People have a choice. Choice is a good thing.

Choice is a very good thing.

The question is: why are we moving away from a secret ballot when

everything else that we do in our society uses that? It’s the foundation

of democracy. There’s something wrong when you’re thinking about the

fact that we’ve got this movement in the province to move away from

unionization. Instead of giving people that free choice, that secret

ballot choice, we’re moving to a different system that, quite frankly,

is open to influence. I do wonder why that….

In my riding of Nechako Lakes, just like many others, we’ve got a

number of unions and, of course, lots of contractors, lots of people

that aren’t part of unions. When I grew up, I remember one of the first

big summer jobs I had was with a small company that was a unionized

workforce in Prince George. Because I was a summer employee, I wasn’t

required to join the union as part of that, but I worked on the floor

with union workers. You know, it was a good environment. I actually

enjoyed that job, although filling up tar pits and sweeping and all that

kind of stuff — that’s the kind of job you do when you’re young and

you’re looking for summer employment.

[1:55 p.m.]

I thought the guys there…. It was good. The work

envi­ronment was positive. That was my only real experience

working in a unionized shop. I wasn’t a union member myself, but I had

worked on the floor with the people that were there.

I thought about that at the time, and I thought: “Oh, this is

interesting. I wonder why more shops are not unionized?” So I asked my

dad at the time. I said, “Why aren’t we seeing more of that stuff?” and

he said: “Well, part of that is the big union dues. The question is:

what is the return for those things?”

Then he gave an example, not directly in our family, not our

immediate family, but in related family. We had a sawmill in Prince

George. My related family had a sawmill, Rustad Bros., in Prince George,

and it was one of the few sawmills in the province that actually wasn’t

unionized. It wasn’t part of the IWA or the Steelworkers or whatever it

was at the time.

I asked a question. I said, “Why?” and he said: “Well, when the

unions go on strike and the other mills are down, they keep working at

the mill.” I thought: “Well that’s interesting, but why would they do

that?” He said: “Because as soon as the deal is struck by the union, the

company just gives them the same benefits, and they carry on.” So they

didn’t have to unionize, because they got the same benefits. They got

everything that was…. But I want to recognize, though, that it was the

work of the other unions that actually created and drove those

changes.

I think outside of that, like I say, there are certainly benefits

— big benefits — that do come from unions. But that was a choice that

the company…. It was a choice, actually, that the workers made. They

could have unionized. They could have organized, but they decided not

to, as part of it. It was their right. It was their secret ballot

opportunity.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Well, at the time…. I don’t even know if secret ballot was in

place back then, but it was their choice in terms of being able to do

that.

Like I say, I do wonder what it is that government is trying do

with this. If one was to be a little cynical or perhaps speculate around

this, you might think that there’s obviously something else around doing

this. I mean, it’s not because of worker safety. It’s not because of

improving worker environment, because we’ve got these pretty good laws

and standards that are in place. So what is it that’s behind

that?

I want to touch on one other thing that my colleague here just

mentioned to me, before I get into speculating about just why that may

be the case. That is that for the people who are not in a union, there

is the employment standards branch that addresses issues that come up.

There used to be a two-month waiting time to get an issue addressed. I

mean, that’s a long time. That was pretty egregious. Do you know what

that is today? I’m told it’s 18 months. So what’s going on with that?

Why is that not working the way it is to be able to help

workers?

I see the Minister of Labour shaking his head. I’m sure, in his

closing comments, he’ll be able to get up and counter that information.

But it makes me wonder. What’s going on? Why isn’t government paying

attention to that issue? Why aren’t resources there to take care of that

problem?

Then I look at things like the community benefits agreement and

why community benefits agreements were put in place. These are project

labour agreements under a fancy name, which is fine. Government has

decided to do that. But when you look at the extra cost associated with

getting projects done around that, it’s certainly not for the benefit of

a community. It’s certainly not for the benefit of the province or the

taxpayers. So who is it to the benefit of?

I talked to one company who had 1,000 employees. They said: “Look,

here’s what happens if I bid on one of those projects. If I bid on a

project that is a CBA and I’ve got 1,000 people in my workforce and I

get that project, those 1,000 people no longer are in my workforce. They

have to join into one of the trade unions. I’m allowed to get back about

150 of those, or 15 percent of that workforce. The rest of them will

come out of the labour pool to do the work that needs to be

done.”

You think: “Okay, well, that can work in terms of that, but here’s

the problem. The next time I bid on a project, I don’t have a workforce

of 1,000 people anymore. I’ve got a workforce of 150 people, and I’m not

guaranteed to be able to get those people. I’m not guaranteed to be able

to get the same people — the people that are productive and that had

been working together in terms of it.”

[2:00 p.m.]

They say: “Why would I bid on a project to undercut my ability to

be able to bid on future work?” So they don’t bid on it.

It’s unfortunate, because you don’t get the competi­tiveness

associated with being able to get good value for projects. Like I say, I

haven’t got anything against unions, because I know what they have done

in terms of the benefits. But I do have a problem when we don’t have a

free and open society. I do have a problem when we don’t allow for

things like a secret ballot. I’ve got a real problem with

that.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

If you were to think about democracy…. Remember, there used to be,

way back, many, many centuries ago, people would open up kegs of beer.

They’d hand it out. They’d do all kinds of things to try to influence

the way people would vote. All of that is now illegal. All of that isn’t

allowed to be done in our societies today.

Guess what. It’s now going to be allowed to be done here. You’re

going to be allowed to wine and dine somebody and convince them that

they should be signing the card. It happens. It’s happened in the past.

Of course, it’s allowed to be done. There are no rules that say you

can’t do it. You know, they’re just getting together as union members to

have a conversation about what’s right and what’s wrong and da-da-da,

and: “By the way, make sure you sign your card.”

Heard from the member for Columbia River–Revel­stoke about

when he was working in a union, and a fellow came by and said: “Young

man, you know which way you’re going to vote on this, right?” These

things happen. It’s something that I think is disturbing in terms of the

approach that is being taken here.

That gets me back to the thought about why is this being done?

What is it that is trying to happen here? And I get that unions want to

expand their control on the market. They want to get more people in

their union. But if you look at it and you think: “Okay, is that about

the workers, or is that about the union? Is that about the revenues that

the union is getting, what the union can do in terms of things?” It

makes you wonder.

Here’s just a little question for the minister, as well, that he

might be able to answer. I don’t know if he has the time in his closing

comments to be able to answer it. I do wonder, in terms of unions and

the shape of unions, because so many people have been retiring over

time. So many people are coming up on retirement.

How do the pension funds look in terms of the defined benefits

pensions? What is the shape and how are those things looking,

particularly for the private sector unions that have been losing

members, not been staying strong and people retiring. It’s an

interesting question. I hope the minister has an opportunity to be able

to answer that in his closing comments around this bill.

I do think that when you look at that and you look at what

government is doing around this, it really isn’t about the workers. When

you look at the issues associated with the employment standards branch,

when you look at the wage increases that were given where it was a

higher wage increase for somebody in the union versus somebody who

wasn’t in the union when it was performing similar dues.

When you look at things like community benefits agreements, which,

like I say, is just a fancy way of saying a project labour agreement,

that’s not about the workers. That’s about the friends. It’s about the

people that have been supporting the NDP for decades, and it’s a bit of

payback for them. I get, you know, politics is politics. That’s what

they’ve decided they might want to do. But I, quite frankly, think that

we really should be looking at this bill and looking at it from that

perspective of a free and democratic and open society. It’s not healthy,

in terms of taking these steps.

For the people in Nechako Lakes, for the people around the

province, I really wonder if this is the way government should be

acting. How they should be undermining the very core values of

democracy, the very core values that political parties like the NDP’s

party uses, like our party uses — and for what? As a payback to unions

that have been supportive?

[2:05 p.m.]

Like I say, I do wonder. At the end of the day, this government

will have to answer to the taxpayer about what they’re doing, because

they’re going to use their majority to push this thing through. They’ll

use their majority and ignore the comments that have been made in this

House.

Was it Zirnhelt, I think, in the 1990s under the NDP government

saying: “We’re government; we can do anything we want to do”? Of course,

where that ultimately led to was the old NDP getting wiped down to two

seats. But that’s for the electorate to decide with regards to what

they’re trying to do associated with this.

Another thing that I just want to quickly touch on. Particularly

up in the north, we’ve got a very short construction window. When you’re

thinking about major projects that need to be done, you really start

construction in spring, and you wrap up most of your construction in the

fall. Yes, you’ve got some things you can do over the course of the

winter, but that is the big construction window that happens, certainly

in my riding, and really throughout much of that.

Why is it that the window for allowing for raiding to happen is in

the middle of summer, in the middle of that construction season? I don’t

quite get that, because that could be very disruptive to projects. That

could be very disruptive to companies and, quite frankly, to the workers

in terms of projects. That can cause delays and costs. You can lose a

year’s construction work just with some of those delays, because you

missed some of the windows — the environmental windows or the windows

associated with weather.

I’m very disappointed when I see things like that, because,

clearly, it doesn’t take into consideration those sort of issues I think

there are up where I come from and have the honour to represent in terms

of Nechako Lakes.

Like I say, I’ve never been one to get too far into labour law and

that side of it, but I do believe strongly in democracy. I believe

strongly in this place. I believe strongly in the values that have built

our society. I see those being eroded with this bill. I don’t see how

this is going to improve things for workers.

I would much rather see the effort being spent on how we’re

improving things with the employment standards branch, how we’re making

sure that workers are being treated fairly through the issues like that.

I’d much rather see a government that is more open, transparent. I’d

much rather see a government that honours and supports competitiveness,

that honours and supports taxpayers.

One of the first things I did, when I was elected in 2005, was I

got a poster. I plaque-mounted that poster, and I put it up on the wall

in my office. Every day when I’m working out of my constituent office, I

go into my office. I see that poster. That poster says: “Think like a

taxpayer.”

At the end of the day, it’s not government money; it’s taxpayers’

money. We’re responsible for how we spend taxpayers’ moneys. We’re

responsible to those taxpayers to make sure that that money is spent

well, wisely, efficiently, and that we do our best to not have waste,

while we try to provide the best services we can for

taxpayers.

This doesn’t meet the test of doing that, as well as the other

components that I’ve talked about. That’s unfortunate, because I think

taxpayers, quite frankly, should be treated better than that.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak

today.

N. Letnick: I appreciate the opportunity to debate Bill 10.

I believe all of my colleagues have made a strong case in

opposition to Bill 10. To summarize, they’ve mentioned, first and

foremost, to me, and then to them, the secret ballot system is a

fundamental democratic right. Bill 10 seeks to remove that fundamental

democratic right.

They’ve also identified that under the current secret ballot

system today, there are strict guidelines that protect employees from

undue coercion or pressure by employers or union organizers. Therefore,

again, Bill 10 is not necessary.

[2:10 p.m.]

Also, union organizers will be unrestricted as to where, when, and

how often they can approach workers to get signatures on cards, as the

member for Nechako Lakes just articulated a few minutes ago. They’ll

even be free to collect signatures in social settings and in the

presence of other co-workers.

My colleagues have identified that the NDP’s own 2018 Labour

Relations Code Review Panel report recommended keeping the secret

ballot, and the NDP ignored that advice and plans to scrap the secret

ballot anyway with Bill 10.

If you look at the public, a recent poll showed 79 percent of

British Columbians oppose doing away with the secret ballot, and only 9

percent support card checks. Bill 10 ignores this opinion in, I believe,

a major step backwards for the province. In addition, for the last 30 of

the past 38 years, B.C. has operated under the secret ballot system, and

it’s the norm in the country, with other provinces, like Alberta,

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and, in most

situations, Ontario, adopting the secret ballot.

Under this government, insider labour agreements are already

costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of additional dollars in cost

overruns on projects like the Pattullo Bridge replacement and the

Kicking Horse Canyon. It’s estimated that NDP-friendly labour agreements

could add as much $4.8 billion to the cost of public infrastructure

projects.

Lastly, one of the big areas that my colleagues have brought to

the debate is that Bill 10 will also allow for union raiding in the

construction industry every summer, which will lead to further delays

and cost overruns on important residential, commercial and public

infrastructure projects. The last thing we need in the middle of an

affordable housing crisis is a government policy that raises the cost of

housing.

A few of us in the Kelowna area are embarking on an affordable

housing project. We’re trying to harness the philanthropy of our

community and help first-time homebuyers get into houses. The last thing

we need is to have a union raid occurring at the same time that we’re

trying to provide affordable housing. Raids will increase the cost of

that housing to first-time homebuyers.

With all these negative consequences attached to the

implementation of Bill 10, especially the attack on such a fundamental

principle as having the right to register our votes in secret without

the potential for intimidation or influence, why is the government

motivated to proceed? I keep scratching my head. Why is the government

attacking the secrecy of a person’s ballot, an integral pillar of our

democracy whether we are voting for our elected repre­sentatives

or to join a union?

It makes me wonder when they will stop with their agenda of

blatantly partisan legislative change. Will they stop at union drives?

Or electoral boundary legislation? Or benefit agreements that don’t

benefit communities but benefit a few trade unions? Or will they even

change the way we elect the Speaker of the House? I wonder if that would

have had an impact on the predecessor to the current Speaker. But

anyway, I digress.

Bill 10 is another piece of regressive legislation meant to please

the government’s friends at the expense of the general public. If you

look around the world, if you take a little history lesson, in 1856,

Australia created the first modern secret ballot system, with private

polling compartments and uniform ballots provided by the government

itself. This system was an international hit. Visitors from other

countries brought back reports of the “order and quietness” of the

Australian elections and the elimination of voting day riots. In the

decades that followed, other nations copied the Australian model, and

here we are today.

By the early 20th century, secret balloting systems roughly

similar to the Australian model were becoming standard for democratic

nations. Voting had moved from a community activity, in which observers

held voters responsible for their choices, to a private individual

choice made with quiet efficiency.

Also, in its

article on the “Secret Ballot System: Merits,

Demerits, Effects in Democracy” done by sociologygroup.com, they say the

open ballot system like that being proposed in Bill 10 “encourages

vote-selling or bribery.” This makes the vote biased. Secret ballots let

the voter vote without fear and close the option of bribery.

[2:15 p.m.]

Now, on the public side, right here in British Columbia, in an

open letter to the Premier on the introduction of Bill 10 and union

certification, 23 leading B.C. organizations, on behalf of their

collective membership, wrote to express their dismay with changes the

government has proposed to the certification provisions of the Labour

Relations Code. In the letter, they cite a lack of consultation, policy

contrary to the minister’s mandate letter, contrary to recommendations

of the NDP-appointed panel on the issue, contrary to the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms and bad for the economy in a time of great economic

risk.

With all this against the proposal to do away with a free and

informed democratic process for employees to decide if they want to form

a union, I was still left scratching my head, searching for a deeper

understanding of the government’s motivation, until I heard the member

for Langley.

The member for Langley had an interesting defence of Bill 10. In

his argument, he cited the work of Prof. Sarah Slinn An Empirical

Analysis of the Effects of the Change from Card-Check to Mandatory

Vote Certification . I would like to thank the member for

Langley for this insight.

Specifically, and I quote from Hansard , he said: “What

Professor Slinn found was that in areas that went to a mandatory vote

from single-step certification, successful certifications at labour

relations boards dropped by over 21 percent. Conversely, where

single-step certification was put into place, successful certifications

rose by 21 percent.” There you have it. I no longer need to scratch my

head. There is the motivation.

For all the empty rhetoric by members of the government in defence

of this indefensible bill, the motivation is clear for me, as it is

simple. Government believes: “Where a single-step certification was put

into place, successful certifications rose by 21 percent.” The NDP are

hoping that B.C. will see similar results of roughly a 21 percent

increase in certifications. One couldn’t blame the government members,

if they believed this would translate into roughly a 21 percent increase

in union members as well for their selected union supporters.

There is where I could finish my remarks on Bill 10. However, the

government believes that more union members, which they have always

believed support the NDP at the ballot box, is enough of a justification

to trump our democratic right to vote without someone watching over our

shoulder? I think not. I totally disagree with this

incentive.

Even after 13 years in this place, it’s been a privilege. My sense

of curiosity is still alive. While also being curious, I requested, and

read through, the entire research paper produced by Professor Slinn and

brought to my attention by the member for Langley.

I would like to share with the members of this House a few more

conclusions offered by the good professor that weren’t offered by the

member for Langley. She writes:

“The choice of certification procedure appears to have

signifi­cant effects on unionization. This study found that the

mandatory vote procedure had a significant negative effect on the

probability that a given certification application would succeed. All

else being equal, an applicant under mandatory vote had an approximately

21 percent lower likelihood of being certified than an applicant under

card check.”

There you go. Reinforces what the member for Langley said. The

professor goes on to say:

“Furthermore, the characteristics of applicants were

signifi­cantly different under the two certification regimes, and

there were substantial differences in the characteristics of units

certified. Foremost among these differences is a distinction between the

public and private sectors.

“Even during the card-check period, a larger proportion of both

applications and certifications involved employees in the public sector.

This difference increased significantly under mandatory voting.

Moreover, the regression results demonstrate that, all else being equal,

public sector applicants had a substantial advantage over private sector

applicants in terms of the likelihood of certifi­cation under

mandatory voting.

“Therefore, the mandatory vote system appears to have

disproportionately negative impact on certification in the private

sector, and it may accelerate the decline in the proportion of the

unionized workforce that is in the private sector.”

Now, if you’re not following this language, bear with me. I will

summarize in just a minute.

[2:20 p.m.]

“A second key difference between certification experiences under

the two regimes,” she goes on to write in her report, “was in the

bargaining unit size. There was a large and statistically significant

increase in the size of units applied for” under mandatory voting “and

in the size of units for which certification was granted.”

This shift toward larger units may be a matter of concern both to

policy-makers and unions. Since most job growth in the private sector is

in smaller workplaces, this is where potential union members are. If

unions focus their efforts on larger, possibly more cost-effective

units, this will limit access to collective bargaining for workers in

smaller units. Similarly, there was a drastically reduced level of

organizing activity for units of part-time workers under the mandatory

vote procedure, both in the number of applications and the number of

certifications.

She ends and says that, as anticipated, voter turnout was higher

under the mandatory vote procedure than it had been under card check,

and that in general, higher turnout was associated with a reduced

probability of certification success. An unexpected but interesting

result was that in each period, a distinct trend in the rate of success

was discernable. During the card check period, there was a consistent,

significant and sustained decline in probability of certification.

Conversely, there was a steady increase in the probability of

certification over the course of a mandatory vote period.

Whether there is a card-based or a vote-based proce­dure

affects not only the probability of certification but also the types of

employees for whom union representation is sought and the types of

employees for whom it is likely to be obtained. Changing the procedure

can therefore produce substantial changes in the makeup of a unionized

workforce.

So there you go. In a nutshell, as I see it, the NDP

moti­vation is a hope that by changing the certification process

from the free and democratic secret ballot to a simple card check, they

will be making it easier for their union organizer friends to certify

more small and large private sector organizations and gain more part-

and full-time union — potentially NDP-leaning — members. The irony is

that by making this change, they may get more certifications, but

because of the greater cost involved in recruiting from smaller private

sector organizations over larger public sector employee cohorts, they

may actually end up with fewer net new members.

I guess only time will tell. Luckily, in two years, we may have a

new government in place, which can swing the pendulum back to the centre

and restore a worker’s free and democratic right to a secret ballot. As

I said, only time will tell. It’s my hope that this policy won’t have

the benefit of time and will be cancelled as soon as possible. I will

not be supporting this undemocratic Bill 10.

T. Halford: I take my place today to speak in opposition to Bill 10 for a

number of reasons, which I’m sure have been outlined in great detail by

my colleagues. But I will do so myself.

The idea of Bill 10 and scrapping the right to a secret ballot is

something, I know, that’s been discussed under previous NDP

administrations and was likely, I’ve heard, a catalyst to friction with

the minority government in the past administration. But we’re looking at

stripping British Columbians away with a fundamental right to have a

secret ballot. It’s shocking to me.

The only time in my life when we do things that aren’t in a secret

ballot is on Friday nights when my family and I decide what we’re going

to have for dinner on takeout. We sit around the table, and we have that

conversation in the open. It sometimes leads to challenges and sometimes

tears, but we get there. But when we are talking about the fundamental

to vote, to do that without a secret ballot, I think, is a dramatic

shift from democracy.

[2:25 p.m.]

I think it’s a very, very dangerous shift. I think the warning

signs have been there. We’ve heard the warning signs from various people

in the province. We’ve heard the warning signs from supporters of the

NDP. We heard their warning signs in 2018. The government’s own expert

panel recommended not scrapping the secret ballot. In the 2018 Labour

Relations Code Review Panel report: “The secret ballot vote be retained

providing there are sufficient measures to ensure the exercise of

employee choice is fully protected and fully remediated in the event of

unlawful interference.” That was 2018, and here we are today, and this

government is about to ram through Bill 10 and strip workers of that

protection.

I find it quite disturbing that in this day and age, we would even

contemplate such a move. Who does this ultimately benefit? Does it

benefit to serve the workers? I don’t think so. Does it benefit to serve

this government in terms of their supporters, their donors, their

funders, their organizers? I think there’s clear evidence that that

likely may be the case.

Economically, I’ll lay out that that does not make a lot of sense.

From a standpoint where we are looking at a majority government that has

threatened to do this and now is on the brink of doing it, I think we

are saddened by the fact that this is an issue that is going to affect

every riding in this province.

If you look at a sector, and you take out…. You look at the

construction sector, a sector where costs are rising, materials are

rising every month. Every single material costs more, and there’s no

line of sight on when that’s going to change. In fact, we’re seeing that

that’s likely not going to change. We have worker shortages, so labour

goes up. For a lot of these smaller, independent contractors, this can

be very troubling.

We know those contractors. We know those contractors that have

done renovations in our home, that have upgraded restaurants and that

have built out community centres. We know that they have come in, and

they have done fabulous work. But a lot of them that I hear from are on

the brink. They’re trying to meet payroll. They’re trying to keep up

with the unaffordability that we currently see in this province. How is

that going to help them? How is Bill 10 going to help them? It is

not.

I don’t know. At some point, governments change and leaders

change. We’ve all seen that on either side of the House. There’s no

secret. We will continue to have leadership elections, things like that.

My suggestion to the NDP is that if they are that proud of this

legislation, if they are that proud of the fact that they are going to

strip from British Columbians the confidence of going in there and

casting a ballot and doing that in privacy and in secret…. If they are

going to take that away, well then, if they ever find themselves in a

leadership race, why not do it then?

Can you imagine a leadership race where there was no secret

ballot? You go in there, and you go and vote for the new leader of

whatever party — maybe it’s the NDP — and your name is attached to the

person that you are supporting for leader? Now, some people are very

open about who they support for leader. But a lot of members would

choose to do that and make that choice independently of having to go out

and then publicly defend why they did or did not support a certain

individual.

[2:30 p.m.]

I challenge the NDP. If this is the way they want to go down…. If

they’re expecting workers in British Columbia to take this burden on,

why don’t they ask their own membership to do the same? If there is ever

going to be an NDP leadership race, why don’t they do it then? No secret

ballot. If you’re going to support candidate X, put your name beside it.

We’ll put it online or we’ll share it with that riding so every member

of that riding will know who you supported in a leadership

race.

That’s kind of where we’re going with Bill 10, when you’re going

to strip away that democracy from British Columbians that are working

every day to put food on their tables. They’re already stressed about

how they’re making those mortgage payments, about how they’re making

their rent, how they’re paying their daycare costs, how they’re paying

for their counselling services, how they’re getting groceries that

week.

Do you think that they need the anxiety when they vote because

it’s not something that they are doing in privacy? It’s actually going

to be something that they’re going to have to defend to their

colleagues, to their employer, to union bosses, to the NDP.

I think that’s absolutely shameful. I think it’s embarrassing. I

think when you look at the lack of consultation that this government did

on Bill 10, it shows the fact that they know this is something that’s

not supported. They know this is something that they cannot stand and be

proud of.

That’s the challenge that we have. We’ve continued to see

legislation introduced in this House. Some of it is good, and we’ll,

hopefully, get to committee stage on Bill 23. That looks like a good

piece of legislation that we can unite and support. We’ll go through

committee, and we’ll get clarifi­cation on that.

On Bill 10…. We’ve seen previous bills, whether it’s fees related

to FOI and things like that. I almost get the sense that there’s a bit

of embarrassment. And I understand that embarrassment. I would be

embarrassed, too, if I was putting that legislation forward and then I

had to get up and give a speech, “Hey, you’ve got to read these

following things. Make sure you get them in” — and everything like that.

“If you can give us 15 minutes, that would be great.”

I would be embarrassed if that was my job, because you have to go

out and defend it. You have to defend it to your constituents and say,

“We don’t believe that citizens should have access to their own

information. We’re going to charge for that.” Right? “But we don’t

believe that members of a union should be able to vote in secret. We’re

going to expose them on that.”

I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with that. I think

that it’s a lack of accountability. It’s a lack of transparency. But

also the fact is that we are now looking at a government that will do

anything — anything — to appease the people that put them there. And

those people aren’t average British Columbians that are struggling to

make their ends meet or provide for their family. If they were, we

wouldn’t be talking about Bill 10. We would be talking about how this

government finally fulfilled a pro­mise and did a $400 renters

rebate.

Who’s calling for this bill besides the Labour Minister and

cabinet and the Premier? Who is saying that if this does not happen,

there are dire consequences? I haven’t heard that argument. I don’t

suspect I will. For 30 of the last 38 years, we’ve had a secret ballot.

I haven’t had one constituent ever come into my office and advocate for

something different — not one email, not one phone call — until this

bill was introduced.

[2:35 p.m.]

Nobody has advocated it when the bill was introduced. They’ve

said: “Please help me understand why they would attempt to do something

like this.” And I can’t. It’s simple: it’s politics. And there’s a line

that in politics, loyalty is sometimes your only currency. There’s a bit

of truth in that, in what we’re seeing in Bill 10.

This is using a majority government to do something that British

Columbians will be very, very exposed on. I think that that is

fundamentally wrong. When we are looking at what British Columbians are

getting, look at when we’ve talked about the CBAs. We’re looking at $4.8

billion of additional cost to public infrastructure projects. Isn’t that

good enough for you guys in the unions? Do we have to keep going? So

we’ll do Bill 10. Then what’s next?

I will not be supporting Bill 10, and I will take my place on

that. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

M. de Jong: Well, we’re at that stage in the debate, I think, where you start

to sort of ask yourself: “What do I have to add?” We have heard a great

deal — admittedly considerably more from the opposition side of the

House than from the government side — challenging the merits of the

legislation before us. What was it that Elizabeth Taylor’s fifth husband

said on their wedding night? “I know what’s expected of me. I’m just not

sure how interesting I can make it.” But let me try to add my take on

the merits of Bill 10.

As I have listened to the discussion that’s taking place in the

House…. I will say, again, there was considerably more from the

opposition side of the House than from the government side, but to be

fair, a few members of the government did deign to involve themselves.

In both cases, I heard a lot about personal experiences. I heard a lot

about how people have become acquainted with the exercise of collective

bargaining rights — collective bargaining organizations,

unions.

For some, it has been their vocation. They have spent a lot of

time being involved, and it has been the way that they have, for a large

part of their life, made a living. In other cases, it has been as

members of union organizations. In some cases, it has been — as we have

heard from employers that have been engaged with unions, collective

bargaining organizations — for the purpose of negotiating contracts.

Everyone’s experience is a little bit different. I think, to be fair, it

does influence, to a degree, one’s view of the world.

At the end of relating my experience, I’m going to make an

observation that may surprise you, Madam Speaker, and the House. My dad,

when he emigrated from Holland after the Second World War, came as part

of a plan, an arrangement between the two countries. He had grown up on

a farm, and the deal was that you could come to Canada, but you had to

work — in his case, on a dairy farm — for a couple of years.

He was qualified to do that, as a young man, because he had grown

up on a dairy farm. He did that. He came by boat to Halifax. He came

across on the train, got off in Mission, and then worked for two years

on a farm in Silverdale.

[2:40 p.m.]

Today he is, sadly, in his 94th year stricken with pretty advanced

dementia, but he’s in a very nice home attached to the Mission hospital.

It kinds of overlooks that same Silverdale area and our property. I say

that parenthetically.

He actually didn’t want to be a dairy farmer for the rest of his

life, although he bought a farm. I think that was some kind of penalty

he sought to impose on his children, to ensure that they would

experience the same love of the land that characterized his early

years.

He wanted to become educated in a different area — in his case,

the electrical trade. He went to what was then, I think, Vancouver

Vocational Institute. He became a certified electrician and, ultimately,

an industrial-level electrician and formed his own business.

It was a small business. From time to time, he would hire one or

two others. He was very good about trying to bring people into the

apprenticeship program, but I don’t want to suggest that he had a very

large business. It was mostly him doing the work and my mother doing the

books when both of them weren’t helping the kids work on the

farm.

He acquired, over the course of his work, I will have to say, a

fairly negative attitude towards the union movement. I think it was

rooted in the fact that he, as an individual contractor, frequently

encountered push-back at jobsites and industrial sites where the workers

were certified. Though he generally had a very good relationship with

the workers themselves, institutionally there was a tension there when a

non-union worker would arrive and he provided a specialized

service.

There was a tension there. My dad could be a fairly passionate man

about his trade, so at times, he would come home, and we would hear, at

the dinner table, his expressions of frustration about the nature of

that relationship between the unionized and, in his case, non-unionized

workforce.

I have to acknowledge that for a while, I think that probably did

exercise an influence on me as a young man. I frequently would work with

him on some of these jobsites, passing tools, holding flashlights,

running wires, and all the things that one does in that trade. I was

lucky, though. My parents were very supportive, and they sent me off to

university. I did my undergraduate degree, which was in history. It was

there that I began to learn about the fundamental importance of the

development of the labour movement.

When I was starting to go to university, in the very early days of

the 1980s, labour history had just begun to be…. History to that point,

historiography, had tended to concentrate on political histories. Who

was the Prime Minister? How did they acquire…? Things like labour

history, women’s history and even Aboriginal history were still in the

advent in those days.

I was fortunate. I began to learn about the importance and the

contribution made by labour organizers and the significant importance

associated with that. We’re dating back to the Industrial Revolution in

the U.K., how the roots of the labour movement and societal awareness

around labour law emerged out of literature — authors like Dickens

pointing to some of the fundamental injustices and inequities that were

taking place in industrialized England.

[2:45 p.m.]

Out of that was transported, to Canada and North America, an

increased awareness. Some heroes, quite frankly, emerged out of the

labour movement that, happily, today we honour for the work that they

did — sometimes in the face of great opposition — to evolve laws and to

import notions of equity, fairness and reasonableness into labour

laws.

Here in Canada — in the west, in particular — much of that

manifested itself in the resource sector. Here on the Island, the north

Island, Madam Chair, you’re very familiar with things like the coal

industry — where the labour movement played a crucial role in areas of

workers safety, workers rights, reasonable work schedules and those

things that we, perhaps, today take for granted but were not so much the

case, even a century ago — and in the fish-packing sector, similarly, up

and down the coast and in Prince Rupert.

In the forest sector, there’s a long and storied history on the

harvesting side on the coast and, in particular, on the manufacturing

side, with proud labour organizations like the IWA. I have to say,

before the IWA merged with the Steelworkers, in the time that I spent on

that side of the House for four years as Forests Minister, I had a

chance to work with the IWA and people like Dave Haggard and Darrel

Wong, who were very much committed to the well-being of their members

and ensuring that the rights and interests of their workers and their

members were protected­.

It’s all to say that the evolution and the importance associated

with the right of workers to organize and come together collectively is

not in doubt. I don’t think it has been challenged — not in any of the

speeches that I have heard.

At a certain point…. I have heard, again, the few members on the

government side that have participated in the debate pointing with an

attached measure of importance to something that took place relatively

recently, in the last decade and a half. That was a decision of the

Supreme Court of Canada to formally recognize as a constitutional right,

as part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the

provisions of the Charter dealing with freedom of association, the right

to organize collectively for people, for workers, employees, to come

together and organize themselves collectively.

In addition to the historical and practical importance that we

should attach to the work of the labour movement and the evolution of

labour law in this country, there’s now the fact that there is

constitutional recognition and, I think, a further sign of just how

important, for our society and our country, those rights are.

None of that is in issue, and none of that, quite frankly, despite

much of what we have heard from the members of the government side that

have spoken, is what Bill 10 purports to deal with. It’s not the

“what.”

[2:50 p.m.]

The what, in this case, is the right for workers to come together,

if they so choose, and collectivize — to form a trade union or join a

trade union — for the purpose of advancing their contractual rights and

protecting their interests under the contract, vis-à-vis their

employer.

That’s the what. But that’s not what Bill 10 is about, and I don’t

think there’s any disagreement in this House about the importance of

ensuring that that is maintained, protected and even celebrated. Bill 10

is about the how. How do people do that? How do they make the decision

to exercise what is now a constitutional right and what has always been

a fundamentally important right?

If this House is correct…. I have heard this from both sides. If

we are correct in pointing to the importance of the constitutional

recognition for the right of workers to organize collectively, then

surely it follows that there is equal importance to be attached to how

they do that. The same importance and the same constitutional principles

that give rise to the protection of the right to form oneself into a

union or collective bargaining unit should apply to how that is

done.

That, I would suggest, is where the fundamental division exists

between the members of the NDP government and the opposition, because I

— and, I think, we — believe that precisely because this is such a

fundamental right, there should be some fundamental protections for how

that right is exercised.

I believe, perhaps unwittingly, that the government, by virtue of

Bill 10, is diminishing the significance of that constitutional right by

suggesting that there is a lesser process that can give rise to the

exercise of that right. Because surely we would agree that the ultimate

expression of our democratic rights and democratic freedoms is the

ability to exercise a vote, and to do so without disclosing the nature

of the choice we make.

Therein lies the fundamental point of departure, because what I

hear and what we have heard members of the government say is —

notwithstanding the fact that this is a fundamentally important,

constitutional right — well, it can be exercised in a far less

structured way and in a manner that far less guarantees what most of us,

what most reasonable-thinking people would say is in accordance with

fundamental principles of democracy. That is the secret ballot, because

the choice is such an important one. This choice about whether to

organize collectively is in and of itself important.

Workplaces have changed dramatically for much of the time labour

law was evolving. Large workplaces, the manufacturing facilities

employing upwards of 1,000-plus people — we don’t see those kinds of

workplaces anymore. They tend to be smaller. That is the product, I

suspect, of technology and productivity. It makes, I think, the skills

that the workers bring to bear that much more valuable, but the shapes

those workplaces take are different.

[2:55 p.m.]

I don’t know if that’s partly why we have seen unionized

membership in the private sector decline at the rate we have, especially

vis-à-vis the public sector. I do wonder to what extent that phenomenon

is part and parcel of the calculation that the government has made in

introducing this measure, which is widely unpopular, whether they want

to admit it or not, and difficult for people to understand.

There is the question of whether or not a worker wishes, in the

case of an original certification process, to assign their rights to a

collective organization. It doesn’t happen for free. For some collective

bargaining units, I think the union dues are upwards of $3,000 or $4,000

a year, depending on your income. That is a significant investment. For

many, it is viewed as a worthwhile investment. But it’s a choice, and

it’s a personal choice.

Perhaps that’s the essence of the frustration that we in the

opposition and many others outside of this chamber are feeling. It is a

personal choice. It’s a personal choice about whether to come together

and collectivize and assign rights that you have, as an employee, to a

larger organization, but it is originally a personal choice. Under what

circumstances should we be entitled to exercise that personal choice? We

would say anonymously or free from having to disclose the nature of the

choice.

The government says otherwise, by virtue of Bill 10. It says: “No.

That very personal choice is one that we believe you should make

publicly for all to see.” We have a problem with that. We think that

diminishes the right of the individual, and we think that actually

diminishes the significance of the constitutional protection for

collective bargaining rights that now exists in this country.

The labour movement is a competitive place. There are people

better equipped than me in this House that know the reality behind that.

The notion that one organization can come to another workplace and

entice members of one collective bargaining, one union to leave that

organization and join another…. I don’t think anyone argues that workers

having the original and personal choice about whether to collectivize

shouldn’t maintain the choice about who should represent

them.

There’s a lot that goes into that decision. I mean, it starts with

the amount of dues. What is the quality of the repre­sentation?

What is the performance of the bargaining representatives of a

particular union at the negotiating table? What’s their track record in

terms of the benefits they’ve secured during contract talks? What’s

their track record in terms of defending the rights of workers in

grievance proceedings? We haven’t talked a lot about that.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is not just an important role at contract time. Every day

there is a role to play in terms of defending the rights of workers

vis-à-vis that contract and other labour law requirements. What is the

record of a particular union in that regard? That is an assessment that

an individual needs to make when confronted by a choice about whether or

not to stay with the union they’re with or to move to another bargaining

organization.

And we have seen that. We have seen some very, very bitter battles

in the last number of years. Nurses and the HEU. That was, if I recall

correctly, in one instance, a pretty divisive battle. But the choice was

made on the strength of votes being cast privately, in a secret ballot.

The result was what it was.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Post Bill 10, the comfort that those people will have to make that

choice and to do so anonymously, secretly, will no longer exist. We

don’t think that’s right. We think that is problematic.

I’ve listened carefully, over the course of the days of debate,

and as many of my colleagues in the opposition have asked, perhaps

rhetorically: “What is the rationale for this change? What is the

imperative?” Of all the things we are confronted by in this

pandemic-laden society, with a second health crisis relating to opioid

overdose deaths that are reaching staggering numbers and imposing misery

on family after family, what is it? What arguments have the government

members, the few that have spoken, brought to bear to make a persuasive

case for why this change to what we would all characterize, reasonably,

as a fundamental right is justified? I haven’t heard the

argument.

At some point, the House is going to divide, and we’re going to

have a vote. I expect, at the end of that vote, we will hear applause

from the government members. I’m not sure what they’ll be applauding. It

may well be the first time a government applauds the elimination of a

fundamental democratic right like the right to exercise a choice in a

secret ballot. But that’s what is going to happen at some point, at the

conclusion of this debate.

I predict that along with several other measures that we have seen

over the course of the last few months from this government, the

arrogance that has given rise to the introduction of this legislation,

the arrogance that will characterize the applause that we will hear when

the final vote is taken, is ultimately going to mark the demise of this

government. People will see this for what it is, and that is an

unreasonable and unnecessary alteration and elimination of some

fundamental rights that have served our society and served workers and

organized labour well over the last number of years.

[3:05 p.m.]

The government has not made a persuasive case for why this bill

should be supported. Quite frankly, I don’t think they’ve tried very

hard. I think they have concluded that this is one of those matters

that, as a few of my colleagues have said, requires them to hold their

noses to pay a poli­tical debt and push or ram through this

chamber on the strength of the majority that they command.

That may be sufficient tactically for the purpose of moving the

bill through the stages of debate. It is hardly sufficient, in my view,

morally for the change that Bill 10 represents, a change that is

summarized in but two pages of legislation. The labour code is hundreds

of pages, a reminder and a lesson to us all that it takes but one or two

pages of printed text and a majority in this chamber to fundamentally

alter laws and rights that most of us would take for granted.

I think it’s wrong. I think it’s misguided. I think our society

will be ill-served. I am opposed.

K. Kirkpatrick: I am not going to say I’m happy to be speaking to Bill 10. I wish

we didn’t have to be speaking to Bill 10. I feel we’ve been here before,

and I don’t understand why we’re back here again.

First, I would like to thank labour unions for their contributions

to Canadian society. I’ve worked in unionized environments. I’ve had a

good relationship with CUPE staff. I believe we have to respect the

union process, respect collective agreements. Any worker who feels that

they want to be part of a union, employers should not get in the way,

and we have to respect that.

We also have to respect those workers who determine they don’t

want to be part of a union. There are many workers in British Columbia

who have chosen not to be part of a union. That’s their right as well. I

see this government not working for the people of British Columbia but

working for a select group of unions in British Columbia.

I’d like to tell you a little story about why I chose to run to

become an MLA. I was working for a non-profit organization doing

fabulous work across British Columbia. These are social workers, youth

support workers, an amazing, amazing group of people who do this work

because they love the work.

What happened, which got me quite upset, is that this government,

in looking at how they were contracting with these non-profit

organizations who were delivering services, decided that even though

these contracts were identical and these social workers were providing

the exact same programs, those organizations with unions should be paid

more than those who were not unionized, for doing the exact same

work.

This is something that…. The non-profits looked at each other,

those who were not unionized, and they said: “Well, we’ve never been

unionized.” Some of them were 90 years old. Sometimes people come to

organizations to work there because they’re not unionized. So they

viewed this, and I certainly viewed this, something called low-wage

redress, as coercion from government to unionize.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’ve heard members on the other side of the House say the need for

this legislation and the need to remove the secret ballot is because

there was coercion from employers that would keep employees from feeling

that they could vote to certify. But I have seen the exact opposite with

this government. They have created a discriminatory funding mechanism

for non-profit organizations.

This has opened the door for intimidation of those employees who

do not want to unionize by BCGEU, by CUPE, by other unions in British

Columbia, who sent letters to these non-unionized employers that said,

in a very threatening way: “We’re going to give you the opportunity to

voluntarily certify. And if you don’t voluntarily certify, we’re going

to launch an aggressive certification campaign with your employees.” If

that is not coercion between government and unions to force people to

unionize, I don’t know what is.

We went back to government. We asked and explained the concerns

and the challenges that this was going to have. It went nowhere.

Government’s response to us: “Why don’t you just unionize?”

I know that the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale said to an

executive director of a large non-profit on the North Shore, who was not

unionized…. When that executive director came and said, “This is going

to be a problem for us. We’re going to have lay people off. We’re not

going to be able to deal with this,” the answer was: “Well, why don’t

you just unionize?”

These people didn’t want to be unionized. So what’s

happening….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–​Capilano has the

floor.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

K. Kirkpatrick: This organization is now left in a position where they have got

counsellors, paraprofessionals, who are earning $12 an hour less than

the paraprofessionals under these government contracts, where they

should be paid the same under these contracts for doing the identical

work.

I take offence to the idea that we need to lose the secret ballot

so that people are not intimidated or not coerced into joining a union.

In fact, right now, this low-wage redress…. What has happened is that

you’ve got a group of non-profit employers, and not just non-profit

employers but individual employees, individual workers. These are the

people who are being told that they need to unionize. They have gone to

the Labour Relations Board and taken government to the Labour Relations

Board to say: “This is not fair. This is absolutely not

fair.”

These employees are doing the identical work under identical

contracts for this government. It was simply a way to manipulate the

system to force these poor non-profit employers to unionize. The

threat…. “If you don’t voluntarily certify, we’re going to launch these

aggressive campaigns.” Why should these employers be forced to make a

decision on behalf of their employees to force them to

unionize?

[3:15 p.m.]

I want to go back to the beginning here and just say that I

respect unions. I have worked with them. My grandfather was a union

activist in the glass-blowers union in Scotland. My grandfather, when

they moved here, was a union activist.

I respect the work they do. I understand that there are workplaces

where unionization is important, is extremely important. I believe in

the collective bargaining process. I believe in the spirit of labour

relations. This is not me standing up here saying unions are bad. What

I’m saying is people need to have choice.

If there are concerns that government has about the way that

employees are being treated, if there are safety issues, if there are

other issues, that’s what we need to deal with. We’ve already got

organizations in British Columbia that look out for the safety of

employees and employment standards that look out for the treatment of

employees. Do we need to beef some of those things up so that we’ve got

additional protections? Maybe so.

I’ll tell you. Some of these employers and these non-profits…. The

irony of what’s going to happen here is that if they unionize, they

would have to red-circle some salaries because they were already being

paid more in some of the positions than they would be under the

contract. They would have to reduce their benefits because they already

had good benefits. They would have to reduce the number of sick days

that they were being paid for. They already had pensions. It removes

flexibility, and it increases the cost of operations to these

non-profits significantly.

I’m not talking about wages; I’m talking about the mechanisms that

you need for labour relations in these organizations. They are then

going to be fundraising, not to pay for the delivery of direct services

in the social services sector. They are going to be fundraising in order

to pay for these additional labour relations staff and the processes and

the lack of flexibility in some of the programming.

Where I started here was: why was I upset, and why did I decide to

run as an MLA? Well, I tried to talk to government. There was no

listening there. There was a round table that was put together that was

to help these non-profits who were non-unionized to try and get some

wage equity, but that didn’t amount to actual wage equity. There was a….

What was it called, now? Was it retention and recruitment? It was an

amount of money that was provided to them that was a small fraction of

what government was paying on these other contracts.

There were two Andrews that were working in this House at that

point. I went and talked to the first Andrew, and he said: “Well, I

don’t support them getting rid of the secret ballot, and I think it’s

appalling how they have dealt with this wage differential through this

low-wage redress.”

I went to the other Andrew, and I said the same thing. He said:

“This is completely wrong. It’s completely unfair. By the way, where do

you live, and would you like to run as an MLA?” I said: “Well, if that’s

the only way that we can be heard and talk about these things, then

absolutely yes.” So this is related to the issue that we’re having

today, because the irony to me here is that this government works for

unions and not for workers in the province of British Columbia, and I

have seen that firsthand.

For 30 of the last 38 years, the secret ballot has existed in this

province and has helped to protect the privacy, the independence and the

democratic right of every worker to vote either for or against union

representation without coercion, intimidation or harassment. What are we

trying to fix? What is it that we are trying to fix? I don’t understand

this.

The secret ballot is the norm in most provinces and territories in

Canada. It’s strongly favoured by the majority of B.C. workers. There

was just a survey. We saw overwhelmingly that the majority of workers in

British Columbia want the secret ballot.

[3:20 p.m.]

Why is it that this government doesn’t listen to recommendations

from committees of professionals who have come together to really dig

down and to look at what’s in the best policy interest of British

Columbians?

Recommendations of the 2018 Labour Relations Code Review Panel

cited: “The secret ballot vote be retained providing there are

sufficient measures to ensure the exercise of employee choice is fully

protected and fully remediated in the event of unlawful

interference.”

What is the problem that we’re trying to resolve with this? If

you’ve got the Labour Relations Code Review Panel saying, “Don’t make

this change,” then why are we making this change? I haven’t heard anyone

on the other side of the House give compelling reasons why this is

necessary, and it takes away a fundamental democratic right that we have

to secret ballots. It takes away a fundamental right that we have for

secret ballots, and it’s really alarming that this government thinks

that’s okay. It’s okay if it works for them; it doesn’t matter if it

doesn’t work for other people.

The changes outlined in this bill are going to open workers up to

pressure campaigns where they could be coerced or pressured into joining

unions against their will. That is exactly the reaction that many of us

had when we received a letter that said: “We are going to launch an

aggressive certification campaign in your organization.” The next

sentence should have been: “Even though people in your organization have

not expressed any interest in being part of a union — even though

employees like working here.” It’s an employer of choice, but that

doesn’t matter.

Unions are not that much different than business organizations.

Certification in organizations that do not have employees actively

asking for this is business development. That’s what’s happening. It’s

just business development. We want to sell more. It’s not any different

than growing an organization, any other kind of organization.

The Premier himself made it no secret he intended to scrap the

secret ballot for union certification and transition to card checks as

soon as he had the opportunity to do so. But back in ’19, when he tried

to push through labour code amendments that would have taken away the

secret ballot, he could not garner the support of this House. But now

that there’s not the need to discuss and debate and get collective

agreement on things, now is the time that this is being pushed

through.

As of 2021, the current rate of unionization among workers in B.C.

sits at around 30 percent, while an overwhelming number — 85 percent of

construction workers — don’t belong to a government- or NDP-aligned

trades union. But now that this government is in a majority position,

they’re in a position to pay off their political backers and insiders,

and that’s what this is coming down to. That’s what this is. This

government is working for unions, and it’s not working for workers in

British Columbia.

It’s not enough that there’s going to be an elimination of the

secret ballot. Clause 1 in this legislation allows union raiding to take

place in the construction industry between the months of July and August

every year, which is the busiest time you can probably have in the

construction sector. And it’s every year, as opposed to every three

years.

[3:25 p.m.]

What is the problem that is trying to be fixed here? What is the

compelling reason for this change? I’d like somebody on the other side

of the House to stand up and say: “Why is that a really good idea?” I

haven’t heard that.

It’s no coincidence that this practice will now be allowed to take

place during the busiest construction time of the year. And this is a

government that wants to reduce the cost of housing? So they are going

to do that by dragging out the length of time it takes to construct

housing and to construct infrastructure projects. How is this helping

anything? It’s not solving a problem; it’s adding more

problems­.

Again, it goes directly against the recommendations of this

government’s own 2018 expert panel. While government claims that this is

simply to appease workers who may be unhappy with their current union,

this union-raiding clause will undoubtedly serve as another tool for

this government and their labour insiders to pressure more workers, and

it will create chaos. It will create complete chaos. This move threatens

to create instability and disruption and will actually add, due to these

delays, additional costs.

We’ve already seen negative impacts that result from this kind of

action. This government has delivered only a small fraction of their

promised 114,000 housing units. The community benefits agreements —

that’s the second piece. The combination of the low-wage redress and the

CBAs is why I’m standing here speaking to you today.

The CBAs handpick favoured insider unions. It’s abso­lutely

driving up the costs of infrastructure projects in B.C. already, by

hundreds of millions of dollars, and reducing their scope. It’s

estimated that CBAs could add as much as $4.8 billion more of taxpayer

dollars to the cost of public infrastructure projects. The CBAs’

requirement to have employees join only the Premier’s handpicked unions

for major construction projects is all part of the NDP’s plan to

increase the unionization of the construction sector.

It is really difficult to speak to this. Obviously, this is not

legislation that I can support. I appreciate the opportunity to share my

frustration and to give some context into my experience and how this

seems to be backwards in terms of who is potentially coercing who and

where the intimidation is. I don’t understand why this government has

brought this forward. Well, I do understand why this government has

brought this forward, but I’m very disappointed that they have brought

it forward.

I would like to thank you for the time, Madam Speaker, and have a

seat.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. B. Ma: I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of personal privilege

regarding comments made by the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano.

T. Shypitka: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: In the gallery today, we have a very special guest. We have Cathy

Peters. Cathy Peters raises awareness about the issue of human and sex

trafficking, sexual exploitation and child sexual trafficking, which is for

the purpose of prostitution. She speaks and presents to politicians, police

and the public.

[3:30 p.m.]

She’s been at it for 45 years, and she’s a super-strong advocate for

what she stands for and for what a lot of people stand for. I’d like to

welcome her. I think it’s very appropriate today, being on Red Dress Day and

the recognition of missing and murdered Indigenous women.

Would the House please welcome Cathy Peters.

Deputy Speaker: Welcome.

Debate Continued

T. Stone: I appreciate taking my place here in second reading on Bill 10,

the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022.

Like I think virtually every speaker on both sides of the House

that has weighed in on this debate to this point, I, too, will start off

by acknowledging the place that unions have played in my family and the

importance that I think the union movement has represented for our

province, for our country and, most importantly, for workers.

I grew up in a household of railroaders and firefighters. The

Locomotive Engineers union and the Fire Fighters union were very

prevalent in my house, growing up. I was exposed to unions, to the work

that unions do and to the importance of unions’ place in our society —

and in workplaces, in particular — at a young age and through my

upbringing. I have tremendous respect for the role that unions play. I

have tremendous respect for the collective bargaining

process.

I have tremendous respect for the rights and the gains that have

been achieved by unions on behalf of workers. I also have a tremendous

respect for the right of workers to choose for themselves whether they

wish to associate or not, affiliate or not, join or not, a union. I

think that’s a fundamental right that British Columbian workers

have.

It is a right, a democratic right, that I believe is being

seriously eroded in this legislation, which largely deals with two key

areas that I will touch on in my remarks: the removal of the current

secret ballot provisions for a certification to take place in a

workplace, and secondly, the provisions relating to union raiding and

worksites — equally problematic, in my view.

I will say, as well, that I have listened carefully to a number of

the presentations made by members of the government. I have not found

the case that they have made to be convincing. I have not found the case

that they have made to really drive home what that overriding rationale

is for taking away a worker’s right to a secret ballot.

I have heard many members in government talk about safety. With at

least some of the members in government that have spoken to Bill 10,

there seems to be some confusion as to what Bill 10 really is all

about.

We’ve heard many members talk about how important it is to enhance

safety practices and focus on workplace standards, and so forth. That is

not what Bill 10 addresses; that is not what is in Bill 10. I would add

that all members of the House — of all three parties, I think — support

safe workplaces. Everyone wants workers to work in workplaces that

place, first and foremost, at the centre of the workplace, the safety of

the people who work there. But that is not at all what this bill

addresses.

[3:35 p.m.]

That was, I think, some confusion. Well, the really generous way

to view those comments would be to say there was some confusion. I think

they may have perhaps, in some cases, been scrambling to try to come up

with some rationalization — albeit completely misaligned with the actual

contents of the bill — around why they would be supporting a piece of

legislation which really is all about stripping away the democratic

rights of workers in the workplace here in B.C. That’s the important

point here. Bill 10 strips workers of their right to a secret ballot to

deter­mine union representation.

If 55 percent of union cards are signed, there’s an automatic

certification that takes place. The present rules provide for a 55

percent requirement to sign a union card. If that happens, then it kicks

it to a secret ballot, where that decision can be confirmed by the

workers, free of any coercion or any pressure, in the confines of a

ballot booth, with just them and a pencil and a piece of paper, where

they say yes or no to a certification. No one but themselves knows how

they end up voting in that process.

That two-step process today has been carefully crafted over the

years and has served labour relations and, I would argue, workplaces in

British Columbia. It has served the province well for the better part of

the last 40 years. The secrecy of a person’s ballot — we’ve heard it

many times here in this debate — is a critical pillar of our democracy.

It’s not just applicable in a workplace setting. We elect every member

in this House through a secret ballot.

We don’t do it the way it was done in the 1800s, where there were

still places in the world where people would gather in taverns or pubs

and other public spaces and there would be shows of hands — do you

support this party or that party? — and all of the intimidation and

harassment that would take place.

We don’t do it that way when we elect our MLAs. We don’t do it out

in the open when we elect our Members of Parliament. We fundamentally

allow for those elected officials to be elected through a secret ballot.

We elect our mayors and our councillors through a secret ballot. We

elect school boards through a secret ballot — and candi­dates for

political office.

I think of my own road or path to elected office as a member of

this place. It started by signing up a bunch of members in a nomination

process — kind of the equivalent of a card check system — followed by

having to get those members out to actually vote at a nomination

meeting. The nomination meeting was conducted through a secret ballot.

In the election of a caucus chair — I believe that the NDP caucus does

it the same way — we certainly elect our caucus chair through a secret

ballot.

Heck, I was even talking to one of my daughters, who’s in high

school, at the beginning of this high school year. You think way back to

high school councils and whatnot. They do those votes through a secret

ballot. So it is very strange, totally unnecessary and contrary to the

rights of workers to not continue to afford workers with the right to a

secret ballot so that they can choose for themselves as to whether they

want to affiliate or unaffiliate, or they want to certify or not

certify.

There may be very good reasons to vote yes in a certification

process, and we’ve seen that, obviously, happen. There may be very

compelling reasons that a particular union makes to a workplace related

to safety or other aspects of working conditions, or compensation or the

nature of the work. There may be very good reasons for a worker to

choose to affiliate with a union, but likewise, there may be very good

reasons for a worker to choose not to want to join a union.

[3:40 p.m.]

There are employers out there that perhaps could do a better job

at how workers are compensated or could improve working conditions. I

mean, this is a constant state of progress. It’s a constant state of

work that’s required. But there are a lot of employers out there, too,

that pay darn well, that have to provide their employees with tremendous

working conditions.

In talking with a number of businesses in my riding, in

Kamloops–South Thompson, in many cases the wage rate that’s paid is

higher than what the union wage rate would be, or the pension

entitlements are higher than what comparable pension entitlements are

with similar employers down the street that have a union in

place.

There are compelling reasons to affiliate; there are compelling

reasons not to affiliate. The point is that it should be left up to the

worker to decide, in the secrecy of a ballot booth. Much as we elect all

kind of elected officials, as I just rattled off, it’s up to that worker

to decide what works for him or her.

Regrettably, this bill continues a pattern that we’ve seen from

this government, where the trampling on people’s rights or the erosion

of rights in this province has really been taking place consistently

over the last five years. We’ve seen the tabling of significant pieces

of legislation that have very little, if any, content within them but

that leave completely up to regulation the actual bringing to life of

that legislation.

It was only the other day that there was a piece of legislation

that implements a cooling-off period in real estate transactions, and

there was no detail in the bill. All the details that pertain to that

policy are left to regulation, which is determined by cabinet in the

cabinet room — which is not an open and transparent process and which is

not transparent to British Columbians.

We’ve seen significant changes from this government, contrary to

what they’ve campaigned on in two previous elections.

We’ve seen significant changes to freedom-of-information

legislation in this province. We’ve seen the imposition, for the first

time ever, of fees to access — for the public to actually have to pay to

access what is, essentially, the public’s information. We’ve seen that

the scope of what is applicable to freedom-of-information legislation

has actually shrunk. The amount of proactive disclosure — in areas where

there really needs to be proactive disclosure and there certainly is no

compelling reason not to proactively disclose — just isn’t

happening.

Or we could talk about CBAs, the so-called community benefits

agreements, which are a hallmark of this government. It’s