Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my friend and colleague back in the chamber, speaking so passionately and well-informed about this and many other topics.
He took a bit of a hiatus from the chamber. I have a question about some of the testimony that was presented both in the House hearings and in the Senate hearings and about part of a study that was undertaken?
The province of British Columbia has flip-flopped back and forth between card check and secret ballot a number of times. For the past 18 years, it has studied the impact of the card check over the secret ballot. Miss Sara Slinn, associate professor from Osgoode Hall law school, has been researching this for a number of years. She said that it was intimidation on the part of the employer that skewed the vote in favour of the employer, of non-certifcation, in the case of the secret ballot. I will read into the record her comments. She said:
In sum, the research evidence shows that there is no support for the notion that votes are necessarily a superior mechanism to cards for determining union representation. Nor does it support the notion that union intimidation or pressure is a substantial phenomenon in certification. What it does demonstrate is that employer interference and, more so, employee fear of employer interference, is a real phenomenon. It's effective, and it's more effective under votes than card-based mechanisms.
Is my colleague familiar with the research done by Miss Slinn?