[ Page 1499 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1499

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Weisgerber

Mr. Clark

Mr. Cashore

Division

Appendix –– 1511

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we note today the death of the Rt. Hon. Errol Barrow, Prime Minister of Barbados, who passed away yesterday after a lengthy illness.

MR. STUPICH: On behalf of the opposition, we would like to join with the government in this expression of sadness, and in passing on the appropriate messages.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, it gives me pleasure to introduce, on behalf of our Speaker, Jean and John Elliott from Santa Barbara, California, who are visiting with us today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

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

On section 18.

MR. GABELMANN: Section 18, as members know, is the purposes-and-objects section of the proposed bill. It is the section which outlines the philosophy with which the government wants to underpin labour-mamagement relations in this province. I find it, Mr. Chairman, absolutely astounding, given the public reaction in every quarter, including the former deputy minister, the former chairman of the Employers' Council of British Columbia, the former postmaster general in a Progressive Conservative government, and given the views of every editorial writer for every major newspaper who has commented on this subject in this country, that the government still this morning wants to proceed with the debate of this bill. It's unbelievable, in my view, that it has not taken the advice that it has been given by the Globe and Mail, the Times-Colonist, the Vancouver Province, the Vancouver Sun, by Graham Leslie, Bill Hamilton and dozens of other neutral and respected observers of British Columbia politics and British Columbia labour-management relations.

Here we are this morning debating the purposes and the philosophy of this Section in the middle of a situation that the Vancouver Province says "threatens to turn B.C. into an unnerving version of South Africa." This is the conservative Vancouver Province, which supports Social Credit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GABELMANN: Well, they sure as heck didn't support us.

There is a lot of tittering and laughter and giggles on the other side. I suppose they are a nervous reaction to the bind the government has got itself into. For eight weeks people on this side of the House and people in the industrial relations community left doors open for the government to walk through without losing face, without finding itself in difficult political problems. Those doors are gradually, if not finally, being closed. There is still an opportunity for the government to save this province from the economic chaos which it seems so determined to put this province into for the next years and — if, God forbid, this government is re-elected — for decades after that.

Doesn't anyone on that side of the House understand what is going on in British Columbia today? Doesn't anybody on that side of the House understand what the philosophy of this bill is going to do to this province?

Mr. Chairman, if it would help, I will make sure that people on this side of the House do not claim victory or shout, "We won!" or anything remotely connected to that, if the government will just pull back and say: "Enough is enough. We need further consultation."

This issue has gone beyond simple partisan politics between Social Credit and NDP. This issue has gone into whether or not this province has a chance to survive and prosper economically. That's what this issue is about now. If the government can't take all of the advice that is being given, can't recognize that these are the most difficult times that we have ever been in, in respect of that fragile, economic relationship between workers and capital, between government and both workers and capital, that we are in danger of destroying that balance, that necessary cooperation.... We will talk in later sections of this bill, and some that may come up today, about the consent and the necessity for cooperation.

I want under this section — the purposes, objectives and philosophy of the bill — simply to say to the government that these purposes and these objects are not supported by British Columbians. It is not just the labour movement or the narrow partisan interests of the New Democratic Party that are opposed to this particular philosophy; it is the broad cross-section of industrial relations people in this province.

Everybody on the labour side, everybody I've heard comment who is perceived as neutral and, increasingly, people who are known to be partisans on the employers' side — as Graham Leslie was, clearly partisan as an employers' representative on the board and as the chief negotiator for the lower mainland municipalities some years ago.... Increasingly people on that side of the equation are saying this bill cannot work, this bill will be destructive, this bill will damage British Columbia's future; and yet the government this morning seems determined to push on. Why? Are you afraid of losing face? Is that the only reason that you're determined to push British Columbia into chaotic labour relations, to destroy the economy of this province? Is that why — because you don't want to lose face? Mr. Chairman, I'm on the purposes and objectives of this bill.

We have the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services yesterday in this House telling members of this House that his former deputy minister is a liar. That's what he said in question period.

MR. HUBERTS: He never said that at all.

MR. GABELMANN: When he said yesterday — and if you want me to quote it, I'll quote it — that what the former Deputy Minister of Labour said was not true, he said the former Deputy Minister of Labour lied. Quite frankly, I think it's the other way around.

[ Page 1500 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am sure you realize that that last comment is completely unacceptable. Would you please retract it.

MR. GABELMANN: I withdraw –– I didn't call the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services a liar directly...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I realize that, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: ...but I did indirectly, and I recognize that's a violation of the rules, and for that reason I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

[10:15]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, somebody on the other side says: "You've made your headline; you've made your point." I am not interested in political points. I am interested in the future of this province. I am interested in trying to find some way of making the government understand that it is on a course which will lead to further poverty, further unemployment, further lack of investment and a disastrous relationship among people in this province. It is embarked upon that course.

We have a history for a hundred years or more of having polarized relationships between labour and capital. That's been a feature of our history, and every historian has written about it. That degree of warfare, in a sense — class warfare, as it's been described — has been minimal in the past compared to what it will be in the future if the government proceeds with this legislation, particularly with the philosophy and the objectives of the legislation as enunciated and proclaimed in section 18. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Is that a threat?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the threats in this province are being made by this government, who are determined to threaten the livelihoods and the security of British Columbians. That's the only group in our society that is making threats today. I'm making predictions that as a result of the threats of the government there will in fact be a very unstable relationship between labour and capital, there will be more class warfare than there has ever been, there will be less investment than there has been, there will be less productivity than there has been, and all of the tentative steps that have been embarked upon in recent months and in the last year or so to try to build a relationship between labour and management in this province.... All of those tentative steps which were really going somewhere will be dead in the water. Is that what the government wants?

Mr. Chairman, you're getting lots of advice from the Clerk, and I realize I'm skating on the edge of being in order in this section. But by God, it doesn't matter if I'm out of order on this section –– I want to get the message across to the government that this is dangerous stuff, and if you proceed, particularly in the way you are, by going to the courts in the most flagrantly silly manner to prevent people from talking and writing and studying legislation, for some fear that the government is going to be overturned by force.... What absolute nonsense, and what deliberate provocation!

The Province asks if the government has taken leave of its senses; clearly it has. Why? From a party that proclaimed in the summer of 1986 and through the fall of '86 that it wanted peace, that it wanted no more confrontation, that it wanted people to work together.... Yet it proceeds in this way. Why? I'd like the Minister of Labour to respond to that question. Why is it that it wants to proceed in this provocative, dangerous manner at this time?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: When I read section 18, I have a hard time realizing that the opposition is debating this particular section. As the member for North Island just said, this is "dangerous" stuff; he's said that it's going to threaten the livelihood of people. There seemed to be a great concern expressed yesterday that the interests of the general public should always be subordinate to the interests of a particular group. Is that what the opposition members are saying? When you read that....

MR. LOVICK: Come on! Be honest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I appreciate the fact that you're not long in this assembly, but that comment is completely out of order.

MR. LOVICK: May I rise on a point of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, yes. Go ahead.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, the point of order I'm raising — and my comment across the way about being honest — is simply to point out that the Minister of Education's statement is totally without foundation. If anybody cares to examine the record, they will see that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the comment you made is completely out of order. There is no point of order. The only point of order is that you withdraw the comment you made concerning being dishonest.

MR. LOVICK: I shall do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, hon. member.

Hon. members, just before we proceed, the Chair listens very carefully to all the things that are said and I know that yesterday was a difficult day for many hon. members. There is an edginess in this House this morning that gives me great cause for concern –– I can feel it; it's palpable. I just caution members if they would just stop and....

I'd like to read something that I don't know has ever been read during this session, but it's from that very learned gentleman, Erskine May, who said members should be reminded that: "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and the conduct of his opponents in debate."

Leaving that with you to just think about, I'll refer back to the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose everything is open to interpretation. I'm reading the words in this section that has

[ Page 1501 ]

been labelled as "dangerous stuff," "against promoting harmony," and called a "bankrupt philosophy" by other members. There's something about it "not serving the public interest." And when I read the first sentence in this section, I read: "...having regard to the public interest as well as the rights of individuals...." When you read that together, certainly individuals have rights in our society, groups have rights in our society, but certainly the general interests of the public cannot always be subordinate to what one group wants or a small minority wants,

When the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) says that the public of this province is all against this, I don't think that that had been by any means determined; it's his idea of who represents the public –– I think we all represent the public, and the public represents itself as well. Certainly because an editorial writer makes a statement, because some person makes a statement, because someone, who has a vested interest in something makes a statement, and because somebody makes 400 phone calls and calls that a scientific study — all of those things are up to question. There have been many of these so-called polls; there have also been referendums — called elections and full referendums — where every member in an organization has had the right to vote, and those often contradict these so-called scientific telephone surveys. And where do you do it? Would you like to do that same survey in my constituency of North Peace River? I think I could just about assure you that you would get completely different results than if you did it in the lower mainland. But are you going to suggest that the people in my constituency are not part of the public or part of the public interest? Are these the suggestions you make? Is this what we're supposed to do?

But getting back to the section: "...having regard to the public interest as well as the rights of individuals...." Reading that together seems to make eminently good sense. You get that the council shall recognize "the desirability for employers and employees to achieve and maintain good working conditions." They consider that; they consider many others as "participants in and beneficiaries of a competitive market economy." Yesterday there was a lot of talk about a competitive market economy, as though philosophically there was something that...we don't compete in the world markets; if people are not buying our lumber or grain, somehow or other that doesn't matter, and we should pass a law to make people buy our lumber and grain. We do have to compete in the world markets.

If you took the most narrow definition, as some of the opposition members have done, and said that there are examples of where it doesn't work.... There are examples of control. Certainly there is a mixture in all of our society of controls and freedom in the marketplace. But to try to take one example and say that this is what does not work.... Democracy works and it doesn't work, depending on what stage of the game you want to look at. Some people have said democracy is a very inefficient system, but I think everyone will agree that in the long run it is a very effective system. It does move slowly, and it does move not the way some people would like. Some people seem to feel that democracy is that I get everything that I want, regardless of the wishes of others. If that is democracy, obviously it can't work. But it does work, and it works in the long run.

The section further asks the council "to achieve the expeditious resolution of labour disputes," to keep that in mind, to find ways to solve the disputes as quickly as possible. Is that dangerous stuff? Further: "...and for these purposes the council shall have regard to the following purposes and objects...." If you read them all together,"securing and maintaining industrial peace...." That's dangerous stuff? That is a dangerous philosophy? "Improving the practices and procedures of collective bargaining between employers...." That's dangerous stuff? Is that what the opposition members are objecting to as a philosophy — that the council should disregard these things?

There seems to be such a strong objection to the council promoting conditions favourable to the orderly and constructive settlement of disputes...." Should the council disregard that? "...encouraging the voluntary resolution of collective bargaining disputes:" that's dangerous stuff? Is the council...?

MR. JONES: It's already there.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: So it's already there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Then what's your complaint?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Then what's your objection to it? That's what I don't understand. They say: "Well, you don't need it because it already exists." But we mustn't say it. You understand that it's there but you mustn't ever say it again. That the council should minimize "the harmful effects of labour disputes...." That's dangerous stuff? They should disregard the harmful effects of labour disputes in trying to find resolutions? That they should provide "assistance to employers and bargaining agents" that may facilitate this: that's dangerous stuff? This is what you want the council to disregard? Providing assistance to employers and bargaining agents is dangerous stuff?

When you look at all of the statements that are contained in here, in itself no statement, no law, no nothing guarantees cooperation. That has to come from the people concerned. But I find it difficult to find that the opposition says that if you say you shall try to create harmonious relations, that's wrong; that if you say you shall try to minimize the harmful effects, that's wrong; that if you say that the general public should be considered — not totally but in accord with the rights of individuals — somehow or other that is harmful, that that is a bankrupt philosophy in our society today. It's hard to understand. "To achieve the expeditious resolution of labour disputes...." And they say, they seem to make the point: "But unless you do it as we say, then we won't cooperate."

[10:30]

MR. GABELMANN: Nobody's ever said that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Isn't that what you're saying? You stood up this morning and said: "You haven't seen anything yet." If people are asked to minimize disruptions, if people are asked to try to resolve disputes voluntarily, if people are asked to use what assistance there is, somehow or other that is evil? And when you hear the debate here about how damaging and how detrimental all of this philosophy is in today's society, I really don't understand whether we're debating, or the opposition is debating, some other section.

So how do you counter the people who say: "We will not cooperate. There is no way we'll cooperate with a philosophy that says the public interest should be considered, as well as

[ Page 1502 ]

the rights of individuals. We will not cooperate with the rights and obligations of the parties involved. We will not cooperate with achieving expeditious resolution of labour disputes"? You're not going to cooperate with that?

You say that that is an evil path that somebody philosophically is setting out on, to say that we want to minimize these things, we want to promote favourable conditions, we want to encourage voluntary resolution of disputes, improve the practices and procedures of collective bargaining; that somehow that is being turned into an evil objective.

Is that what the opposition are saying — that the government should say: "No, scrap all that;" that there is no intent by certain groups in our society to voluntarily agree to seek help, to use help, to minimize damage and harm, to disregard the public; that the public shouldn't be a player in this; that only those people who want to play the game shall be allowed to play the game, and the feelings and the effects on everyone else are to be totally disregarded because it might somehow or other make their power less effective?

Now really, Mr. Chairman, I think you'd probably call me repetitive, but I could read every Section in here, and it seems to me that these are good intents. Yet people are saying: "You shouldn't do it; you should scrap this." Do I then, by inference, assume that the members of the opposition are saying that these are that objective? Because somebody says: "Some group says we don't care about the public interest. We want what we want, and in whatever way we can get it." And if a group chooses to use illegal activities to accomplish their means, that's okay? Is that what they're saying?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No one on this side of the House, and no one, has said that people don't have the right to strongly state their views in opposition to this. No one has questioned that. They may state their views, but are they allowed to counsel people to break the law? We all have the right to state our views. Somehow or other the opposition members will not come out and say it's okay to tell people to do illegal things. On the other hand, they say it's not okay for the government to say you should not do illegal things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, minister, your time under standing orders has expired.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I have a very few comments in response to the Minister of Education's statement. I'm going to be as restrained and dispassionate and low-key as I possibly can in these remarks, because I too am fearful that the level of acrimony creeping into this debate, and rising, is not desirable.

When the minister says, again and again,"I really don't understand," I believe him. That indeed is the predicament: the minister has decided, for reasons best known to himself, to ignore the points that my colleagues and I have been trying to make. Let me then, as quietly and carefully as I am able, explain what we have been saying about the public interest and about the other clauses in this bill. Let me, if I can, explain why we in the opposition do feel as strongly as we do about this section.

First of all, the public interest. The point we have been making is that you do not serve something called the public interest by taking a percentage of the public and directly discriminating against that sector or segment of the public. The public interest in general is not served by punishing a minority interest within the public. To suggest that the public interest is some large abstract concept that isn't made up of individuals who are the public is simply ludicrous. To carry on as the minister does and suggest that we on this side are somehow enemies of the public is, frankly, unfair. I want to stress in the most powerful terms I can that we on this side are resentful when that suggestion is made to us.

More to the point, though — because I think that is a debating point –– I think the Minister of Education knows full well that he is really treading on rather shaky ground there.  I think it is a debating point that he is raising. He doesn't believe what he's saying to us about public interest and our willingness to overlook....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, I know the member is trying to be restrained, but I don't think he has the right to say that I don't believe what I'm saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is, in a sense, an imputation against the minister. However, I think we'll just let the member stand and continue speaking.

MR. LOVICK: The converse, of course, is back to the statement I referred to earlier when the minister said: "I really don't understand." Perhaps that is the imputation I ought to be making.

Let me try to explain the problem I'm referring to by a reference to a concept. The concept, which I'm sure members opposite are familiar with, is called the straw man argument. The straw man argument is simply fallacious reasoning in which one sets up something that the other side is alleged to have said so that one can then knock it down. It is thus called a straw man; easily destroyed, easily blown away. That, I think, is precisely what the Minister of Education has done in discussing this section of the bill, and indeed others from the other side as well.

What has been said again and again is that we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition do not agree with points (a) through (g), that we simply don't accept those points. The fact of the matter is, of course, that we have said on a number of occasions that we don't have difficulty with those things. The problem, however, again as we have said on numerous occasions, is that the words that are being used are unfortunately contradicted again and again by the evidence, by the reality.

Let me pursue for a moment a specific case. What I suggested the last time I spoke to this measure, Mr. Chairman, was that when the people opposite tell us that the purpose of this legislation is to secure and maintain industrial peace and to further harmonious relations between employers and employees, behold, they discourse like angels. The problem is, however, that their actions give the lie to precisely those words; that's the problem. What the minister continues to do is to say: "Well, if you don't believe our words, if you don't believe these marvelously noble and high-sounding sentiments, then you are somehow opposed to those noble and high-sounding sentiments."

We are saying, on the contrary, that the sentiments are fine, but the actions you have undertaken in the name of those

[ Page 1503 ]

sentiments are, frankly, totally contradicting those sentiments. If anybody on the other side of the House can tell me for one moment.... Point of order? I yield.

MR. HEWITT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are in committee. We are dealing with section-by-section and the interpretation of those sections. The member opposite has said that the opposition is in agreement with that particular section. Those were his words: "We are in agreement." The debate is getting somewhat tedious and repetitious, and I would hope that the Chairman would try to keep these members on the debate on sections, not the principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The member will proceed, please, and will try to direct his remarks to the section.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always good to hear from the member opposite, who is, of course, a modem-day rendition of Erskine May.

My point, of course, is that the words that we have are wonderful — at least in the majority of those sections we don't have difficulty with. The problem is, as I suggested, that the actions undertaken by this government thus far, and other parts of this bill, effectively present us with an absolute and perfect contrast to and contradiction of these very words. That's the issue.

Let me touch also on the business of the market economy that members opposite continue to refer to, and suggest why that particular phrase is one that we are concerned about. I tried to explain that the other day by explaining what the market economy was, and why it is that trade unions feel apprehensive about their role in that economy. Let me add a little more to that that might indeed clarify matters for members opposite.

The market economy classically defined is one in which the market operates more or less freely, sans restraint, with forces of supply and demand doing what they do in an interaction. The problem with that, of course, is that it assumes, any economic textbook will tell us, a relatively equal play between supply and demand forces, and it assumes a self-correcting mechanism. If the supply is too great, obviously the demand will match it and therefore everything will level out. The predicament we have with labour, as a component within an economy, is that, frankly, it doesn't fit the supply-demand model. It doesn't fit comfortably into the market economy.

For instance, does anybody for a moment believe that there has ever been an undersupply of labour since World War II in North American society? Has there ever been a time when we have had not enough workers and therefore workers can demand really high wages and so forth? It has not been the case, because our economy and modem industrial economies have developed to the point where systemically there is always going to be an oversupply of workers. Always will there be an oversupply of workers, and every technological advance and every improvement of the industrial process we make exacerbates that problem.

Our difficulty is.... And it has been talked about by economists for a very long time. The most famous one is Leontief — the productivity paradox — who said: "Our problem is we can produce more and more, more efficiently, but with fewer people." The predicament we've got in terms of managing a modem economy is: what do we do to generate sufficient work for people? That is the fundamental problem we have in managing an economy

All right. When we talk about a market economy satisfying our demands, we are dealing with a supply of workers that is permanently, perpetually, systemically too great to function in the marketplace. The pressure will always be downward on wages and working conditions. Of necessity, therefore, workers must combine as unions, as organizations to protect their interests. When workers look at this bill and they see that ideologically enshrined in the preamble to this section of the bill is the furtherance of the competitive market economy, what other conclusion can they draw than: "We workers are threatened"? They have every right, logically and fairly, to draw precisely that conclusion.

[10:45]

My suggestion to the minister is simply that if you want to wave the proverbial red flag in front of the proverbial bull, talk to workers and unions about a competitive market economy. They are not stupid people; they know the limitations of a market economy. They know about the abundance of supply. They know that it has been perpetual, that it is systemic. They know that they are threatened by the competitive market economy. It is just that simple. That is the kind of principle that we have been trying to argue and enunciate for the benefit of the members opposite. That is what we have been trying to tell people like the Minister of Education is the reason why we are exercised and concerned about this particular bill.

It is not the case that all of those minor subsections of the thing necessarily cause us problems. However, they cause us problems insofar as that what we see in other parts of the bill — indeed, throughout the bill — are measures that effectively go against the philosophy enunciated in those subsections. Secondly, there is that reference to the market economy which, as I have tried to explain, is sufficient in and of itself to scare people and make them say, "Over my dead body!" or words to that effect. That, I think, explains precisely why it is that workers are prepared to withdraw their services, to lose money and to lose status and esteem within the community, and so forth, by taking that action. People never go off the job except as a last resort. People don't go on strike happily. That is simply a myth; it is simply not true.

I hope then, Mr. Chairman, that those few remarks will perhaps clarify for members opposite why it is we feel as we do. I will leave it at that.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the tone of the House was set this morning — that you referred to as being very sensitive and very difficult — by the member opposite, who was accusing me of effectively accusing my former deputy minister of lying. Well, I certainly disagree with that position by the member opposite. I disagree that there is not an opportunity for anyone to take a position that may be contrary to someone else's understanding of what happened. I am not suggesting that Mr. Leslie lied, nor am I ever suggesting that Mr. Leslie would lie. I am suggesting that Mr. Leslie's interpretation of what was going on is different from mine, and I believe that he firmly believes that. I resent the member opposite making even that suggestion. As again I refer to Mr. Leslie, I respect his privilege of differing, just as I respect the opposite members' privilege of differing, and I believe that in fairness the members opposite should respect my privilege of differing.

The whole tone of this thing seems to be the predictions of doom and gloom. Quite frankly, we on this side, and I

[ Page 1504 ]

certainly, have a brighter view of the future of British Columbia. I think that future includes a very strong and vibrant trade movement. It certainly is a requirement that we have a balanced legal framework, including our labour legislation, which allows for the process of economic growth and allows jobs to be created, while the individual rights and so on of groups are preserved.

The critics have been taking a very narrow view, in my opinion, of section 27. They keep reading the expression "competitive market economy" out of context. I suggest that the reference is clearly related to achieving and maintaining good working conditions. I think the word "achieving" in itself clearly points to improving working conditions, and "maintaining good working conditions" points to preserving working conditions where they are good. I also believe that nothing in the words that we have put in Bill 19 can be reasonably construed as a mandate to make working conditions worse.

Again, I resent the inference that I was accusing my former deputy of lying, because I certainly would never do that, as I would never do that with members of the opposite side. I do give them credit for what they are saying, that they believe to be true. I do reserve the right to disagree with their opinion of what is true.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, may I first comment on your earlier comments about good temper and moderation. I agree that that would be very appropriate. That good temper and moderation may not exist in our society today, as a result of the government's activity, but I agree that we should try to maintain that good temper in here, and I'll do my best under what I must say is severe provocation.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The government Whip can laugh, but I don't think we've been in a crisis of this kind in this province in our history, and I firmly believe that. A crisis of apparently similar magnitude occurred in Canada in October 1970. It turned out not to be the case — the apprehended insurrection that was being talked about by the Prime Minister. We have similar accusations and charges being made by the government here as were made by Trudeau in those days.

Members may laugh or decide that they don't want to treat this seriously, and that's their choice. History, I guess, will be the judge.

The minister was saying that I was wrong in my charge that he said yesterday that Graham Leslie lied when he made his allegations about a two-track process. I want to quote from the minister's words: "In Mr. Leslie's letter here, he is making a number of assumptions that are just not the case. He is suggesting that there was a Bill 19 drafted, and that when we had completed the tour, that draft was what was presented. That is just not true."

Now when I hear somebody tell somebody that something isn't true, I can only conclude that he is suggesting that an untruth was told.

MR. HUBERTS: That's false logic.

MR. GABELMANN: That's false logic! Mr. Chairman, he's the guy who wrote the letter to the Premier for the minister to sign. He knew what was going on. The minister suggested that what Graham Leslie said in his letter to the Premier.... The minister said it was just not true.

First of all, there's a technicality here that the minister may try to use to wiggle out of. The minister has redefined what Graham Leslie said in his own words. The minister's words are: Leslie "is suggesting that there was a Bill 19 drafted." Those are not Mr. Leslie's words. Mr. Leslie made different charges. Mr. Leslie suggested that there was a process going on that the minister was unaware of; it was a two-track process. I'm suggesting that I would have to be unparliamentary, or I'd have to say that Mr. Leslie is a liar. I have only those two choices. The minister is suggesting that Graham Leslie was telling an untruth. I just find it reprehensible that.... First of all, I don't understand why the minister hasn't resigned long before now. I don't understand how he in good conscience could live with what he has been asked to do. However, that's for his conscience, I guess. Easily bought, I guess. I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman; I suppose that's not appropriate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. member for doing that. May I also suggest, or could I request in the nicest possible way, that we have allowed quite a bit of latitude with respect to the conversations regarding the previous deputy minister, and perhaps we could get back to section 18, the section of the bill which is under debate in committee at the moment.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to comment on one other thing at this stage, and I have some other comments to make a bit later. I want to comment on one other thing. The minister said, and I wrote it down — I hope accurately — his words from a minute or two ago: "Nothing can be construed in this section as making working conditions worse." We're making the argument that this is a philosophy of the bill, this section. The philosophy of the bill is here; the philosophy is put into law in other sections of the bill.

In his report to the Premier, the minister, among other things — and I don't believe this final section of his report was actually his report; I think this was what was written after he discovered the bill was written behind his back.... But nevertheless, in his report he suggested in recommendation number 43:

"The often unique problems of the construction industry should not be addressed by legislation at this time but should be referred as soon as possible to an industrial inquiry commission which should be required within a reasonably short time-frame, and after full consultation with all affected parties, to make a report with recommendations as to how the problems of the industry might best be resolved by legislative or other means, having always in mind the overall public interest."

I'll repeat that first sentence: "The often unique problems of the construction industry should not be addressed by legislation at this time." The minister a few minutes ago said: "Nothing can be construed as making working conditions worse." If workers in the construction industry, who have been protected by union contracts, no longer have the protection of their union contracts, their working conditions are worse. I doubt whether anybody on that side of the House would want to argue that. The pay is worse, their safety provisions are worse, the enforcement of simple rules —

[ Page 1505 ]

workers' compensation rules — are worse, the benefits are worse, the hours of work are longer, and on and on.

But the minister says, in response to our debate, that nothing can be construed as making working conditions worse. Yet the philosophy and objectives of this bill are so overwhelmingly in favour of the rights of the individual, as stated in the preamble to section 18, and the competitive market economy, that it's therefore essential that a de-unionized construction industry exist in British Columbia, and as is evidenced by later sections which we'll discuss as we move along in this debate.

I don't think the minister.... I go back and forth. I can't decide whether he doesn't understand what he's doing here, or whether he does understand what he's doing here and what he tells us is a smokescreen for what his real intention is. I can't decide between those two alternatives.

[11:00]

I know what the Premier's objective is, and that's to put the rights of the individual over any collective rights that they may wish to adopt or choose. In the construction industry, in 25 months, there will be no longer any collective protection — 25 months from the time of proclamation of those sections. So the rights of the individual to act as individuals, not to act collectively, will be enshrined, and that's what we're talking about in this section.

I want to, as I said a moment ago, make some more technical points in a minute or two, but I'm going to allow the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) to make a couple of comments first.

MR. WEISGERBER: I'm only going to speak for a few minutes, but I want to say, first of all, that I'm really concerned about the level of debate that started yesterday and is continuing today. I really think we're going in a direction that most of us hoped this debate wouldn't go.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want you to know and I want the House to know that I was offended yesterday by the points raised by the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) and the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), trying to tie this legislation to some fascist legislation. Somebody has pulled out some stupid little quotes and.... You could probably quote from almost any speech ever given on labour relations and tie it into this bill. That's been followed by this nonsense we've heard today about who lied and who didn't lie. I think we're going nowhere, and I wish we'd quit it.

I guess the only other point I wanted to make was that we've heard this morning that nobody agrees with this legislation, that everybody's against it. That is not true. You have only to spend an hour or two in my office listening to the phone calls I get, not only from South Peace River but also from Nanaimo — and if you would like the names of several groups of people who phoned me and who felt uncomfortable because they didn't feel represented in the Nanaimo area, I'd be happy to give you the names; not employers, by the way, but employees. My only point, Mr. Chairman, is that there's considerable — and I consider it overwhelming — support for this legislation throughout the province, and I'm getting tired of listening to the nonsense from the other side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, I would remind the hon. member who just spoke that the Chair recognizes the right of everyone in this chamber to stand and speak. But we should all be reminded — once again — that this morning we are speaking to section 18 of Bill 19.

MR. CLARK: I'll tone down my remarks, given the Chairman's direction. But I find the remarks we just heard offensive. Where else in the world is there a general strike that all these foreign investors will be looking at? South Africa maybe? Chile maybe? Argentina maybe even? And British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Well, that's where the general strikes are coming from in this world. You decide. The public can decide what kind of legislation this is. But 300,000 people have decided.

I want to deal briefly, on section 18, with two points raised by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) — it's too bad he's not here. He said that the public supports this bill. The last member who spoke said the public supports it. This gets to the heart of a question about the act, regarding the definition of public interest, which we hear about in this legislation. How do you define "the public"? If I did a poll in the Peace River district, no doubt I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people supported Bill 19. Do a poll in my constituency, and I guarantee that the vast majority would oppose this legislation.

The fact is that the public interest should be defined by this Legislature, by all of us. We're here representing the publics of British Columbia. That's not a monolithic.... Roughly 300,000 people went out yesterday; 300,000 people gave up a day's pay to protest this legislation. That's a lot of people, but it's not a majority. There are other people who support the legislation. That's the difficulty in defining the public interest in legislation, and allowing an unelected bureaucrat or the cabinet or the minister to define what they think the public interest is. The public interest should be decided by all of us here, who are elected from our various communities in this province. That's always been the way. The final arbiter of labour disputes has been this Legislature. If it's felt, under very exceptional circumstances, that the public interest is jeopardized, then as a collective we decide to intervene. That's where it has always resided in a parliamentary democracy; that's where it has resided in British Columbia.

This bill fundamentally alters that principle. It says that the public interest will be decided, first, by an unelected person and then, secondly, by the Minister of Labour — according to his amendments. That's a fundamental difference in the way we do business. It means that the definition of the public interest is up to those individuals, and not up to this group as a whole. I think that's a very important point that's been missed in the debate, and it was missed by the Minister of Education when he alluded to the fact that it is difficult to define the public interest. This body here should be the arbiter of the public interest — that's what we're elected for — not an unelected person, not the cabinet and not the Minister of Labour.

The second point I want to deal with very briefly, a very good point made by the Minister of Education, is that you have to read all of the section together. That's the point the Minister of Education made. He said that we're only emphasizing one or two points. But if you read it together, that is what is so frightening from our point of view and from my

[ Page 1506 ]

point of view. If you read the "competitive market economy," together with the notion of expeditious resolution of disputes, and read that together with the extraordinary powers of Ed Peck, what you're saying is that the purpose and objective of this bill is to have the Industrial Relations Council defend a market economy through strong state intervention. If you read them all together — the market economy, expeditious resolution of disputes — and give those powers to that individual, and then of course to the Minister of Labour, then you're saying that the purpose of this act is to intervene to defend the market economy in British Columbia.

That means, as Mr. Leslie and all kinds of other objective or management-biased people have said, the deunionization of the construction industry, which we will see with this bill. This bill says that the state will intervene to ensure our market economy. That's the role of the legislation. If it's perceived that it's beneficial to have a deunionized construction industry, then this bill allows intervention to ensure that it takes place. We know that's going to happen. Objective observers have said it's going to happen: we're going to see no more construction unions, certainly not nearly on the scale we've had. Members opposite might think that's a good idea. They might think it's the way a market economy should work: we have to ratchet down wages to be more competitive with the Asia-Pacific, or whatever the theory is.

That's what this bill does when you read them all together. When you read them all together it is very significant: state intervention to defend a market economy and to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes. That is the heart of this legislation, and that's what we find so offensive.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I would like first of all to refer to the comments of the hon. member for South Peace River (Mr. Weisgerber). I would just say that any one of us standing up in this House and deploring the level of debate does not in any way indicate that that individual has somehow achieved the appropriate level of debate. I don't think standing up and saying those words really contributes to the total exercise that we're involved in here, which is a debate to try, using the best of our ability on both sides of the House, to come to terms with this most important issue before us.

I can understand feelings rising in temperature, and I can understand the fact that we are having experiences in this House at this time that cause all of us concern, because obviously the feelings are very deeply held. That is granted and accepted.

I understand that a lot of the discussion this morning has been around the words that are contained in this section, section 18, which gets us back into some of the principles of the bill. As we hear the discussion on these words, one of the things I have heard here this morning is that there are some words that we would say are good and some that we would say are not. For instance, I understand that clauses (a), (b) and (c) are taken right out of the Code. I don't find myself necessarily disputing those sections that were already in place, functioning well and fulfilling their purpose.

So it's appropriate that we would be looking at this section and asking what in this Section is giving the particular stamp of what appears to be the underlying philosophy behind Bill 19. For instance, in the second line it refers to rights of individuals.

MR. HEWITT: Are you against that?

MR. CASHORE: I am not against the rights of individuals, but a question is raised once you insert that in there. Surely, by implication, the very nature of what we're involved in, without ever having to entrench it in law, is that we're all individuals, and the exercise of government is to find a way to take the individualism of all of us — all the strengths and weaknesses, all the diversity — and make of that the best that can be made for the collective good. So the nature and purpose of legislation is to find ways to take — which is a fact that does not need to be written — and write into law those ways in which we as a people can collectively do that which is necessary to make our society function and work.

This really betrays the mindset of this government, which is a drift towards the cult of individualism, and I dare say that if we continue to drift in that direction, it will not be beneficial to the people of this province. Such a drift is unnecessary. Putting a word in here does not, by virtue of putting that word in, achieve the intent that you have.

So the public dialogue and the public debate are happening. Very precious and special people in British Columbia are speaking out. They are trying to find ways to make their voices heard, as they see hard-won collective procedures being endangered and jeopardized by this process.

I would also point out that when we look at the language, in two places — once in the preamble and once in (e) — we have a reference to "labour disputes." Now this point has come up before in this debate. I won't dwell on it, but again it reveals the mind-set of this government when it refers to disputes as labour disputes. I don't think I have to spell that out for you, in terms of that being an unbalanced statement; in terms of it being a statement that doesn't take into consideration the realities that should be considered if it seems necessary to put that word in there.

Looking at the language a little further on, we find the phrase — and I understand this is a new phrase — "as participants in and beneficiaries of a competitive market economy." Now I don't see this government, in all of its defence of a competitive market economy, taking measures to deal with other ways in which the competitive market economy is being impacted. I was at hearings of the Canadian Senate this morning with regard to the changes in the Canada drug patent act, and I found there a very powerful lobby. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada has put forward with great success a strong position with the federal government, asking for the kind of controls within a free market economy that would protect what they feel is their interest and their rights. So much for a competitive market economy.

What kinds of measures is this government taking to make sure that moneys that should be circulating here in British Columbia are not allowed out of the country through a hemorrhage that sends the financial resources of this country into areas where investment is in exploitation of Third World labour and that sort of thing? I'm not calling for that at this point, but I don't see the balance in this legislation that would affirm the point of fairness that I think this government would like to say it is about.

[11:15]

Also, we see the reference to "securing and maintaining industrial peace." Again, words. What is the industrial peace that has resulted from the current procedures this government is involved in? By putting words, just as the member for South Peace River (Mr. Weisgerber), by getting up and saying

[ Page 1507 ]

that he deplores the level of debate.... Those words aren't going to do anything about that — putting those words into this legislation. The words you are choosing seem to be having an effect which is opposite to the one you say you desire. Industrial peace does not seem to be the fruit of your action, and industrial peace, I believe, is something you would like to see achieved.

I think we are at a situation in this province with this government that.... We really have run into a problem with trying to save face. I would say that history has shown that when governments have shown the ability to back off and make wise decisions, in view of inappropriate legislation, they have always come out of that with greater support than they expected. To be able to admit that you have erred would be a very human, reasonable and understandable act at this time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just make a few comments on a topic that has been discussed quite thoroughly during this section, and that is the whole issue of dissent. It seems to me that a large area of the debate has been on what is the role of dissent, and indeed we have seen come before us that which it would appear is designed to prevent dissent from happening. I would like to say that I think that one of the healthy parts of a democracy is dissent, the opportunity to be involved in dissent. I would like to say that while I see my role here today to be fighting against this bill, and I saw that as my role yesterday, I have a great deal of admiration for people who go through difficult decision-making and decide that the time has come to stand up and be counted. I do not think we can say that those people who from time to time disobey the law are people who are always wrong. If we were to say that, I am sure we would recognize that we would be denying a very special part of our history.

So I would like to say that I am proud to know that Martin Luther King was involved in some of the actions that he was involved in. I support that and I admire that. I am pleased. I think we have all benefited because there were those people who violated the law and refused to go to the back of the bus. I would submit that the only way in which we ever really get a perspective on that is in another generation, when history is written and history is judged.

Therefore I find it unfortunate and regrettable that two of the references that were made yesterday were references in which some members of the government side believed that the connection was being made between this government and fascism. That was not my interpretation. I would like to say, and I say this in a congratulatory way to all sides of this House, that one of the things we really cherish at this time is that we are able, because of the freedoms we enjoy here in this House and in this province, to look into the pages of history and to see there the warnings that are there for us to take from times when we have been close to the brink in history. Those times that were quoted were times when I dare say we went over the brink.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I want to conclude with a statement and with a quote that comes out of that era of history, and this is in no way intended to make that connection. But it is a warning, and I think it is an appropriate warning. I think it's the kind of warning that puts into context what many of us are trying to achieve when we are talking about the grave situation that has developed in this province as a result of the legislation that is before us.

The point has been made many times that it is a grave situation. and we need only think of Graham Leslie and him referring to this as legislative violence. Now I would like to close with this quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller. Pastor Niemoller symbolized resistance to those forces that would oppress, and I think that it's, a warning for all of us. He said:

"In Germany they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Mr. Chairman, what we are about in this House at this time is speaking up, and I congratulate this House that we are here and have the freedom to speak up. We are simply participating in a time-honoured process. We are speaking up because that is what we are here for, and that is what we should be about, and that is what we are about in this debate.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to just make some closing comments on section 18. Yesterday afternoon just before we adjourned, I had begun to make some comments about some particular wording in section 18 that talked about the rights of the individual, and I made the point that individuals have rights under this act but have no obligations and that rights properly belong in human rights legislation. That's where individual rights should be protected; if you are going to bestow rights upon people, then you also have to expect some obligation from them.

That's an argument, interestingly, that the members of that side of the House made repeatedly during the debate on the Human Rights Act, which repealed the Human Rights Code. Their point then was that we on this side of the House were too willing to provide rights without expecting responsibility and obligation. That's a legitimate point, and it was a valid point during that debate. But here, in these amendments, individuals are being granted rights but no obligations. While the legislation doesn't pass or fail on that point, I think it's an important point.

I went on to talk about the Section in this amendment that refers to the effect on third parties. Clearly, whenever you have a dispute that can't be resolved without lockout or strike action, there's going to be some effect on third parties. It would be a rare dispute indeed that did not have some effect on third parties. I was making the point that that effect needed to be considered not just for the time-frame in which it occurred, but also over a longer period of time, that the public interest or the effect on third parties needed to be viewed within some short-term historical perspective and not just that of events of the day. I made that point in reference to the 11 years of difficulty, to put it mildly, that existed between the Pulp and Paper Bureau and its member unions. I think that came from a short-term public interest decision made in 1975 that led to all kinds of long-term negative effects on public interest.

When the public interest is being considered under this legislation, it has to be considered in terms of the dispute itself. All of this, of course, is derived from the IWA dispute last fall. In the view of the government, the public interest was being affected in a way that required some resolution, and this they think will provide some long-term resolution.

[ Page 1508 ]

Of course, the irony of all of this is that the public interest is so badly served by this legislation, because it will create more disruption, not less. But that's an argument for another time.

The effect that parties can have on third parties is often the only power they have. Increasingly, with this legislation, we're going to have situations where the potential damage to a third party — which might be the public, or it might be a narrow part of the public — is the only real way that a trade union will have of surviving — not just of getting a collective agreement, but of surviving.

Here we're talking about small unions, particularly in the service sector and in small industry, where the pattern will become the pattern that existed in the late sixties when we had that whole series of disputes that were lost because the strike was scabbed and the striking workers eventually, after a few years, just gave up the ghost. It was for that reason that Bill King introduced section 70 of the Labour Code, which was the power to impose first collective agreements, a power which still remains in this bill in an altered form. Interestingly, section 70 was never used; but it was for that reason.

Without the use of that section we'll find that because of the effect on third parties, Mr. Peck will be required to act on orders from the government, and we'll find a situation that will have two kinds of effects. In the larger disputes we'll have a situation where the bargaining power is taken away by other sections of the legislation. And we'll find in the small disputes that there is no bargaining power and that the situation of five or six people walking a picket line has no effect on the public interest, and therefore that their interests — their rights as individuals — don't matter. They'll walk the picket line for years until they finally give up the ghost. That's not an overstatement; that's just a quiet understatement of the way this legislation is going to impact upon people.

I find it interesting that there is great concern among people in our society about labour withdrawing its services, but very little concern when capital withdraws its services, when capital goes on strike. When we were government, the mining industry didn't like some of our legislation. They may have had cause, in some instances, for their opposition. So what was their response? Their response was to go out on strike. Capital went on strike. Investment dried up. There was no outrage from the public. There was no call from politicians for legislative action to enforce capital back to work. We wouldn't dream of doing that. We wouldn't dream of insisting that capitalists invest where we tell them to invest or in the way in which they should invest. We put constraints on the development of a project, of course — environmental law and all kinds of other constraints. But we don't say to them, in basic terms, that the province, through law, is going to decide when, where and how you invest. We wouldn't dream of doing that. Yet the parallel is that we not only dream of doing that same thing to workers; we do it constantly. I admit that there aren't precise parallels. There never are in drawing analogies of this kind. But it's a parallel that has some merit. It's a parallel that's believed by a lot of people out there. It's for that, among many other reasons, that people feel there's an imbalance in our society.

Other people suggest that there's a greater detriment to their public interest when the price of bread, milk or gasoline goes up. There's no law that says that the people increasing the price have to justify it and that if they can't justify it to their customers, they have to go before some tribunal where a decision will be made about what the price should be. No, because we live in a free enterprise society, in a limited way.

We don't say to price-setters, to business or to providers of services that we will interfere with the process by which they establish prices. There was a weak effort in the mid-seventies to move in that direction, but it was designed only to try to present some pretended balance in respect of the wage controls being implemented by the federal government. We don't interfere in those ways with capital, pricing or a whole variety of other elements of our society. But we do in respect of labour again and again, and now we are intent on institutionalizing it. If anybody wonders why people react the way they do, they need only think about some of these kinds of things, apart from all of the other things that need thinking about in this legislation.

[11:30]

I could go on for some time on that, but I won't. I think that it's time to move on in the debate.

I want to talk about the wording in this Section in respect to expeditious resolution of labour disputes. The words "effective" and "voluntary" are taken out from the existing Code. It previously read that.... I'm sorry, Madam Chairman. It's hard to do this on your feet. I haven't marked that point in the act. In any event, what was said previously was that there needs to be effective, voluntary and expeditious resolution of labour disputes. By taking out the words "effective" and "voluntary," you change entirely the focus of the act and the governance of the act. By taking out these words, you open the door to what was commonly referred to in the old days as the injunction mills, on one hand, where injunctions will be the normal course of events in labour relations, bringing it back into the courts. You also, of course, allow therefore for massive interference by the government's agent, the IRC, by taking out the word "voluntary."

I think those are important and significant changes to the legislation. To say that labour disputes need to be resolved and then use "expeditious" as the only qualifier, leaves an impression and a requirement that it must be done quickly by whatever means. You don't qualify it by saying voluntary, and you don't qualify it by saying effective. By doing that, I think you create a situation in labour relations that will lead to the kind of chaos that we have predicted on this side and others in the community are predicting will occur.

I was also going to deal with the term "public interest." Public interest, of course, has been in the language of the legislation since 1974, but heretofore public interest was defined by this Legislature. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) made that argument very capably, very well indeed — the best I've heard it made. Public interest, in the final result, would be defined by this Legislature.

Now the public interest will be defined in most part by one individual, non-elected, and in some parts of the process by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, and presumably on occasion by cabinet, not by this Legislature. I don't believe that public interest can be defined either by Mr. Peck or the minister or the cabinet without reference to this Legislature. The government clearly represents a narrow segment of public interest. It had 49.5 percent of the vote, so clearly it represents less than a majority of the public, and presumably it will govern on the basis of that support; and presumably, therefore, that so-called public interest will be defined on that basis.

More than that, there is no option or opportunity for the public to feel that their position has been put forward in the debate about what is the public interest in a particular situation. If the public interest required in the past that this

[ Page 1509 ]

Legislature take some initiative, people might feel badly about it, might oppose it, but at least they knew they would have an opportunity to have it debated in here. Now that process happens secretly, either in cabinet, the minister's office or in the IRC office. It happens secretly, without debate, and as a result, leaves people with a feeling that they're disfranchised.

I think, Madam Chairman, that I will leave discussion on section 18 at that point. By itself, the section would not destroy industrial relations in this province, but taking its philosophy and implementing it in other parts of this bill will destroy free collective bargaining and any opportunity for sound industrial relations in this province. For that reason, we oppose it as strongly as we can.

Section 18 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 35

NAYS — 15

On section 19.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to section 19 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, we have the minister again, in introducing either sections or amendments, not telling us why. I think it would be appropriate if the minister would give us an explanation of this proposed amendment.

[11:45]

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, the amendment simply makes it clear that interim orders will not be made without each party having an opportunity to be heard. There was a certain amount of concern being voiced that the council's ability to make interim orders, but not ex parte, was simply that.... There was a requirement for notification of the various members that an order was being considered, and because that was a concern registered, it was considered appropriate that it should be made very clear that the order that could be made would be...so that there was an assurance that all parties had an opportunity to be heard; and also that the board would be considering that if it was a matter of urgency, the council may, after giving each party to the matter an opportunity to be heard, make an interim order. So there is a bit of a change in the wording, in that where the council considers it a matter of urgency...and also to ensure that all parties to the order have an opportunity to be heard.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, when I started this process I had made up my mind that I was not going to make comment about the minister and his abilities, because I thought we should try to deal with the words of the bill and keep this debate on a rational level that didn't resort to comments about the capabilities of individuals in this House. But clearly the minister does not understand his own legislation, or chooses to obfuscate — one or the other. If it's the latter, it's disrespectful to this House, and if it's the former, he should give up the job and let somebody do it who knows how to do it.

This section of the Code — section 28 — is "hearing of complaint." It was written in the way it was written a dozen or so years ago because of the problems with ex parte and interim orders. We'll have a debate about that when we get to the main motion, because the minister, in proposing the original amendment, which we are now amending again, wanted us to return to the days of interim orders without hearings. But he at least said no interim orders shall be made on an ex parte application.

In other words, no interim orders shall be made without both parties being present, not at a hearing necessarily, but at a discussion about the advisability of making an interim order. Now we have an amendment, introduced eight days ago, that eliminates the ex parte nature of the restriction on interim orders.

Why do we get this amendment? Was this amendment requested in the discussions that the government held over the last almost nine weeks now with various affected parties? Was this request made by meetings with affected trade union groups? Was this change made as a result of representations by...who? No one.

This change was made to allow the Industrial Relations Council to make interim orders without one party being present. It is a return to ex parte interim orders. You get around it by saying: "...the council may, after giving each party to the matter an opportunity to be heard...." So you say to the parties: "We are going to have a" — you can't call it a hearing, because it is not really a hearing — "discussion at the council offices tomorrow morning about the advisability of issuing an interim order on this particular application. If one party or the other doesn't show up, they've had an opportunity."

So clearly this amendment was designed to deal with a suggestion by the labour movement that they would boycott the Industrial Relations Council and this legislation. That is all this amendment is about. I don't understand why the minister did not stand up and say that. The only reason for the amendment is to allow the Industrial Relations Council to issue interim awards, even though both parties may not have been present at a discussion about that interim order. I call it an award, order.

What prompted the amendment? A suggestion that the trade union community could not live with this legislation

[ Page 1510 ]

and could not work with it and would boycott it. I want to take a few minutes to talk about the issue of a boycott, because that is what this amendment is all about, nothing else, even though the minister didn't have the ability or courage to say so in his comments when I asked him.

The House Leader thinks that's too strong. Madam Chair, I withdraw that impugnment of the minister's ability and courage. But it's troubling when the minister introduces section after section and amendment after amendment without detailing why they're being introduced, and when we ask him to detail why, he gives us a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, which he reads, first of all, and which doesn't have any connection whatsoever to the question.

As I said when I started this, I had intended not to make imputations about the minister, but we really need to recognize that this is the man who is going to be charged with administering this law. We know the Premier's level of comprehension is so shallow that he can't possibly do the administering of it.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I really feel that what you just said is not parliamentary. I wonder if we could deal with the clause itself and not personalities.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right, Madam Chair. Quite often accurate comments are unparliamentary, and I withdraw it.

I want to talk about the philosophy of this question of a boycott, and the government's attempt to evade the boycott, by talking about a fundamental principle in a democracy: that you cannot govern without the consent of the governed. Democracy cannot survive when you have laws that govern people who do not consent. It's a fundamental, philosophical....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: But the majority of people in British Columbia are not governed by the Labour Code or by the Industrial Relations Act. The Industrial Relations Act governs the relationship between management and trade unions. An overwhelming majority of the people who are affected by this act refuse to be governed by it. You cannot survive in a democracy when the governed do not consent. I don't just want to assert that; I want to make the odd comment about that point.

Abraham Lincoln, no socialist he, although he was the one who talked about the rights of labour superseding the rights of capital, believe it or not, back in the 1850s and early '60s, in an 1854 speech in Illinois — I say Illinois because I can't pronounce Peoria, but that's where he made it....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: This wouldn't fly in Peoria.

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." This law governs men and women in this province without their consent. Abraham Lincoln suggested, and he's absolutely right, that you cannot do that. The Minister of Labour, the Premier and all the men and women collectively of that cabinet are not good enough to do that.

The Declaration of Independence, 80 years before Lincoln's comment, 211 years ago, said that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." The implication of that is that any powers they take without the consent of the governed are unjust.

Winston Churchill, no socialist he — no flaming trade unionist, either — in 1949, if my memory is correct, when he was the opposition leader in Great Britain, said: "You have the famous American maxim that governments derive 'their just powers from the consent of the governed"' — which I just read. "We both noticed that the world was divided into peoples that owned the governments and governments that owned the peoples." I don't know, but I suspect this may have been his Iron Curtain speech; I haven't had time to do thorough research. He says, in talking about this fundamental principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed: "We both noticed that the world was divided into peoples that owned the governments and governments that owned the peoples."

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It doesn't say.

On which side of that curtain does this government fall with this legislation? I think anyone who understands the principles contained in this concept will recognize that you have fallen on the wrong side of what Churchill described as an "iron curtain" on that issue, and it's not the democratic side.

I want to make one final quote on this issue, and it comes from a quote made in 322 B.C. Aristotle, in a work entitled Politics: "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." One of the founders of modern political thought was expressing a fundamental truism.

What is the government, in Aristotle's word, that we're talking about? It is the governing or the government of labour relations in this province. Can anyone in this House honestly say that those who are going to be governed by this law consent to it? They may not agree with it; they don't have to like every component of it; they may fight vigorously against certain provisions; but if at the end of the fight they feel that they've had a fair shot and they agree to try to live under it, that's one thing.

But when, as is the case today in this province, labour is saying that it cannot live by this law and it will not be governed by this law, the law from a philosophical sense, from a test of democracy, fails and should not be proceeded with. That is fundamental, and if the government doesn't understand that, then it understands nothing. This amendment, as I read it and as people affected by it read it, will allow employers to seek interim orders, or for the Industrial Relations Council to make interim orders without the presence of the people affected by the order.

[12:00]

Didn't we have enough of that kind of legislation during the sixties in this province? Didn't we have enough chaos as a result of ex parte injunctions? Didn't enough people go to jail for violations of ex parte injunctions in the sixties, some for as long as a year in this province? Haven't we learned from that history?

Doesn't that government understand that by being vindictive, that by being as partisan as this, by failing to recognize that the governed must consent to the governing, that they are leading us into an abyss that will take years and years for recovery?

[ Page 1511 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, before I forget — I've got a problem with my memory — I would like to ask leave now for the special committee to appoint an auditor-general to sit while the House is sitting later on today.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

19        The Hon. L. Hanson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 19) intituled Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 19, by deleting the proposed section 28 (5) and substituting the following:

(5) Where an application or complaint is made to the council under this section and the council considers that it should be treated as a matter of urgency, the council may, after giving each party to the matter an opportunity to be heard, make an interim order.