[ Page 9601 ]

The House recessed from 6 p.m. to 6:37 p.m.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to take this opportunity to inform the House that we will be sitting tomorrow. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and then Aboriginal Affairs. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 26.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading continued)

S. Hawkins: Just before the supper break, we were debating the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 26. The amendment now reads that this bill be hoisted for six months. I'm pleased to speak on the amendment to put the bill back for another six months.

Before I give my reasons, I just want to perhaps make some comments on some of the things that the Minister of Labour spoke to before the House broke for supper. He said that the government had done their job, that there was no reason for this bill to be hoisted for six months and brought back at a later date. He said that for the last year the government had done their job and that they had consulted people and that they had brought back a bill that was going to be widely accepted by the general public, workers, business and job creators.

Well, I don't think the minister has been listening. He certainly hasn't been listening in the last few weeks; he certainly hasn't been listening in the last few months; he certainly hasn't been listening for the last year, if that's what he believes. What I've been hearing -- and I've been hearing mostly from this side of the House -- is a lot of opposition to this bill. If there is so much support for this bill, then the members opposite should get up and tell us who's supporting this bill, because we haven't heard that. In fact, yesterday we were debating a motion on whether this bill should come back. We didn't hear from one of the government back bench or any of the cabinet ministers on why this bill should come back -- not one. We heard from the House Leader, but we didn't hear from anybody else.

He says they've done their homework. Well, we ask: "Where's the economic impact study?" Part of the reason we think the bill should be hoisted and brought back at a later date -- if that's indeed what should be done -- is because this government did not. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: The Minister Responsible for Northern Development says we're wasting time. You know what? They're wasting time. They're wasting businesses' time; they're wasting workers' time; and they're wasting the time of this House by bringing this bill forward. When this bill was dead and in its death throes, they're the ones that brought it back.

You know, we have been listening to those that have been closely affected, and we're bringing their concerns forward in this House. The minister says we're wasting the House's time when we bring the voices of business, workers and job creators into this House for this government to finally hear what they're saying. They have failed to listen in the last year, because if they had listened, they wouldn't bring this bill forward.

The minister also said that a lot of the people that are opposing this bill are anti-union -- they're anti-union, and they're unreasonable. Well, the people that are opposing this bill have been forced to try and get their message through to this government. They've been forced to run ads to try and get this Premier's and this government's attention.

I have before me now an ad that ran in the paper a few weeks ago. It says: "Premier Clark" -- or Premier; sorry for using proper names -- "listen to B.C.'s job creators; stop your changes to B.C.'s Labour Code." Here's all the anti-union groups that the Labour minister referred to, that he characterizes as anti-union. These people that he characterizes as anti-union are the people that create jobs in this province: Association of Canadian Travel Agents -- gee, real anti-union; the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada; B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association; B.C. Automobile Dealers Association; B.C. Chamber of Commerce; B.C. Horticultural Coalition; B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association; B.C. Restaurant and Food Caterers Association; B.C. Shake and Shingle Association; B.C. Trucking Association; Building Owners and Managers Association; Building Supply Dealers Association; Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C.

Just a few of these. . . . You know, I'm reading them. These are all the people that this Minister of Labour failed to listen to, and now he's saying: "Well, they're only speaking up because they're anti-union." Here's some more: Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association, Canadian Retail Hardware Association, Canadian Steel Service Centre Institute, Council of Tourism Associations.

I have difficulty buying the minister's argument that these associations are all anti-union, but that's what he says. I wonder who he listened to. He said that the government took a year and listened, and that's why they brought this bill back. They listened, and they said that it had the support of people in the province. Yet I've listed off at least a dozen major associations and groups in the province that are job creators, business leaders and investors in this province, and they're saying no. They're saying no to Labour Code changes, to Bill 26 and to this government. They're saying: "Pull this bill."

Another thing I heard the Minister of Labour say which I thought was kind of funny. . . . He was saying that the opposition and a lot of these groups are running around saying that the sky is falling. You know, you're saying the sky's falling. You're fearmongering. You're running around and spreading misinformation about the economy and why the government should bring this bill forward: the government should bring the bill forward because it's not going to hurt the economy. They're saying it and they don't even have an economic impact study to tell us what it's going to do to the economy. He says that the official opposition and the business groups are spreading misinformation. He says that all this misinformation and bad news about the economy is coming from ill-informed sources. Well, I think the last time I spoke to second reading, I quoted from the Hongkong Bank newsletter. I don't know, maybe the government thinks they're an ill-informed source, but it's also the bank that this government gave a huge, whacking tax break to. Why would they give a tax break to the bank that they think is ill-informed? We can deal with that later, I suppose.

[ Page 9602 ]

[6:45]

This isn't the official opposition's document; this is a document by a very credible group. This is the information we're using to warn this government that what they're doing is going to significantly affect the economy negatively. Under "Mining," it says: "The mining industry has also suffered under the weight of an overburdensome tax and regulatory regime." Under "Business Confidence," it says: "The continued erosion in business confidence was evident in surveys of attitudes conducted in late 1997. In addition to re-emphasizing the problem of high imposed costs and overregulation, a large proportion of respondents to an Angus Reid survey expected economic conditions in the province to deteriorate." This is an Angus Reid survey done on people in the province. It goes on to say: "There was little interest to invest in B.C. and that a growing number of Vancouver Board of Trade members polled expressed their intentions of moving their businesses out of the province." This is in black and white. It says: "Significantly, these views extended beyond the natural resources sector, representing a broad spectrum of corporate interest. Flagging business investment has been a drag on the economy over the past few years and appears poised to continue that role over the foreseeable future."

That's not very encouraging at all for the economy. The authors conclude this report by saying: "British Columbia finds itself in troubled waters. The economic performance over the past three years has been one of the weakest among the provinces, in contrast to an above-average growth rate over the first half of the decade." Now the government members opposite should listen very carefully. "Government policies have exacerbated B.C.'s decline in fortunes. Excessive taxation and an overburdensome regulatory regime have severely damaged business prospects. With little chance of these policies being adequately addressed in the foreseeable future, business confidence has deteriorated sharply and led to a concomitant sagging in business investment." It really doesn't sound like the economy is in too healthy a state.

This report was written by Stanley Kumagai, an economist for the capital markets department, and Allison Jones, who is a research assistant for the capital markets department.

I must say right off the bat that I am supporting the amendment to hoist this bill for six months, but the question here is: should this bill go forward? I submit that the bill should not go forward. Why shouldn't the bill go forward? We're seeing evidence of significant problems in the B.C. economy. We're hearing from investors, workers and business people around the province that they are concerned that any tinkering or toying with any part of the economy -- changes in the Labour Code, more burdensome taxes or anything -- is going to put us over the brink of recession. What this government doesn't understand is that the people that are warning this government are the ones who actually work in the economy, who actually drive the economy, and who actually want this government to listen, because they're the ones who are going to make it or break it out there. This government doesn't seem to understand that. They don't seem to listen to the people who are actually driving the economy. What they're saying is that they're concerned.

We have seen this Premier have well-publicized and televised photo shoots around meeting with the business people in the province in the last six months. We saw front-page stories of how this Premier was listening to business. Well, he didn't hear. He must have had earplugs on, because what business said was: "Don't touch the Labour Code." And what did they get in the first six months of this year, as soon as the House came back? They got slapped in the face with a labour bill that they thought they had put to rest last year, which they fought vehemently last year, and which they find themselves fighting again this year. If this Labour minister can stand up today and say that there's wide support for it in the province, how come I'm seeing huge banners on construction sites when I'm travelling around B.C.? In fact, there's a banner over my office.

My landlord has a building that is commercial downstairs and residential upstairs, and he is telling me that this labour bill is going to damage his business and that he's not going to have work for his workers. We know that construction starts are down. They're certainly down in the valley.

An Hon. Member: Tell the truth. Tell the truth for a change.

S. Hawkins: The Minister of Northern Development says: "Tell the truth for a change." Well, you know what? I am telling the truth. I challenge him to stand up and tell the truth. I tell you, the kind of business confidence that's been eroded by this government. . . . When this government got elected in '96, they ran ads that said they had a balanced budget. You know what? They talk about telling the truth. They ran ads that advertised a balanced budget, and within a week of putting in those ads, they were forced to tell the truth. They were forced to tell the truth because they got caught; they got caught big-time. What did we find out? The budgets weren't balanced. That is the kind of negative investment confidence that we're talking about. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, member. Take your seat for a moment. A point of order?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe we're debating a hoist motion, not something that happened a few years ago, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, member, with that note.

[ Page 9603 ]

We have business communities, coalition groups, that are trying to run ads to get this government's attention. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: They say it's fearmongering. Tell those business communities that are running the ads.

So what does the government do? Instead of sitting down with these companies and trying to listen to them and getting their concerns from them, they run ads themselves saying why this bill is going to be so good for B.C., when they know that the job creators are saying that it's not good for B.C. They're saying it's not good for B.C., and this minister is saying that we're fearmongering.

Well, you know what? Here's fearmongering. Angus Reid did a survey in the summer of 1998.

This government has to deal with public perception. They have to because they are supposed to be serving the public. That is what we're all here for. It doesn't serve the public to not tell the truth about budgets. We've seen this government not being able to balance the budget in the seven years that they've been in power. That does not give any investor or business confidence; that doesn't do it at all. This government needs to listen to the people.

Angus Reid did a survey, their summer survey. Do you know what they found out? Their quarterly survey said that jobs has shot back up the public's priority list. It's joined by general concerns with the provincial economy. This is a survey done by Angus Reid, and it says that jobs and unemployment and the economy don't meet the B.C. public's issues agenda for the summer quarter, 1998. A third of those surveyed mention unemployment -- jobs -- as the number one issue for our political leaders.

If this government were so concerned about the workers, they would listen to this. The job creators in the province are saying: "This is a bad bill. This is a bad bill for workers. It's a bad bill for business. Government, listen: pull this bill." We've already lost thousands of jobs this year. We know that Alberta and Washington are just rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of this government bringing in changes to the Labour Code, because more jobs are going to go to Alberta and Washington; they're going to leave B.C. We know that already this year, 107 companies have left B.C. They've changed their head offices. People, the general public, are getting that message. They are concerned about jobs and the economy, but this government isn't. They are in severe denial for some reason. They just don't get it.

What's really sad is that when we do survey these people and listen to the results of the survey, we find that there are a lot of people who are very, very concerned, and they don't they feel that things are going to get better under this government. In fact, they see their prospects getting worse, and that is really discouraging. I guess what is really sad, when we have a public that is this discouraged and is worried about jobs, worried that the economic prospects are not going to get better, is that we have a government that is going to bring in legislation that will make it worse. It just boggles the mind.

I'm going to read, because the Minister Responsible for Northern Development doesn't seem to think that my words carry any weight; for him they're not convincing. . . . You know what? I'm getting tons of mail, and none of it -- can you imagine this? -- is fan mail for the government. I just brought a few letters from my office, and I hope I get the opportunity to read more. I'm sure I can go back to my office and get some more. It's interesting, because these are constituents of mine. These are businesses; these are the job creators. These are the people the government should be listening to. They feel they haven't been listened to, so what I'm going to do is read from some of their letters.

I think it's important. This minister is saying, "Tell the truth," so I'm going to read letters from constituents who actually create jobs and drive this economy. And I'm going to tell. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: I hope the minister listens, because he's awfully yappy over there. If he wants to. . . . I haven't heard very many of them get up today and defend their bill. In fact, I saw that none of them got up yesterday when we were debating Motion 50 to reinstate this bill. I saw that none of them got up yesterday to defend their bill and say why it should come forward. Today, when they have had the opportunity to stand up and speak to their bill, very few of them have taken that opportunity. Why is that? Is it because they really can't defend it? Is it because they really do owe favours to the big union bosses? Is it because they're getting whipped, and told: "Just get that bill through and get your butts out of there"?

I think that's what it is, but here are reasons why this bill should not go forward. I hope the minister is listening.

An Hon. Member: In your own words, try to. . . .

S. Hawkins: It doesn't have to come in my words. I speak for my constituents, and I think that the best way to get their concerns across is in their words. These are words that they sent to the Minister of Labour and to the Premier. The first letter is from Mr. Sherwin Goerlitz. He's the president of Acorn Homes in Kelowna. He wrote this letter on June 3, 1998. I'm not going to read all of it; I'm just going to quote from bits of it. He writes to the Minister of Labour.

I have to say something first. I remember the minister and a lot of the members getting up there and saying: "These are all anti-union people. They are big, bad business. All they want is profits." That's such a dirty word. "They don't look after workers."

[7:00]

"My company, Acorn Homes, is involved in residential construction in the central Okanagan area of Westbank and Kelowna. I have 22 full-time salaried employees and over 150 subcontractors that help us to build 80 to 100 homes per year. Every month I sign cheques totalling $800,000 to $1 million to pay for labour and materials in the projects we are building.

"I believe that the proposed changes" -- now listen carefully; I hope the minister is listening, because this is in his

[ Page 9604 ]

words -- "will adversely affect my business, causing me to close down and move away to a place where we will not be penalized for being an entrepreneur. Several others have already gone, and this option looks better every day. The B.C. economy is already the worst in all of Canada, and when you add this burden to the already sinking ship, it will wreck us."

You know what this big, bad businessman that the government talks about did? You know what this big, bad businessman did? Well, last weekend I had the privilege. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: No, listen carefully. I hope you're listening. I had the privilege of going to the opening of a Habitat for Humanity house in Westbank. Do you know who donated the land -- worth $80,000, I believe -- for this Habitat for Humanity house for an impoverished family? It was Mr. Goerlitz in Acorn Homes who did that. What a bad man to have in my community.

You know what? I don't agree with the government. I think they're wrong. You know what? I am proud to have Mr. Goerlitz in my community. Do you know what he did? He donated a piece of land in Shannon Lake to an impoverished family of five -- three kids; the middle one is handicapped. The Reynolds family moved into this beautiful home because of Mr. Goerlitz's big heart. And he wants to continue business in the Okanagan; he wants to continue employing people there. He wants to continue being a philanthropist there, and I hope that we can keep him there. I'm proud of people like this in my community. I am proud to say that he lives in my community. I'm ashamed that this government doesn't listen to people like this, because here is somebody who is a contributor to the community. Here is someone that we can be proud to say is a good corporate citizen -- an excellent corporate citizen. I hope the minister is listening.

Here is another one to the Labour minister. This is from Brian Tostenson, in Kelowna again. On May 25, 1998, he said:

"I operate a small business in the construction industry in Kelowna, B.C. In this business, I employ six employees. I am writing to you to express my concerns regarding proposed changes to the Labour Code, as I believe they will significantly affect my business."

"My business is not restricted to residential construction only. Approximately 50 percent of my business is in the commercial sector as well. I am concerned that the proposed sectoral bargaining provisions of the new Labour Code will draw my company into a process where I will no longer be able to freely negotiate the wages and benefits of my workers, given the unique circumstances of my company."

"I am writing to express my opposition to the changes to the Labour Code proposed in Bill 26. This legislation will further hurt our province's ability to attract investment in jobs. As a business with $400,000 invested in this province and responsible for the creation of five jobs, I urge you to withdraw Bill 26 immediately."

Here's the Lake Okanagan Resort -- Bill Collins, who's the vice-president and general manager of Lake Okanagan Resort. He wrote to the Premier: "As a business with hundreds of thousands invested in this province and responsible for the creation of 120 jobs. . . ." He urges the government to withdraw Bill 26.

I love this letter, because it's written by a mother. And you know what? I hope the minister isn't saying she's a liar before I even read her letter, because I have a lot of respect for this lady. Theresa White writes to me -- or sends me a copy. . . . She wrote to the Premier; she sent me a copy. I was very glad to get it. On June 25 she wrote to the Premier and said:

"You're the minister for youth. You say you care about the future of the young people of British Columbia. We challenge you to show that you really do care. Your messages and actions have been pushing job creation away from this province. Bill 26 is a sorry example of words that promise help to working people while the reality is that working people will be hurt definitely and seriously. You are proposing to lay backbreaking burdens on businesses that are trying to keep people employed, and you are not listening to them or lifting one finger to help them.

"We have five children in university and high school and would like them to be able to stay in B.C. to live and work and raise their families. Not only our children but hundreds of thousands of young men and women need a healthy, stable economic foundation. You have been elected to give them that much."

Deputy Speaker: Thank you hon. member.

S. Hawkins: I am pleased to be able to speak to this; I'm sure I will again. I support this amendment to hoist the bill for six months.

V. Anderson: The Labour Relations Code Amendment Act 1998: we've been here before. We were here in 1992 discussing a labour code. We've been discussing it ever since. We had Bill 44 last year, which was brought in and then wisely taken off the order paper. We would like that the government be wise once again and take this off the order paper. Though it is only a portion of Bill 44, it still has in it the same principles that concerned people right across the province about the previous bill.

It is interesting to go back and get a little history, because if we try to understand where we are at the moment and why there is a concern about Bill 26, we need to understand the definition of those who are covered by the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, we are speaking to the amendment.

V. Anderson: I am speaking to the amendment, hon. Speaker, but in order to understand why the amendment to hoist the bill for six months is in place, those across the province need to understand what it is that we want to hoist and why it is that we want to hoist it -- so it can have further consideration.

[ Page 9605 ]

We have principles here which have to do with the construction industry labour relations. I want to remind ourselves and the public listening what the definition is of the construction industry labour relations group of people. Simply, this is the definition: ". . .the employers and employees engaged in the construction, alteration, decoration, repair or demolition of buildings, structures, roads, sewers, water or gas mains, pipelines, dams, tunnels, bridges, railways, canals or other works. . . ." That's not a minimum part of the labour force of our community; that's a major part of our community.

That's why this bill needs to be thought of in relationship to all of those areas of the construction industry, because its long-term implications affect each and every one of them. That's why there needs to be an opportunity for the principles of this bill to be taken out to each of those sections of the construction industry, so that they can understand them.

We recognize in Bill 44 that the intention of the principles of this bill went even further. This present bill -- and let's be honest about that -- is not intended at the present time to cover those industries which deliver supplies and materials to a construction project or a routine maintenance work. But those were covered in Bill 44, so we ask ourselves the question: what is the reason why these two sectors are left out? Is it because the government has changed its mind, and the principles which it would apply to all of the groups in Bill 44 no longer are proper to apply in those sectors? If it's true that it's no longer proper to apply them to the delivering of supplies and materials or to routine maintenance work, what has changed between Bill 44 and Bill 26? And if it's changed for those two facets of the economy, perhaps it also should be reviewed and changed for the other areas which are still being affected by the bill.

People wonder why -- in the government, at least -- we're concerned about promises that are made and introductions that are brought forward without the details that we would have. One of the writers in a recent newspaper article commenting about government actions asked if we had understood a basic principle that children and youth learn in their physics classes: that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. We're concerned about that in this bill, because that has been concern again and again about the activities of this government. We found it when they wanted to restructure the health program in B.C. They did a whole major restructuring of the health program, and it was a fiasco. So they stopped that fiasco and they started a new restructuring of the health program, and they had to stop it again. They're now on their third attempt at restructuring of the health system.

They've done a whole host of restructuring in the forest system with the Forest Practices Code, and the forest industry is going downhill.

They did a restructuring in education. They did away with school boards in some areas of the province and amalgamated them into new school boards which they felt would be more efficient and effective. So what do we have but the government having to take over and interfere in the negotiation between teachers and school boards, and on the agenda of this Legislature, legislation enforcing an agreement between school boards and the teachers which over 80 percent of the school boards have voted against.

[7:15]

"[1.] original ministry goals for integrated service delivery were sound;

"[2.] objectives of service improvement and integration became confused with the ministry's financial management objectives;

"[3.] inadequate attention was paid to labour relations and human resource implications;

"[4.] insufficient attention was given to transition and implementation planning;

"[5.] consultation of clients, their families and service providers was not adequate."

Then the minister states: "I acknowledge the concerns contained in the report, and I am committed to finding more efficient and consultative ways to deliver integration services in line with our number one priority." So effective immediately, as of this day, is the discontinuing of all that they had been doing: ". . .discontinuing contract and program restructuring as undertaken to date; contacting all service providers to discuss contract extensions to September 30, 1999. . .reviewing all situations where a successful proponent has been announced through the request for proposal process, but contracts have not been signed; [and] withdrawing all outstanding requests for proposals."

This is just another reason why we're concerned about the kind of legislation that is brought forth by the bill and why it needs to be sent back for consultation and review.

They said that they had done consultation and review about Children and Families, about health and about education. They had not -- or at least if they did, they didn't hear and understand what people are saying. That's what we're discovering. They have not now, in whatever consultation they may have undertaken for this labour bill, been able to hear or understand the concerns of the people in the community.

They don't understand that their own principles are not being applied. Let me suggest the principles that are the government's principles. They go back as far as 1990, to an NDP labour policy statement, even before they became government in this province. One of the principles of the NDP labour policy was: "The development of new legislative initiatives will include strong efforts to build consensus between the parties involved and affected." There is no consensus now in labour-management construction. There's been relative peace until this legislation, Bill 44 and Bill 26, was brought forward. Since those two bills were brought forward, there has been no consensus in those industries.

"A policy of pre-collective bargaining between management and labour should be promoted, while minimizing inter-

[ Page 9606 ]

Another one: "Cooperation between labour and business in workplace issues and in economic planning is only possible if there is equality between the two." That equality needs to be found by the two groups themselves, working together to discover it. When those groups come with a common presentation to the government, then the government will be in a position to respond to them.

Those are the principles that were put forward in 1990 by the NDP, but they're not the principles which are being applied in the current situation. From the same press release: "New Democrats recognize that a key element of success in developing a long-term economic strategy for British Columbia is the ability of labour and management to work together in a stable and neutral environment." We have anything but a stable and neutral environment. There is a lot of fear out there among employers and employees, because the economic environment is not stable. It's been going downhill, as the previous member speakers have indicated, and this government has not responded even to its own principles. But we might say that sometimes there's a difference between the principles of the party and of the legislative arm of that party. If so, I'd remind us of the principles of the Labour Code that was passed here in this Legislature in 1992: ". . .to encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues, adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity."

As was pointed out, this legislation is not a modern adaptation to modern economic circumstances. It's trying to put an outdated process onto a sector of the economy which it did not even fit in the first place. It's been well demonstrated that the changing times and circumstances in the economic situation of our province must be taken into account. It's been acknowledged that you cannot have one-size-fits-all for all of the construction areas in our province. A recent study of the Labour Code and its effect was done by a legal firm: "The big fear for a construction employer is that they won't have much say in negotiating an agreement that's specific to their company. . .under the new rules, a small construction firm in Prince George building a minor project may come under the same collective agreement as a big-city firm building a megaproject." That's another reason why this needs to go back for review for another six months: so that the government has the opportunity to consult with people all around the province and to take into account the variations that are to be found there. They can also consult with big and small companies, with employees and employers working in a variety of those situations, and come up with some kind of flexible legislation, rather than rigid legislation such as they have here. This amendment takes out the rigidity.

People need to review the statement at the beginning of this legislation -- if they're aware of it -- that a union now is a group of employees representing one or more employees. That was one of the structures in Bill 44 as well: that a union is one employee. It's not very hard to have a consensus if there's only one of you; it's easy to get a majority. It's easy to vote as one person and have a majority, but that's not the kind of process that was undertaken historically by labour unions.

One of the purposes of the 1992 Labour Code was "to minimize the effects of labour disputes on persons who are not involved in the dispute." Others were "to ensure that the public interest is protected during labour disputes [and] to promote conditions favourable to the orderly, constructive and expeditious settlement of disputes between employers and trade unions." Well, if you take the negative point of view, we might say that that one's being fulfilled, because it says that you don't have an opportunity to decide yourself; it's all predetermined and pre-mandated.

But that's not the intent of the principles that are here, so we say that this must go back to be re-examined. It needs to go back and be re-examined because of its effect on the attitudes of people in our province and around the world. Representatives of our government have been travelling to China, Japan, Korea and many places around the world, and they have promised that there would be flexibility and opportunity in Canada for them to come and work, or to employ others to work in a climate that is free, open and democratic. But when they come here, they find that's not what is available to them. They find that there's a burden of taxes: corporate taxes, income taxes, user taxes and consumption taxes. That's the context at which they look, and they go away. Even those companies who come to invest in B.C., having tried it for a while -- some even for 30 or 40 years -- are moving out of province. Just this last year, at least 107 companies have moved out of the province, going to Alberta, to Washington State, to other places in Canada and overseas. Hon. Speaker, this is a grave concern which has been with us for a long time.

In the climate in which we now live, these labour changes are a threat. They are a threat not only because they do not help the employer or the employee but also because they have added to the growing belief and understanding that B.C. is not a good place in which to do business. It isn't that they don't want to come here. Many of those people would like to come and live here because of B.C.'s climate, its scenery and its beauty. They'd like to come here, but they are afraid because of what has happened to so many others who came and had to leave.

[7:30]

"We are an open shop general contracting firm who has operated in the lower mainland for the past 15 years. As a business owner, I have great difficulty in understanding your perceived need of changes to the Labour Code."

He goes on to say:

"It is quite apparent as one reads the documents and listens to the news reports, that the need for changes did not arise from the construction industry as a whole but from a specific group of people deeply involved in trade unions. I strongly urge you to seriously consider stopping the passage of this bill for the simple reason of it being to pay back the trade union movement, and not as a result of a troubled labour force. Passage of this bill would, once again, put the provincial government in blatant conflict of interest. Stop this unnecessary bill before all business owners and investors lose total confidence in the province and its government and withdraw their funds."

[ Page 9607 ]

That's why we say that this bill needs to be sent back for consideration. It needs to be hoisted so that people have an opportunity to read it, to understand it and to deal with it. That's not what this government is about. This government is about putting forth principles no matter what they do to the people of our province. All the way across our province, our low-income people are finding their life more difficult. Just today we're hearing about a woman, a widow, who suddenly had to go on social assistance. At 54 years of age, she gets $500 a month. When she pays her rent, she has about $50 a month to live on. That's the kind of thing that's happening in our province, and it's not acceptable.

They took away the democratic right of people to vote on a final contract. That needs to be reviewed as part of this legislation. That right needs to be put back into the Labour Code, rather than further rights being taken away with forced union agreements. The people in a company, the workers and the employers, have earned the right under legislation to come together and discuss with one another how they are going to work in any given community. They need to be able to do that with each other under fair representation.

The government has promised to reduce red tape, but every time they begin to reduce the red tape, the regulations that come in to reduce it increase it. When Gove did his study of the care of children in our community, he found that there were eight levels of bureaucracy that either the top rank or the bottom rank had to work through to deal with each other. They brought in an integrated process to correct that. As a result of the integrated process, the latest report is that there are now not eight layers to work through but 16. That's the kind of change that this government brings about, and that's the fear that we have with this Labour Code: that that same kind of change will come about.

We must take into account that there is uncertainty and fear across our province. As we've travelled across the province, we've found that the previous legislation that this government has brought into being dealing with unions and the non-profit sectors has destroyed many of those sectors and frightened the people within it. It has not only destroyed the non-profit sector. More importantly, it has destroyed the services that those sectors were providing to people in the community -- to senior citizens, people with disabilities, children, single parents and the unemployed. It's that kind of wholesale destruction of the social fabric of our community which is a concern among the people of our community. This is just one more plank in that destruction, and that's why it must be sent back for review. That's why it must be reconsidered.

There are better ways to do it than trying to do it in the Legislature. One could set up a committee of the Legislature. One could set up a group which is unbiased politically, or has fair representation politically, to travel the province and hear. . . . We have discovered that where there has been a common approach, there has been a better result.

Hon. Speaker, I support the motion to hoist the bill for six months.

D. Symons: I too rise to speak to the particular motion that's before us, because we do need the government to rethink the advisability of more changes to the Labour Code. The motion says: "That the motion for second reading of Bill 26 intituled Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, be amended by deleting the word 'now' "-- meaning it's going to be read now in the House -- "and adding the words 'on this day six months hence.' " That motion is referred to frequently, and has been by members in the House this evening, as a hoist motion, because it has the effect of putting off the bill until either six months from now or until the House meets again in another session.

It is important that we reconsider the contents and the effect of this particular bill. The minister has characterized the bill as rational and modest. Yet it will impose a master union contract on the non-residential construction industry, creating a powerful and unprecedented tool for unions -- unions that, I might add, have quite handsomely financed NDP election campaigns in the past and probably, if they get this bill through, will do so in the future.

In the bill itself, under the heading "Purposes," it says: "In addition to the purposes referred to in section 2, the purposes of this Part are to (a) achieve orderly collective bargaining in the construction industry." Well, hon. Speaker, for the last decade we've had reasonable quiet, as far as labour unrest goes, in the construction industry. So it seems peculiar to be bringing in a bill now, when there have been relatively amiable relationships in that industry for the past decade.

The bill continues: ". . .(b) establish a labour relations environment conducive to skills development in the construction industry. . . ." The problem with that is that, first, the government has brought in a variety of legislation. They have the Build BC Act and so forth -- all of these things that require employers working on government projects to indeed do skills training. Many other businesses also do that of their own volition, but certainly it's required for any government project. The situation in the province of British Columbia today is that, in a sense, we're getting people out there that have the skills -- at least in the construction industry -- and the real problem is that we don't have the jobs for them to use those skills in. So I'm not too sure whether this particular one is going to help the job situation. Unless the work is there, the skills are not that valuable to the workers. There are probably more workers now with skills than there are jobs for them, and this bill isn't going to help that situation.

The next part says: ". . .(c) facilitate the implementation of multi-employer and multi-trade collective bargaining for craft bargaining units within ICI construction." That's industrial, commercial and institutional construction. That is the nub of the bill, and that's the problem most of us are having with this particular bill. No matter how you say it -- and indeed, in introducing the bill the minister kept repeating that this is not sectoral bargaining. . . . Well, if what I just read isn't sectoral bargaining, I'm afraid that neither I nor the minister knows what sectoral bargaining is.

The labour climate in the province has been quite good, as I said, at least until last year. What happened last year? We had a fight over the proposed changes to the Labour Code,

[ Page 9608 ]

In late July of last year, the Premier announced that they would not proceed with Bill 44 -- not because it was flawed, but because they had not undertaken the proper consultative process. The NDP then appointed two committees. One was the construction industry review panel. The other was the section 3 committee. Section 3 refers to section 3 of the Labour Relations Code, which provides a review process for the Labour Code.

The two committees made their reports public in February of this year. Among the many recommendations, the section 3 committee suggested more research regarding the Bill 44 successorship provisions and the rejection of the return to the secret ballot for new certifications. We referred to that during our discussions of Bill 84 of '92. They also recommended research into a new cooperative approach to labour-management relations in B.C. Well, this bill is not doing that. The employer community rejected any changes to the Labour Relations Code on the grounds that they would further erode our economy. That's the point many of us have been trying to make during the discussion of this particular bill. On the other hand, the trade unions rejected the section 3 report, because they felt it did not go far enough. We're finding that we're having some real contradictions in how people interpret Bill 44 and its subsequent recommendations.

[7:45]

The construction industry review panel concluded that the lack of trust and cooperation between the two sides was detrimental to our economic growth. It also recommended that no changes be introduced at this time. Judging by the reaction to the latest round of proposed changes contained in Bill 26, labour-management relations are as poisonous as they have ever been in this province over the last decade. Even before the bill was introduced, there were press releases out of Kelowna that representatives of the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council went to nearly 200 businesses threatening to boycott their stores if they didn't support the pro-union legislation.

Tom Sigurdson, executive director of the council, was quoted as saying: "We're not going to take a back seat this time." I suppose that has more to do with this particular government's determination to bring this bill forward, because they're being pressured by their union supporters to do so. Sigurdson's use of that phrase "this time" was in reference to the fact that the withdrawal of Bill 44 last year was seen by the union, or by that particular sector of the union movement, as a cave-in to business interests.

Contrast that with the strong message the government received from business representatives when they met with the Premier and his aides in February, in the series of business consultations designed to reverse the province's negative investment image. What came out of that? Well, the business groups were not happy with the introduction of the new changes, and the lengthy analysis by law firm Heenan Blaikie wouldn't cheer them up. Their report concluded that the changes to the code are "designed to, and will, make organizing easier for the building trades unions, they will limit the flexibility of collective bargaining arrangements and they will entrench the craft organization of construction work." None of these results are good news for employers in the construction industry in British Columbia or, for that matter, for consumers of construction services.

Employers in the construction industry fear the changes to the code will make it possible to improvise a collective agreement reaching from big construction firms in Vancouver to small operators in Kelowna and smaller communities around the province. It appears that those fears are well founded. The fight over the Labour Code is extremely significant. The unions are determined to force the government to honour its commitment to enact changes, while the business community is saying: "Not one more change; enough is enough."

In the past, the business community has provided weak opposition to changes in the Labour Code. This time they feel it has hit the wall. There will be no reconciliation. Regardless of which side people are on, the animosity will result in less growth and fewer jobs in the province. That is not good. That is sufficient reason right there that we should say: "Let's hoist the bill for six months."

I ask, is it worth it? Can we afford to take the chance that Bill 26 will further affect investment in British Columbia? I think not. Therefore the motion to hoist the bill -- to effectively put it on ice -- is the best course of action. If Bill 26 were to pass, it would poison labour relations and reignite the fears that business and investors had last year.

If you look at investment across the country, B.C. gets primarily about half the investment dollars that other provinces in Canada are receiving. Why are we getting a smaller proportion of investment in our province than we have in the past? It's simply because Labour Code changes have taken place here, and this government is perceived outside of British Columbia by the investment community as being anti-business. This particular bill will not help that perception.

At the introduction of this bill, our leader asked how many companies have to flee this province before this government figures out what it has done to the B.C. economy. Actually, he used slightly more flowery language than that. I've toned it down a little bit, but the concern was there. When will the government wake up to the fact that their changes to the Labour Code and their way of running this province is driving business out of the province and driving investment away from the province? We're losing jobs as a result of that.

What has this government done to our economy? Well, for one thing, the provincial debt is up from $17 billion to over

[ Page 9609 ]

It is the wrong time to tinker, no matter how minor the government might claim that these changes might be, with a labour code. Businesses are saying that the NDP has made significant changes already to the Labour Code; they've made changes to the employment standards; and they've made changes to workers compensation -- and enough is enough.

The most amazing revelation, I think, when this bill was first introduced, was that the government had not done an economic impact study of this particular bill and its effects. They didn't do one. You would think a prudent government, before they would bring in legislation that could possibly affect investment and job creation in the province, would do a study of the economic impact of the particular legislation they were proposing. But they didn't do it. For a government that talks of the jobs they're creating, they don't seem to care to see whether their actions and policies are killing jobs.

Maybe they know the answer and don't want proof that the investment in jobs and the investments in the province might have a negative effect upon them. Maybe that's the reason they haven't done an economic impact study of this particular legislation. It speaks volumes that the government wouldn't do that, when they talk about the importance of investment and jobs in the province. They just put their heads in the sand and ignore the consequences. That's why I feel it's terribly important that we all approve this hoist motion. I'm hoping that after we've all spoken, the government will see the light and do that.

Of course, this is a government that has brought in a debt management plan. You might remember that, hon. Speaker. Of course, you weren't in the House when the debt management plan was brought in before the last election. They brought in this plan that was going to reduce the debt of the province over 20 years. Granted, they were going to take 20 years to reduce the debt from the point they got it to in just the four years they were in office; but nevertheless, they had a debt management plan. They found out the first year that they weren't quite on track, and by the second year they were so far off track that they chucked the debt management plan out. You were here for that, hon. Speaker, because that's when they brought in the son of the debt management plan. They called it a financial management plan. What the financial management plan did was remove the goalpost so that nobody could tell whether they were on track or not. That's the way this government does business.

This is also the government that brought us two "balanced budgets." You may remember, because that was being touted during the last election. This is the government that has balanced two consecutive budgets -- the one that's just passed that we haven't seen the books for yet, and the one that's coming in that was promoted in the pre-election budget address that we had in this House. Well, we found out that neither of those budgets was balanced.

This is also the government that a year ago promised 20,000 more jobs -- I almost said 2,000, because 20,000 seems quite optimistic -- with the jobs and timber accord. How many jobs have we created? Do you remember the figure? Well, it seems that we've lost over 10,000 jobs in the period where they were going to be working towards creating 20,000. So we basically have to get 30,000 -- 10,000 to get back to the word "go" and then to carry on to start on the 20,000.

Why do I mention these particular legacies of broken promises? What we have here is really going to be a question of credibility. We have to make sure that our government is credible, and they have proven fairly well by past actions, comments and so forth that much of what they have said has not come true. This government, rather than being credible, is quite incredible.

I'd like to take a look at some of the things that the Labour minister has said. He suggested that there were five criteria that we should use to test changes to B.C.'s Labour Code. But if his criteria. . . . With the reality of B.C.'s economic and labour relations climate, it's remarkable that he hasn't decided to cancel this legislation. Here are his criteria. The minister says first: "We must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplace."

Well, what's the situation in British Columbia today? B.C. has gone from being number one to number ten in Canada in terms of economic growth. We're losing investment and jobs to competing jurisdictions like Alberta, Ontario and Washington State. By driving investment away, the NDP's newest Labour Code changes will only serve to make B.C. even less competitive.

The minister says his second measurement or criterion to evaluate his Labour Code is: "We must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected." Well, I'm not too sure that that's not already the case in British Columbia. The right of workers to join union if they so wish is codified in law in this province.

The NDP has also taken away a worker's right to a secret ballot vote on unionization. That freedom of a secret ballot is one of the most fundamental democratic freedoms that we have in this country. This government that calls itself the New Democratic Party took that democratic right away from workers in this province.

The NDP's new Labour Code changes interfere with the ability of workers and employers to negotiate a collective agreement that is tailored specifically to the unique circumstances of that particular enterprise where the workers are negotiating with their employer and the employer is negotiating with their workers, not through some umbrella organization which is small part of some larger picture.

The third criterion that the minister says we must look at to evaluate this bill is: "We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." Well, we certainly have had reasonable climate stability for labour in this province, but those labour policies have helped create an unstable business climate. As a result, B.C. has experienced a crash of job-creating capital investments over the last few years. B.C.'s capital spending for 1998 is predicted to be a paltry 1.3 percent compared to 6.2 percent for the nation as a whole, 9.8 percent for Alberta, 5 percent for Ontario, 8.4 percent for Quebec, 8.1 percent for Saskatchewan and 6.3 percent for Manitoba. What was that figure for B.C. again? Oh, 1.3 percent economic growth. Listen to the figures for the other provinces. What else is there about creating a climate of stability that will encourage investment and jobs? Well, further unbalanced investments and unfriendly legislation like Bill 26 are hardly going to help that.

[ Page 9610 ]

[8:00]

I would like to end with just one more letter. We've been reading letters from various organizations that have some concerns about this, because the government tells us they've been consulting with employers and employees and so forth on the bill. This one is from the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. It's dated June 25, 1998 -- fairly recent:

"Subsequent to a special meeting today, the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association declares opposition to Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. The B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association is representative of the whole heavy construction industry, with member companies that are building trades-certified, alternate union and non-union."

"After extensive consideration, it was determined that Bill 26 as presently drafted will harm the B.C. economy, harm the general B.C. construction industry and is highly prejudicial against the welfare of the roadbuilding and heavy construction members of the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. It was determined that if Bill 26 is enacted as presently drafted, unfortunately workers in the roadbuilding and heavy construction industry will be the first to feel the negative impact through job losses, reduced total working hours and uncertainty about the future.

"The B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association is an independent association representing the interests of firms engaged in roadbuilding, utilities, heavy construction and road maintenance industries to all levels of government, the business community, the media and the public. The association is a founding partner of the Western Canada Road Builders Association and is directly affiliated with the Canadian Construction Association."

Hon. Speaker, I do thank you for the time to make these comments. I would encourage the government members to consider what we've been saying this evening and to support us in the motion to delay second reading of this bill for six months.

B. Barisoff: I too rise to support the hoist motion by my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson. I think that when my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson reviewed this and decided to bring this motion forward -- to hoist this -- it was well prepared. He knew exactly what he wanted to do. He brought it forward in the interest of trying to make it better for British Columbia as a whole.

I want to touch on a few things that I missed out on when we started second reading and get right to the nuts and bolts of some of the things that are taking place. Common sense would dictate some of the questions. How will Bill 26 improve the economy of British Columbia? I think we all know. Bill 26 will not create jobs or stimulate any kind of investment in the province. The answer is simple: it just won't. There will not be any extra investment in British Columbia.

I see here in the House tonight the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We see a lot of businesses in the agrifood industry leaving the province. It is incumbent upon me to mention that last week I happened to be at a meeting in Abbotsford which the hon. minister was also at. I think in question period he mentioned that he hadn't seen me. We were sitting at the same table. He mentioned that I, or some of the members from this side of the House happened not to be there.

A lot of the farmers at that meeting were indicating to the minister that the Labour Code. . . . This is one of the areas that has caused problems. Restrictive labour laws will cause a lot of problems for the agrifood industry. We wonder why they're leaving the province. That's why. Jobs will be lost, businesses will close, and investment will go elsewhere. Some businesses will move to Alberta, where jobs and investment are welcome. We see that all the time. We see them moving on a regular basis. We know that's true because we see a lot of it, particularly in the ministry that I'm responsible for. In the agrifood industry and in agriculture we've got lists of those moving either to Alberta or to other parts of Canada, or moving on to Washington State. Last year alone, 107 companies left B.C. for Alberta.

An Hon. Member: How many?

B. Barisoff: There were 107 companies. That's almost unbelievable, as my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton mentioned. It's an unbelievable stat to see. We wonder why they're leaving. It's things like Bill 26. These are the kinds of things

[ Page 9611 ]

Let me carry on with some of the other things that cause me great concern about Bill 26. Building permits increased in Alberta by 20 percent, but they dropped in B.C. by 10 percent. That's not a good stat to see. When we're worried about the economy of British Columbia, this government brings in Labour Code changes that are only going to make those kinds of stats worse. I don't have to go very far in my riding to talk to people who have threatened to move their businesses somewhere else. Some have operated for 25 or 30 years in the province, and still they're looking elsewhere. They're looking to Alberta, to Washington State, to Saskatchewan or to anywhere else in Canada.

I have friends whose children have gone to Alberta for jobs in the past two years. They are not going there for the climate. We saw what took place with the climate the other day in Calgary; they had that freak hailstorm or whatever it might have been. Certainly they can't be going there for the climate. We have the best climate in all of Canada here in British Columbia. But what happens? People are leaving because there are just no jobs here. It is things like Bill 26 that help drive jobs out of the province.

What is this government going to do to fix the problem? Their solution is to introduce the bill. I think that we've tried to convince them and that the hoist motion is very appropriate. It is appropriate to hoist it, have a look at it, and wait and see if the economy changes a little bit, because the economy has got to change before we can introduce labour laws like this that will actually drive more businesses away. It doesn't matter whether you belong to a union or not: if there are no jobs, it doesn't put food on the table; it doesn't feed the children out there. We support unions, and we support non-unionized workers. But from that side of the House, they seem to direct it all in one direction.

Let me quote Les Leyne of the Times Colonist. He writes that the last thing this province needs is a labour war, but: "Maybe Clark, the former ironworkers' organizer, feels the need to define himself this summer. Maybe he's desperate for something to take the heat off his government for its inept economic performance. Whatever the reason, brace yourself as a B.C. citizen for exactly the last thing your struggling, debt-ridden province needs right now."

You know, we look at these kinds of things happening on a regular basis, where people from the press, people from business and ordinary people of British Columbia are saying: "Don't do it. Just don't do it. Now isn't the time to do something like this." But what takes place with this government is that they are not listening to the people of British Columbia. For a long time they have quit listening.

They just don't seem to care what happens to most of the people of British Columbia. I think that if they're prepared to bring destructive legislation like this forward, they should call an election. Bring it to the people. See if the people want the Bill 26 type of Labour Code. Let the people decide, if they're that confident that it's the thing to do. When they mention that it's just minor and that it's nothing to serious. . . . I listened to the Minister of Labour earlier on, just before the supper hour, indicating that. . . .

An Hon. Member: Where is the minister?

B. Barisoff: I don't know where the Minister of Labour is. I think he's not paying attention to exactly what's taking place and to why we feel so strongly that Bill 26 should be hoisted. There is just absolutely no doubt in my mind that this bill should be hoisted and looked at again, maybe in the spring session of the Legislature or even later, if the economy doesn't turn. By the looks of things in the forest industry, the mining industry, agriculture -- you name it -- it seems to be getting worse rather than better.

According to a recent news release by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, this labour legislation is bad for the B.C. economy. In fact, a recent McIntyre and Mustel Research Associates poll found that the majority of British Columbians believe that the NDP labour policies have a detrimental impact on the economy. That belief is shared equally among union and non-union households. I think we should look at that from the perspective of union and non-union households. A lot of union people and non-union people know full well that what they need is a job. They don't need destructive legislation that's going to drive investment out of this province and make it so that they can't work.

Our economy is number ten in Canada and approaching double-digit unemployment; in fact, we're at double-digit unemployment for youth. I think we're at 17.2 percent, which is just unfathomable. I can't even imagine that a government that is supposedly a labour government would bring in this legislation when the economy is in the shape that it's in right now. Their agenda obviously hasn't worked to this date. Inflexible labour laws continue to be an obstacle to new investment and job creation, according to Ms. Sanatani, the chair of the coalition.

Let me quote something else that she mentions. She also states that the new sectoral bargaining provisions for the construction industry are precedent-setting because they mark the first time that mandatory industry agreements will be imposed on private sector employers. No matter how you cut it. . . . I know the Labour minister says: "Well, this is minor. This isn't really. . . . This has nothing to do with sectoral bargaining; this isn't sectoral bargaining." We're going to make everybody go by the same agreement and the same contract; it's sectoral bargaining in my eyes. I see the minister from the north there, from Skeena, is shaking his head saying: "Well, that can't be." But it is sectoral bargaining, no matter how you cut it; that's exactly what it is.

[8:15]

[ Page 9612 ]

The minister across the way was just mentioning the little industry that he helped in the South Okanagan. I can't help but respond to it, because what's happened there is that even it's having troubles because the economy is getting worse and worse and worse.

An Hon. Member: I don't mind your being unreasonable, but don't be irrational.

B. Barisoff: I'm not being irrational. This government is continuously going in this direction of making things happen that are driving businesses out of this province. You know, I think we all try to help. We all try to keep business there, but what's happening is that they're driving business away. We make the job commissioner help this small industry try to get on its feet. But what's happening? We're going downhill. It's sliding and sliding and sliding.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: Bill 26 is bad tidings.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. Thank you. Yes, hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson?

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. A point of order. The cabinet ministers who are heckling the member are becoming so out of control that nobody can hear what he is saying, including yourself, I'm sure. I'd ask you to maintain decorum in the chamber, please.

Deputy Speaker: Actually, I could hear quite well, and there was a fair amount of noise on both sides, I thought. Continue, hon. member.

B. Barisoff: I will continue on, and as much as it is. . . . I don't mind some of the heckling, because some of the things that are happening over there just indicate that we do have bad government.

Just getting on to my next point on why the member for Kamloops-North Thompson proposed the hoisting of this bill, it's simply because Bill 26. . . . It's bad timing. There is a saying that timing is everything. Well, I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that this timing could not possibly be worse. I'm saddened by the fact that the Minister of Northern Development has left the precinct for a second, because I was rather enjoying some of his comments.

The NDP is bringing in sectoral bargaining against all the advice of labour experts and all the pleas from the business community. It is unbelievable, the fact that everybody is telling this government: "Don't bring this in right now; wait. Have a look at it." The Minister of Labour says: "Well, we looked at it since last year." Bill 44 was such an outrageous bill they just simply pulled it. Bill 26 is going right along in the same direction, and you wonder why the members of this side of the House are upset? We here are for union and non-union people and for all the people of British Columbia -- all the citizens of British Columbia. We want to see this province function in a way that everybody can have jobs. But the way this government is working, we're heading downhill faster and faster.

The business community is the engine of our economy. They asked this government last year to withdraw Bill 44. They pleaded with this government: "Do not do anything else to the labour laws that would deter job creation and investment." Well, they've done exactly that. They don't listen to what the people are saying out there. They simply just keep going. It's obvious that this government isn't listening. The economy is gasping for breath, and the Minister of Labour introduces more labour changes -- another nail in the coffin. As the opposition leader mentioned, it's like pulling the life support from a dying person. It's unbelievable that this government continues along this path with total disregard for what is taking place in this province.

I sometimes wonder whether we shouldn't have a longer adjournment of the House so that the people from that side of the House can go out and see what's happening to the economy. They certainly couldn't be in the interior of British Columbia or the northern part of the province or the Island or anywhere where small business is suffering dearly. I got a call from a farmer today wondering what's happening. The cherry industry is collapsing around him. They ask the government. . . . There is no money. People aren't buying anything, and when that happens, it affects everybody. The Minister of Agriculture wonders why it affects agriculture. When there is no money to spend, it affects everybody all the way down the line. The farmers in the Okanagan can't sell their fruit because people all over this province don't have money to spend.

Keith Sashaw, executive vice-president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., doesn't think it's good timing either. We go from person to person to person; everybody tells this government it's not good timing. Let me give you a quote from him. He says: "This is the worst possible thing the housing industry could take at this time. This legislation clearly demonstrates that this government doesn't have the faintest idea how the construction industry works." Well, that is a sad commentary on what is taking place in this province. You would honestly and truly believe that the people on that side of the House would actually be spending some time looking to see what they can do: "What can we do to make the economy work?"

The Minister of Labour keeps yelling at us: "You're preaching doom and gloom." Well, it is doom and gloom.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: All we're doing is exactly that -- giving the facts. The Labour minister believes that in large part, it's perception that affects our economy. Basically, if people believe the worst, they stop spending and investing. As I just mentioned, we're already seeing that in the farming industry in the Okanagan. People are not spending; they're not buying fruit from the Okanagan. When I picked up some cherries from a friend of mine to bring down to the members on our side of the House, the farmer said to me: "We're going to be dumping fruit out of packs this year, because it's just not going. People aren't spending money. They just don't have the money to spend." But what are we doing? We're bringing in a labour bill that's going to drive more and more people away, more and more people to Alberta -- just take them out of the province. It's a total disregard for what's taking place.

[ Page 9613 ]

You would think that when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson made the motion to adjourn, the bill would have been left. But what happened? The members from that side of the House changed the rules; they actually changed the rules. It's their football, I guess, and they play by their rules. It's hard for me to stand up here and speak against this bill when it shouldn't even be here in the first place. The government has the ability to just say: "Who cares? It's our rules; we play by our rules." You have to wonder.

It reminds me of when I was taking my high school basketball team down to Los Angeles last year. At the end of the game, we were down by four points. They played with the ball for a minute, a minute and a half or whatever, and they came and said: "That's not fair." In Canada the rules are that you go by 30 seconds. We told them: "The rules are the rules." But this government doesn't seem to play by the rules. They lose, and they say: "We'll change the rules; we'll make something different." That's fine. Consequently the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has to bring in a hoist motion to take it off the books.

When we can all of a sudden change the rules, this is a real indication of the kind of example we're setting for the young people of this province. You wonder why we want to hoist this bill. Well, there are lots and lots of reasons. I notice that the minister is moving back to his chair so he can heckle a little bit more. I appreciate the fact that he's doing that. I kind of missed the fact that he hadn't.

The business community said: "Don't change the Labour Code. The economy is fragile. Don't do anything to shake investor confidence." Well, we've done everything to shake investor confidence. We just don't have anybody coming into the province. The minister is nodding his head: yes, yes, yes. We agree with him. I'm wondering why he would not support the hoisting of this bill when he's saying yes. He's agreeing with the fact that investor confidence has been shaken.

If it's perception he's worried about, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to fuel the fire of that perception. The minister did exactly what he was asked not to do: he proposed changes to the Labour Code, the watered-down version of Bill 44. They say they're modest changes, but it is strictly. . . . It's Bill 44. No matter how you cut it, it's Bill 44. Timing is everything. The timing couldn't be worse for the people of British Columbia. It couldn't be worse for the construction and housing industry. It couldn't be worse for the investors in the business community.

When you go out and talk to people out there, they tell you: "This is bad timing. The economy is poor." I sometimes wonder whether the members on that side of the House leave on the weekends. They must stay here; they actually must stay here. If they happened to go back to their ridings, I'm sure they would understand how the economy is affected. Timing is everything. The timing couldn't be worse for the people of British Columbia. It could not be worse no matter what you do; it just could not be worse.

"We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs" -- those are the Minister of Labour's own words. I might repeat that so that some of the members from that side of the House listen to it: "We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." Well, we don't seem to be doing that here. We don't seem to be creating a climate of stability, particularly with Bill 26; that does not create a climate of stability. Creating unbalanced investment, unfriendly legislation, is hardly going to help what takes place.

My colleague from Richmond-Center mentioned some of the stats, and I'm just going to re-mention them: B.C. capital spending for 1998 is projected to be a scant 1.3 percent, compared to 6.2 percent for the nation as a whole, 9.8 percent for Alberta, 5 percent for Ontario, 8.4 percent for Quebec, 8.1 percent for Saskatchewan and 6.3 percent for Manitoba. Hon. Speaker, it makes you wonder.

An Hon. Member: What was B.C. again?

B. Barisoff: I hate to mention it, but as my colleague from Richmond Centre indicates he wants to know, again, it's 1.3 percent for B.C. That's a crime. They say we're saying the sky is falling, but you know, all we're doing is giving the facts. We're trying to let the people know exactly what's taking place. These are the simple, ordinary facts: 1.3 percent for the province of British Columbia, when our neighbours just over the mountain in Alberta are at 9.8 percent. We wonder why people are going to Alberta. That's why. We're in a desperate situation.

[8:30]

The Minister of Labour believes that it's important that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected. So do we. However, the NDP took away the workers' rights through a secret ballot vote on unionization -- a fundamental democratic freedom. But we know that the people on that side of the House don't truly believe in democracy. We've seen it when they changed the rules of the game. They decided that the rules were going to be the way they wanted to play them. Democracy wasn't going to dictate what was going to happen. We've had rules for hundreds of years, but no -- when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson brought the motion to adjourn, they decided that they weren't going to play by the rules any longer. The opposition doesn't have a lot of rules to play with -- a lot of things to use in their arsenal -- but that was one of them. What did they do? They changed that rule.

From my perspective, that's a disgrace. I would think that there are some members over there on that side of the House who have some integrity and will bring themselves to support my colleague's motion to hoist this bill, to put it away at least for six months, maybe longer -- maybe to bring it back at the spring sitting of the Legislature and see what happens, see how the economy is.

If they're so determined that this bill is so good for the people of British Columbia, then I would suggest that they go to the people. Go to an election, and ask the people of British Columbia about Bill 26. Put it to the people and say: "Is this what you want? Is this what the people want?" If the people of British Columbia vote the New Democrats back into power based on that. . . .

[ Page 9614 ]

B. Barisoff: That's exactly right. Then you would know that that's what the wishes of the people are, and we would support that. But I don't think that they have the wherewithal to be honourable enough to do something like that -- to go to the people to ask them.

The NDP has taken away the rights of the workers in a secret ballot. They don't believe in full democracy. They only believe in the part of democracy that works for them. Whatever part that works for them, that's what they want to do. Bill 26 will now remove the right of employers and employees to negotiate a collective agreement that is customized to their unique circumstances. There are a lot of jobs in this province that will be directly affected by this bill. A lot of jobs won't go ahead. We get calls every day from people saying: "Listen, if this bill goes ahead, we're leaving British Columbia. We're leaving British Columbia until this socialist government is no longer in power, and if they stay in power, we're going to leave. We're not going to spend our money here. We're not going to create the investment to create jobs." So whether it's union or non-union, there won't be jobs. As I said before, this affects the agriculture industry in the Okanagan, in the Peace River and in the Fraser Valley, because people won't have money to spend. They'll be leaving this province in droves.

One new workplace is unionized in B.C. every single day, and they're worried about adding more. They're worried about Bill 26. Over 50 percent of those businesses certified have ten employees or fewer. Access to joining the union isn't a valid reason. There's ample access to join. There's absolutely no reason for this government to bring in Bill 26. I cannot believe that the members from that side of the House would not support the hoisting of this motion.

Alberta and Ontario have a secret ballot vote on union certification. Alberta gives unionized employers the right to operate union and non-union businesses, something denied B.C.'s unionized construction companies. Why is that? Why would this government say that you can't operate? I believe that we live in a free and democratic society. But when you look at some of the things that are happening on that side of the House, you begin to wonder whether we do or not. Some of these bills, particularly Bill 26, are the start of things to come.

They say it's not sectoral bargaining, but we all know it is. It's just the thin edge of the wedge. I remember the Minister of Labour saying that people are jumping up and down, saying it's the thin edge of the wedge. Well, hon. Speaker, it is the thin edge of the wedge. It's going from one thing to the next.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

B. Barisoff: Sorry, hon. Speaker. I only got through one of my points. I'll have to carry on at a later time.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak to the motion by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson to suspend Bill 26 for six months to procure proper bilateral consultation with regards to the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. At this time, it is very evident that time is needed to germinate the novel idea of NDP consultation on aspects of the labour bill. What we in the opposition are looking for specifically is a process, theorem or construct for bilateral consultation -- an enigma, I know, to the government; a rare species that would need time to grow and be nurtured.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

In view of what we've seen, in terms of the way the health accord came down; in view of what we've seen with the education accord, which is going to come into this House in the form of Bill 39, and now with Bill 26. . . . Suspending Bill 26 and supporting the motion from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson would in fact go a long way towards developing a model or paradigm for some kind of bilateral consultation -- something that would be very welcome in this chamber and that certainly needs to be rejuvenated, as it has starved in the last number of years of NDP government.

From many issues, we know that this government is very athletic in exercising its consultation with favourite bankrollers. We know of the umbilical cords that do exist to the big union bosses. These are well-known, and further time is not needed over these six months to hear their viewpoint, as it is in fact very well represented in Bill 26. There's no question whatsoever that that is a valid point of view. Unfortunately, this does cause a playing field that's not level. What we need in that six months is to bring in the other point of view and have the opportunity to have that viewpoint melded with the viewpoint of the big union bosses and fractionated into something that could be used as an actual substance upon which we could develop viable labour laws. That would provide people who wish to invest the opportunity to look at B.C. and say, "That is a place I want to put my revenue, my dollars, in order to create, hopefully, some kind of profit in the future," creating the spinoff jobs for people in British Columbia at a time when we have double-digit unemployment.

There hasn't been the opportunity or circumstance for employers, who are not always pro-union. . . . Often government will be wantonly tardy in hearing the viewpoints of those groups. A six-month suspension of Bill 26 would provide a -- I wouldn't say ample -- precursor to the opportunity for consultation. Because this group creates jobs and because we so desperately need those jobs, I think that would be seen as a very, very positive and motivational force to get international as well as interprovincial investors back on course as they look at British Columbia as a place where they may wish to come.

We all know that employers want to come here for almost every reason other than the economic climate and the NDP government. These people need to be heard. They need the opportunity for government to represent. . . . They are not odious taxpayers who have the impertinence to expect that they would invest in this province and, as a result of that investment, create business opportunities. They would in fact, hopefully, make a profit in their enterprise while employing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. Specifically at this time, we're talking about those British Columbians who work in the construction industry, an industry that brings in upwards of $17 billion to our province and is certainly a very important industry to most of the ridings that I'm aware of.

Many of these job creators have come forth in the last month, when Bill 26 hit the doors of this chamber, and said, "We don't feel that we've been heard," regardless of whether the Minister of Labour said: "That's not true; we've consulted with business." There are, for example, 26 businesses that would very much like to be heard: the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association, the B.C. Shake and Shingle Association, the Urban Development Institute, the B.C. Restaurant and Food Caterers Association, the automobile dealers, and on and on and on. These 26 members represent the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. These alone would like more time to have the opportunity to discuss their concerns with what the minister calls "a modest change" to the Labour Code. Nevertheless, they would like more time.

[ Page 9615 ]

If Bill 26 were suspended for a period of half a year, it would provide time for economic impact. . . . As many members before me have mentioned, this is a very, very important area. As is quite common with this government in many of the things we have seen in the House this session with respect to legislation, there haven't been any economic impact studies. Because this area is so critical, what is better than spending the next six months actually looking at what impact analysis could be procured -- perhaps in favour of the government's Bill 26. If not, use that further information to consult, to hone and refine the bill, so that we do not scare off the investor climate, regardless of where they come from.

It's known and perceived in my community, at least -- the community of big waters, Okanagan-Vernon -- that big labour has its own sort of personal water slide right into the B.C. Legislature, where it kind of lands in the Premier's lap for cuddles. It's really hard, when you have to extrapolate from that kind of model, to see how close the big labour bosses are to the government. It's very hard for those international and interprovincial investors to get around the idea of the socialism that is occurring and is being purveyed by the NDP government at this time. What better way to get rid of that sort of metaphor and that picture that people might have of the big water slide going into the Premier's Office? If we had six months, we could perhaps -- again by sort of metaphor -- provide those members of the business community who have been unable to reach the Minister of Labour or the Premier himself or the nineteenth cabinet minister, Mr. Georgetti. . . . They might be able to dog-paddle up to the moat around the Premier's Office and knock on the door, have the drawbridge lifted and perhaps even be let in to speak to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the present Premier of this province.

[8:45]

I guess I'd like to start off with the Minister of Labour. His comments of June 18 in the Vancouver Sun were to set the tone for what we were expected to hear and see and regurgitate when we looked at the labour bill. His scenario for us in setting the stage was that this was a small set of amendments, a small subset to the ICI sector, with no significant impact. Well, there are many pundits that I will read from who in fact don't feel that to be the case. But surely if that were the case, there would be very, very little loss or downside to supporting the motion to hold the labour bill off for six months for further analysis and to develop an acuity for what it would really do to enterprise in British Columbia with respect to revenue generation.

The minister has also said, which I think is very important to enter into the record: "It would be a grave error for any government" -- and he does say "any government" -- "to attempt to manipulate labour laws to favour one party or another. . . ." Now that surmises that if it could be proven, by way of looking at this in a philosophical or logical debate, that in fact this will manipulate the labour laws -- perhaps in favour of employers, but perhaps in favour of employees -- then this Minister of Labour, who sits in this House, would in fact not support his own bill. I think we need that six months to give him the opportunity to listen to those people who may not have had his ear, or if they did have his ear -- he didn't develop any RNA to take that message onto the neuro pathways. Give him that opportunity and that time to maybe generate some kind of connection between what is actually out there in the big, bad world and what exists between where he wears his glasses.

The other thing that the minister has said is that if the government does manipulate labour laws in favour of one party or the other, whenever this has happened, the result has been a disastrous deterioration of labour relations with severe economic consequences. How wonderful for the Minister of Labour to actually be able to cognitively come to that understanding. If we can prove to him that this will have the economic consequences of further decreases in investment in the province and increases in the unemployment rate, then surely he will feel -- based on his own words as a pundit of this particular topic -- that perhaps it would be unwise for this House to proceed with Bill 26. Perhaps it would be wiser still for changes to the Labour Code not to occur at this time.

The second recognized expert on this area is Stan Lanyon. I have known Stan for many years. I knew him when he had very long hair. He probably wouldn't like me saying that in this House. But certainly he is a man of tremendous reputation and someone whose words should be listened to with great respect when we are dealing with issues of labour and labour law and amendments to the Labour Code. Mr. Lanyon says that the market will drive competitive bidding, and the unions will allow their contract to make concessions in order to win that bid. I think what's important for us to recognize there is that although that is correct, Mr. Lanyon has not addressed, for example, the Vancouver situation. In that situation, why would workers on a residential project, for example, accept lower wages than fellow workers on a commercial project when the contractors and the employees are combining both the residential and commercial work in a single project -- especially if the mix is more than 90-10? That's what Mr. Lanyon said in the Vancouver Sun on June 19.

Another pundit, again most definitely in support of this government and its changes to the Labour Code, is Len Embree from the Provincial Council of Carpenters. He says: "This build-it-and-move-on nature of construction, combined with vicious anti-union actions by many employers, makes it extremely difficult for workers to choose a union. . . [and] achieve a collective agreement before the job finishes."

In this House we are often asked, as MLAs, to look into situations that our backgrounds really do not give us immediate information on. I've taken great interest in this area. It's an area that's very foreign to me. I don't have a background in labour. I have belonged to a union and certainly worked as a union member for a significant portion of my career. However, that was just all part of life. So looking into labour

[ Page 9616 ]

Again, we have to look at that vicious anti-union action that has been balanced by vicious union action in this province. Really, when you are looking at both sides of a picture -- in the area of construction especially -- you have to look at how we got there. I think it's very important to recognize that many of the results of one side are from the results and the actions of the other. In the construction industry we have a number of what I think are quite archaic circumstances for the twentieth -- or certainly for twenty-first -- century kinds of workplaces. Bringing in Bill 26 will, in fact, cement archaic things that do create that incredible hostile response on both sides of the fence -- employees to employers and vice versa. I think we need to recognize that Bill 26 does nothing to address that.

Building unions often have difficulty when they're in a circumstance with inflexible demands for wages and benefits and work jurisdictions that render the businesses unable to compete. It's no wonder that employers often bring their long-term. . . . Even their long-term employees often do not want the standard agreement that they are obliged to accept when the employer comes onto the scene in this kind of circumstance. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses, in the Vancouver Sun on June 18, has said: "If the building unions were as willing, as other unions are, to negotiate [tailored agreements]. . .they would not need the government's help."

I see a problem here, brought forward by Mr. Embree and on the other side by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, which seems more systemic to me. I don't think it will be solved by this Labour Code amendment -- that is, Bill 26. I think it has a lot to do with the archaic circumstances that exist in the construction industry and how they operate along craft lines. Until we look in that area, we are not going to solve the problem. What I often find in non-union shops. . . .

In my own area, for example, I go into value-added wood industries in the Okanagan and say to those individuals who have non-union employees: "Do you pay union wages?" They often say: "We pay much better than union wages. These are skilled jobs; we want skilled people. Minimum wage is not a question here."

I think what we're looking at here is trying to drag an archaic model into the workplace of the nineties. Unfortunately, it's like having a size 9 foot and a size 7 shoe. It doesn't fit; it hurts. Bill 26 will do nothing to ameliorate the pain that comes with something that just doesn't fit the way that the Canadian economy, and specifically the British Columbia economy, is going.

Another pundit in support of Bill 26 is the CLRA, the Construction Labour Relations Association, which represents 300 companies. They say that Bill 26 is a building block to bring stability to the unionized component of the construction industry and to make it more viable in the long term. That was said in the Times Colonist on June 18.

More disturbing to me were Mr. Georgetti's comments. I'm very concerned when I see comments such as those at the December 1997 B.C. Federation of Labour convention. The gentleman who this Premier has said is his nineteenth cabinet minister says: "The labour movement will make the business community pay heavily for their anti-worker attitude. You can count on it. There is no democracy in the dictatorship called the workplace."

Please, this is not what I see in many, many places that I go. My community is fuelled on small businesses. It is not what I see in those communities. If this is something that is occurring, then we need to do all the things we can to improve that, but retribution and Cro-Magnonism and this kind of threatening language and attitude from someone who sits in this government as the nineteenth cabinet minister is absolutely unconscionable to me. I personally feel that if there was nothing else about Bill 26 that I didn't like, I would probably reject it on this comment alone, based on the fact that I know that that water slide goes from Ken Georgetti's house right onto the Premier's lap. If that is where he's coming from with respect to this bill, then this bill is up to no good.

An Hon. Member: You had Phil Hochstein.

A. Sanders: The member for Skeena has mentioned Phil Hochstein. Quite frankly, I don't know Phil Hochstein; I have never met the gentleman. I have read some of his things. I think that he does have a comment in here, in addition to the comments which I've started with, which were by Mr. Stan Lanyon, Mr. Georgetti, the Minister of Labour and many other people.

The heckling is fine, but what I'm really looking for is a solution-oriented approach, not a bunch of nattering from the back bench. I'm looking for what we can do here to improve the situation for all people in the province, so that people who are working have jobs, so that employers actually make a profit, so that people in my riding no longer have the largest single employer being the welfare system, and so that the person who ran against me in the last election as the NDP candidate doesn't have to go down to Montana for six months of the year to work and earn a living in the construction industry and live for four to six months in the Okanagan. That's wrong. If he doesn't figure it out and if this government doesn't figure it out -- and he's run for this party that put him out of a job and sent him to Butte, Montana, so that he could pound nails -- then we've got a problem in this province.

Other comments came forward from the other side of the fence, from the pundits who certainly don't feel that they've been heard. There was an article that I read. It was an executive summary on "Looking to the Future," which was, again, a critique on labour by Stan Lanyon and Stephen Kelleher. It recommended a much more restricted version of sectoral bargaining than we saw in Bill 44, which has resulted in the construction of Bill 26. The interesting thing in that critique -- the quote from the critique on "Looking into the Future" by the Russell and DuMoulin law firm -- was that Bill 26 was bringing in a reduced form of sectoral bargaining.

All the members of cabinet and certainly the backbenchers have spent a number of days trying to convince the members on this side of the House that what they were bringing in wasn't sectoral bargaining. Yet the law firm, which is very precise in the language they use -- and I don't think there is any profession more precise, because of the implications of imprecise language to those who practise law -- said that this was a restricted form of sectoral bargaining. Nevertheless, that is exactly the phraseology that they have used -- this is sectoral bargaining.

[9:00]

[ Page 9617 ]

Interjection.

A. Sanders: I'll provide the summary for the hon. member. I'd be very appreciative of his comments. I'm interested that he disagrees, and I know he has tremendous interest and certainly experience in the area of labour. I don't believe he has a law background, but I'd be very interested in his reading of the material and his coaching of me if that is in fact a different case. I do read, and that is what I read in the critique.

The Urban Development Institute. . . . Maureen Enser is, I believe, the CEO there. She says the decision on whether mixed-use projects will be part of the ICI sector will be left to the LRB, which has lost the support of the business community because of its bias towards unions. If we have a change in the labour law and we have a functional LRB, then it may not actually matter that the change in the labour law is a bit tipped one way or the other. When people in any part of the community lose faith in the LRB, then we have a serious problem.

In the Vancouver Sun of June 20, that was what the Urban Development Institute said. The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, ICBA, on June 18 said: "[Bill 26] introduces for the first time sectoral bargaining into the private sector, and it's starting with the construction industry." The Business Council of B.C., on June 18 in the Vancouver Sun, said: "People look at labour law when they make investment decisions and this just has another negative impact. People conclude that B.C. is a difficult jurisdiction to do business in. It's as simple as that." Bill 26 has created many uncertainties, something the Labour Minister has already told us in fact does create a negative climate for investment -- just the aspect of uncertainty. Vancouver is leaning towards mixed-use construction projects, where only a portion of the project is ICI and the balance is residential. Bill 26 does not determine whether such a project falls under ICI rules and will have to be battled out case by case before the LRB or the labour board staff. Again, we've got a significant problem here. If people don't trust the Labour Relations Board, it's like going to church and not trusting your minister. It's something that will shake the foundation of the faithful who go. So either we've got to improve what's going on in the LRB, or we've got to hoist this bill for six months and give it time to mature and season and give people the opportunity to come forward and be heard.

The executive of the Canadian Home Builders Association. . . . This is a group that I especially listen to, and I listen to them not because they represent anyone specific in my life but because my riding is one of those areas where people come to retire. The really wonderful thing for Vernon is that people from the lower mainland come to retire. Because they come from the lower mainland and sell their homes and move to the interior, they often have quite a considerable amount of disposable income that they want to put into my riding. Usually what they want to put it into is in the form of a retirement home. Despite the fact that these individuals may not be at the beginning of their lives but in the good part of their lives, they will be coming to Vernon to build new homes. I am often very interested in what the Canadian Home Builders Association has to say, because they affect a large part of the housing starts -- a very large part of the generation of jobs and certainly of revenue in the area of Vernon.

Keith Sashaw, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Home Builders Association, said in the Vancouver Sun of June 18: "This is the worst possible thing the housing industry could take at this time. . . . This legislation clearly demonstrates that this government doesn't have the faintest idea how the construction industry works. It's unwarranted and will further undermine housing affordability."

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sure you've noticed that the red light is now on.

A. Sanders: Actually, I can't see it from here, hon. Speaker. But I'm pleased to have you tell me that. Thank you very much.

I. Chong: I'm pleased to see that you're in the chair this evening, hon. Speaker, so that I can refer my comments to you directly.

I am grateful for the opportunity to rise and speak on the amendment to second reading of Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. Though the members opposite may not accept now that the amendment offered is a reasonable one, I am hoping that at the conclusion of this debate, that feeling will change. I am also hoping that there are just a few government members who have listened to our concerns and our comments. I hope -- and it is a hope; I realize that -- that they are persuaded to re-evaluate their position enough to speak up at their caucus table and to ask this question: will this piece of legislation, introduced at this point in time, really stimulate the economy in our province, or will it drive away much-needed investment?

This amendment is a reasonable one, because it allows time for more input and more understanding of the legislation. It is a reasonable amendment, because its intent is to work towards gaining a more balanced acceptance and support of the legislation. However, during this six-month hoist time, if we find that there is no balanced support and that there is no respect for this legislation, then government and opposition members alike will know that we do have more work ahead of us to produce good, fair and balanced labour legislation.

It is a sad day in British Columbia when we believe that working people and business owners cannot work together, because that does not need to be the case. Unfortunately, I acknowledge that there will always be situations where that may occur. But in general, I believe that people with different views and different objectives can still come together and work things out. We just have to allow them that opportunity. But first there has to be a willingness for those two groups to meet, to discuss those differences and to work them out as well as possible. Is it necessary for the government to step in and lay their heavy hand down and dictate changes that unions should be working out with management? I don't think so. Have we looked at all possible mechanisms that will provide conciliation in labour negotiations? If not, then we should, and so a six-month hoist motion is appropriate.

Hon. Speaker, the introduction of Bill 26 is significant to our economy. It is not minor and it is not modest, as the Minister of Labour would like us to believe. In fact, at this

[ Page 9618 ]

An Hon. Member: They don't understand it.

I. Chong: As the hon. member says, they don't understand that. According to all the reports from outside investors, bankers, small business owners, chambers of commerce, realtor associations and economists, there is one very clear message being sent to government, and that is: do not introduce changes to labour legislation. Regardless of our opinions or feelings towards these groups or organizations, I believe it is fair to state that they have looked closely at this issue and what it means to our economy and our economic growth. We should be particularly mindful of their obligation to create jobs. Their concerns do have merit. With that in mind, we should at least hear fully and completely why they are making that statement: do not introduce changes to labour legislation.

Supporting this amendment to hoist Bill 26 for six months will allow sufficient time for the kind of input, consultation and thorough review that is needed to discuss all those concerns being expressed by the business community and by investors. We need a full airing of views, and we need the time to have those vented and clarified. The economic well-being of our province is on the minds not only of workers and investors in British Columbia but also of business people and investors elsewhere in the country and abroad.

In supporting this hoist motion, we on this side of the House are hoping that in six months we will have heard from all interested parties. That would certainly include the labour groups as well. Some would argue that we have already consulted enough and that the two review panels have done the necessary work, but I would disagree. What the two review panels were able to achieve was gathering data for the basis of drafting legislation. I am sure that they did the best possible job they were able to do, and I don't discredit that at all. But what they did was gather data. They were not charged with the responsibility of deciding what recommendations would eventually end up in legislation, nor were they charged with determining what the economic impact would be. That is part of the problem and why it is necessary to hoist this bill, and that is to allow an economic impact study to proceed.

Interjection.

I. Chong: I hear a member opposite saying that they drafted it. Well, I would disagree. They drafted legislation -- both panels drafted legislation, perhaps -- but they didn't know whose would be accepted, and if they did know, then that is something that the Minister of Labour has not alluded to. They drafted legislation in hopes that one set of recommendations or a combination would be, but they did so independently, without the benefit of an economic impact study.

While I am not a fan of more reports and more studies being prepared year in and year out, only to find them collecting dust on the shelves of the Legislative Library, I do believe we need to have prepared, and very quickly, an economic impact study. I believe we would all benefit from an independent economic impact study that will outline specifically and factually how this proposed labour legislation impacts the economy in British Columbia now and in the very near future. By supporting this amendment and thereby allowing for a six-month hoist period, we can accommodate the preparation of this study.

I believe that as legislators we can do more and we must do more to restore our fledgling economy -- an economy that many are predicting is headed towards a recession. Now, some may argue that we are not in a recession, and certainly we may not be there yet. But that is because it is currently summer, and our tourism industry is giving us a strong boost -- as well as our weak Canadian dollar. However, what would happen if it was not summer? What would happen if our Canadian dollar was not so weak? How fast would we slide into a recession? It is a frightening thought, given that currently the economic growth in Canada and elsewhere is sound and is improving all the time. British Columbia is the only province to have experienced a net job decline last year, in 1997. So we must do a better, more comprehensive job in terms of restoring our economy. We must exhaust all possibilities to do so. If that means that we need to spend the time to get it right the first time, then we should.

[9:15]

Governments expect business to create jobs. Yet they do not respect nor do they acknowledge that business has risked their investments. If this government expects business to create jobs, what does government expect from the labour movement? It doesn't appear that government expects anything from the labour movement other than support at the polls at election time. I'm not challenging that. Everyone has the right to vote and support whomever they choose. I am concerned that this government has turned the reins over to their nineteenth cabinet minister, Mr. Georgetti. Has Mr. Georgetti demanded that this Premier and his government give him labour legislation changes that will stack the cards in favour of his friends without regard for what it may do to the worker and whatever few jobs there are?

If we were concerned about the worker, then why is it that the secret ballot vote was not returned to the worker? That question begs an answer. If this amendment motion should fail, then we will be returning to second reading debate, and I shall ask that question again.

I have outlined a number of areas that I believe support the notion of deferring this legislation for six months and therefore I am in support of this amendment. We all know that under the NDP administration, our economy in terms of economic growth per capita has gone from being number 1 in Canada to number 10, which is virtually last place. It is no longer a question of how much lower can we expect our economy to fall, but rather how much longer do we wish to stay at the number 10 spot. If we all agree that it is time to get our economy back on track, then let's work together to do just that.

We can start by first acknowledging what government's role is. The government does have a role in stimulating the economy. That role is to get out of the way of business and also to introduce measures, initiatives or legislation that others see as positive and as good signals for investment and for doing business in British Columbia. Currently there are perhaps nine or ten wish list items that are consistently being presented to government. I know that, because those same wish lists are being presented to members on this side of the House.

In particular, there are generally three items that appear to top the list. One of those requests is quite clear, and that is to

[ Page 9619 ]

Let's not fool ourselves. Government expects the business community to grow the economy. So why have they not given them an opportunity to do so? If the government were to support this motion, they would be acknowledging that. Yes, it's time to listen, to gather more input and to look at an economic impact study which would allow us to talk about this collectively.

Earlier today I had heard comments made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast about the need to deal with several more urgent pieces of legislation, and while I agree that we have several more urgent pieces of legislation on the order paper, I do not agree that this labour legislation is not equally urgent. After all, Bill 26 is about the economy, and the economy is in urgent need of repair.

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast also suggested that this legislation should be taken to a vote and that it should stand the test of a vote. Well, it is quite obvious that what will occur because of the makeup of this House is that that vote will be in favour of government. In my earlier debate on Motion 50, I quoted the government Whip, the member for Alberni, who stated: "In our system, the majority rules." But when we on this side of the House won the vote to drop Bill 26 off the order paper, this government moved quickly, through a precedent-setting motion, to overturn the results of that vote. So what we have is a government that changes the rules or the law or whatever they need to do in order to tilt things in their favour. Bill 26 represents very much the same philosophy. It is tilted in favour of the government's union friends. Obviously we on this side of the House would not be particularly pleased to allow a vote to proceed at this time, since we do know what the end result will be.

We are, hopeful however, that perhaps during this debate we might just persuade members on that side of the House -- the government members -- to hear our concerns and to join us in supporting our amendment motion. I realize that that is a huge wish on my part. But who knows? After all, this is a debate, and we are prepared to hear members on the government side express to us why this amendment should not be supported. But also we need to hear why, and all British Columbians need to hear why. Why is it that these elected government members feel it is so urgent that this legislation be passed during this session? Why is it they cannot support hoisting it for six months to ensure that we will not do more damage to our economy?

Last year the government recognized their error in introducing Bill 44, and they did the right thing by pulling it off the order paper -- essentially hoisting it. But this year the government was so pressured by the union bosses -- not necessarily the workers, but the bosses -- who stated that they wanted Labour Code changes brought back, and so now we have Bill 26. The same problems that existed in Bill 44 last year are still existent here in Bill 26, and so once again we are requesting this government to pull this harmful legislation from the order paper. And they can do that by simply supporting our amendment motion. It doesn't mean that this legislation is gone but rather that all of those concerns out there will receive consideration to ensure that we get the legislation right the first time.

Earlier today I heard shouts and heckles from the member for Yale-Lillooet and from the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith that we are not on the side of workers, and that is simply not true. That is hogwash. And so I would like to state for the record. . . . I also want to show how easily they misinterpret comments made by some members on this side of the House. If they cannot even read Hansard, then I would question whether they have even read Bill 26.

I don't mind being quoted; however, I expect that when an NDP member chooses to offer a quote of mine, he or she will at least have the courtesy to read the content of what was said. So I am extremely disappointed that the member for Kootenay -- who I realize is currently in Committee A -- either cannot read, refuses to read or else has staff prepare her speeches. The member for Kootenay and the member for Yale-Lillooet offered their comments in second reading debate on Bill 26 about two weeks ago, and they chose to quote from my May 6 remarks. At that time, we were talking about workers and workplace safety. Similarly, now we are also dealing in Bill 26 with workers. In any event, those two members disagreed with my statement that one worker should not be permitted to flout workplace safety guidelines to the detriment of other workers, and that management, if necessary, needed the flexibility to discipline such activity and protect the integrity of workplace safety guidelines.

But no, hon. Speaker, the members for Kootenay and for Yale-Lillooet believe that a union collective agreement has more power to intervene in those cases. Well, I'm sorry. I don't agree with those members. I do believe in workplace safety and workers' rights. So I encourage other members on that side of the House to use that quote, if they choose to, because each and every time they do, it will allow me to say to those particular NDP members that they do not hold workers in any high regard or respect. The proof is there. Not allowing workers the right to a secret-ballot vote is also proof that this government is saying that the union leaders are being favoured and not the workers. And I say shame on those members -- not all members, but those members.

I reiterate again the need to hoist this bill. It would allow the government to consider amending, adding or deleting those sections which are particularly harmful to our economic revival. If the members opposite saw the harm in Bill 44 last year, then surely they must see the same harm in Bill 26 this year. I would encourage the members opposite to look further at Bill 26 and reconsider their options.

I cannot state often enough why this bill should be hoisted. We on this side of the House are deeply concerned about the economy. The fact is that the economy in B.C. is weak and cannot begin its road to healing or improvement until such time as we come to terms with those factors contributing to this. Since B.C. is in last place in economic growth in Canada -- at a time when we should be at least in the top three -- we have to ask why. Well, the only answer we have is the NDP.

Our unemployment rate is also in a dismal state. It is the highest in western Canada, and our student unemployment rate is even worse. So how will Bill 26 help to improve our economy, and how will Bill 26 help to decrease our unemployment rate? I fear it will only get worse in terms of student unemployment, because there will be even fewer jobs available. There will be even fewer jobs, because there will be fewer businesses and fewer investors willing to risk their capital here in British Columbia to create those jobs.

The reasons for hoisting Bill 26 are obvious: it is damaging to our economy, and it is destroying investor confidence. The members opposite continue to accuse this side of the House of fearmongering. Well, that is so blatantly untrue. Members on this side of the House. . . . I have heard reports of letters that they are receiving from their constituents, who are

[ Page 9620 ]

Investment by business in this province has decreased from $19 billion in 1994 to $17.8 billion in 1996 -- another sign that our economy is weak and in need of repair. If we were to trust this government to introduce measures to strengthen our economy, it certainly would not be in the form of Bill 26. In fact, we cannot put any confidence in this government to grow the economy at all. We know that, because just this year the Minister of Environment had to admit that her ministry was responsible for losing 20,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in investment. If that is the way this government stimulates the economy, I say go back to school, because you haven't passed the test, and we can't afford that kind of mismanagement any longer.

It is sad that businesses are leaving B.C. in record numbers to relocate to Alberta or south of the border. It is sad, because it is destroying families and communities, and it is placing a tremendous amount of stress on those remaining family members who stay in British Columbia. At the end of last year, 1997, an Angus Reid poll reported that 24 percent of Vancouver businesses expected to move some or all of their operations out of B.C. in the next two years. That is incredible. That is significant. Would the Minister of Labour interpret that as minor or modest? I don't know, but we do know that members on that side of the House are particularly inept when it comes to figures. We have seen that in their so-called balanced budgets, which quickly became deficit budgets.

We all accept that small businesses create the majority of jobs in this province, so surely we would expect the government and the Minister of Labour to listen more intently to the small business sector and, accordingly, to the small business sector representatives. But the minister hasn't. He hasn't listened to Jerry Lampert of the B.C. Business Council, or to Suromitra Sanatani of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, or even to Mark Startup of the Retail Merchants Association. They are saying that the economy is too weak for pro-labour changes that would deter business investment. Again, I say hoist this bill for six months.

[9:30]

What about other taxpayers? How will Bill 26 affect all of them? I have already expressed how similar this year's Bill 26 is to last year's Bill 44. Last year I began to contact municipalities here in Victoria -- not only the ones I represent but also the ones in the greater Victoria area -- to determine whether Bill 44 would affect them. Guess what. They said that it would. They said that in certain parts of the projects they undertake, whether they be projects they do themselves or whether they engage in partnerships, those institutions or industrial projects would in fact be affected by Bill 44. Similarly, they would be affected by Bill 26.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

What does that mean? That means that the costs of building those particular institutions or industrial areas, whether they be recreation facilities or other types of opportunities to improve our quality of life, could increase. If those costs increase, it means they would be passed on to all other taxpayers. All other taxpayers would be us. That is a form of downloading.

When the members opposite suggest that Bill 26 is not harmful, then I fear that they have not been reading Bill 26 in the right context. I am concerned, because I have heard them misinterpret a number of things, and I am concerned that they are only listening to the people that they are choosing to listen to.

Hon. Speaker, I want very much to persuade the members opposite to support us in this hoist motion. They need to do that, because we need the time to restore our economy. We cannot do it in a few weeks or a few months, and there has been no indication to me -- I have not received any overwhelming letters -- to suggest that there is any urgency in Bill 26 being brought forward now. So we need to hoist this bill. We need to allow time for all those small businesses that this government expects to create jobs to have their say.

When one reflects on the amount of damage the NDP has already inflicted on British Columbia businesses and families, it is hard to imagine that there can be more -- and that is this Bill 26. One thing is certain: the only promise this NDP Premier has been able to keep so far is that B.C.'s economy will stay at number ten. That is truly sad.

R. Thorpe: We're here tonight to debate the amendment put forward by my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson. That motion is for the hoisting of this bill for six months. I applaud the member for Kamloops-North Thompson for bringing this amendment forward, because as I go home on the weekends and listen to all of my constituents, they are now telling me that business in British Columbia is about survival. It's about surviving today, surviving tomorrow and, hopefully, surviving for the future.

We know where we are today in British Columbia. We know where we are with our economy. We know where we are with our schools. Our education system is falling apart. Unfortunately, with our health care system. . . . Before I returned to the House late yesterday afternoon, I had cause to visit the regional hospital in Penticton. It doesn't matter who you talk to now at a hospital -- whether it's a nurse, an HEU employee, a doctor, an administrator or, most importantly, a patient -- the health care in British Columbia is coming apart.

I have one incident that I'm working on right now with a constituent in my riding. He is an 84-year-old gentleman, one of the founders, one of the pioneers of our province, who has worked and worked and helped build this province. He has never claimed against the health care system in British Columbia but has always provided for the health care system in this province. Now that he needs some help, he is told that he has to wait and wait and wait.

Why has this happened to our health care system? It's because we have an incompetent government. We have an

[ Page 9621 ]

But what is happening with capital investment? We all know the importance of capital investment. If we do not receive the investment today, we will not have the jobs for tomorrow. We will not have the funds to build schools or to provide health care. But we're running at 50 percent of Canada. British Columbia, which should be the number one province in Canada without question, is now tied with that great economic power of Canada, Prince Edward Island, under the guardianship of the NDP socialist government. Isn't that absolutely amazing?

Our neighbours to the east of us in Alberta have $34 billion of capital projects on their books. That's why workers are leaving British Columbia to go to Alberta to find work, to look after their families. For the first time since 1982, there is a net loss of migration: 8,669 British Columbians have had to move to Alberta to provide employment for their families. We all can remember the slogan: "Go West, Go West." But now, if you live in British Columbia, it's: "Go East, Go East."

How could one person destroy the economy of this great province? How could that happen? How could we go from number one to number ten? What an accomplishment.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: It's about the economy, stupid. But with the NDP government it's just broken promise after broken promise. What about the promise we recently had in the throne speech? What about those promises? Let me quote, because I'm sure many members over there haven't had the opportunity to read it: "These challenges call for a renewed commitment on the part of government to listen to British Columbians. . . ." That was in the throne speech just a few months ago. Are they listening? Are they listening to small and medium-sized job creators? If they were, they would be stopping Bill 26.

Let me go on and quote some more from the throne speech: "My government is determined to respond to these challenges by taking the necessary steps to build a strong and competitive economy." That was the promise. What do we end up with? More broken promises from this government.

An Hon. Member: Not true.

R. Thorpe: "Not true." You know, they do it so often that the member over there doesn't even realize when they're doing it. That's the crime that's been inflicted on British Columbia by that NDP socialist government.

But let's listen to what small business operators are saying. Let us listen. What did COTA. . . ? It wasn't very long ago that that member over there who bellows out every once in a while was a great defender of COTA. What did COTA say? "No changes to the Labour Code." What did the chamber of commerce say? Even from the member's own riding, what did the chamber of commerce say? "No changes to the Labour Code." What did the Canadian Federation of Independent Business say? Probably many of those work for Amway. I don't know. What did they say? "No changes to the Labour Code." What did the B.C. Real Estate Association say? "Any changes to the Labour Code will negatively impact housing affordability." What is the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia saying? What are they saying, the people that provide affordable housing for hardworking British Columbians? What did they say from the north to the south to the east to the west in this province? They said: "No changes to the Labour Code." What did those small operators, the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of British Columbia, say? I think one of those even had a restaurant where the Minister of Labour went in and scribbled on a petition last year. What did they say? "No changes to the Labour Code." What did the Sparwood Chamber of Commerce say through the member over there? "No changes to the Labour Code."

[9:45]

The minister responsible said in this House at 5:30 tonight: "I don't understand why people don't trust me. I don't understand it." It couldn't be because of Bingogate or Hydrogate. It couldn't be because of two. . . . Oh no, those budgets weren't balanced. It couldn't be because they broke the Criminal Code. Or was it the schools they promised to build? Was it the waiting lists they promised to cut? Yet the minister stands over there and says: "I don't understand why British Columbians don't trust us."

An Hon. Member: They were going to create 44,000 jobs.

R. Thorpe: The jobs they were going to create in forestry. . . . Now, when they say they're going to create a job, people run for cover, because they know jobs are going to be lost in British Columbia. I'm not going to talk about those broken promises. I only wanted to use those as examples of why British Columbians today have no trust or confidence in the Minister of Labour over there. As my colleague from Okanagan-Boundary said earlier tonight, what we need. . . . Let us have an election on this issue. If this government is strongly committed to it, and if it's what British Columbians want, let us go and have an election on this issue. But you don't want the people of British Columbia to have a voice. They do not understand, because most of them. . . . Oh no, we have one small business operator over there now. They do not understand. When we over here voice our opinion and represent our constituents, we are attacked for fearmongering. We're attacked because telling the truth to the NDP is not acceptable.

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me. If you could take your seat. . . . The House will recess while the division in Committee A is taken. We will resume after the vote has been taken in Committee A, at the call of the Chair.

The House recessed from 9:48 p.m. to 9:56 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, noting the time, I would like to move adjournment of debate, and I reserve my place to speak.

[ Page 9622 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Hon. members will take their seats and come to order. The motion is adjournment of the debate.

[10:00]

YEAS -- 24
Sanders	C. Clark	de Jong
Abbott	Reid	Coell
Chong	Whittred	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Hawkins	Coleman	Stephens
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Dalton	Krueger	J. Wilson

NAYS -- 35
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Ramsey
Farnworth	Waddell	Hartley
Sihota	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht		Janssen

The Speaker: I recognize, to carry on the debate. . . . I have a point of order from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I note that you were about to recognize the member for North Vancouver-Seymour to speak. But when the House adjourned, the member for Okanagan-Penticton was on his feet. So I assume, hon. Speaker, that what happened is that the hon. member adjourned debate without reserving his right to continue to speak.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has been recognized and has the floor. Other members will please take their seats. The member will finish his point of order, which is not in fact a point of order.

M. Sihota: The member did not reserve his right to continue -- assuming, therefore, that he had visions of ham sandwiches running through his head.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, quiet, please.

M. de Jong: If I can butt into the buffet lineup here for a moment. . . . I'm not sure that I heard a point of order, hon. Speaker, but the member is a longstanding member of this House, and I'm sure he knows what the rules are. I'm sure he knows that it is a time-honoured rule of parliament that a member who moves adjournment -- notwithstanding the fact that he did reserve his place -- where that motion does not pass, is precluded from continuing the debate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

M. de Jong: Now, if the member disagrees with that time-honoured rule, hon. Speaker, let him say so.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order! No one will be recognized until there is order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that the rules are there to encourage debate, and we are just trying to encourage debate. So whoever is in order from the opposition, we welcome their speech, and we look forward to it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, when the House comes to order. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it's in your hands as to whether we continue the debate or not.

Just before we begin, I would like to draw everyone's attention to standing order 37, which will clarify the point that was raised earlier about adjournment and who has the right to speak next. I just thought I would let everyone look it up.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I could read it; I could do that too. Hon. members, I draw your attention to standing order 37 at the bottom of page 71 in our very own Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition. In the notes below standing order 37, it says: "A member cannot speak to the motion again if he or she unsuccessfully moves adjournment of the debate." In this chamber we also have no rule about reserving the right. . . . One usually speaks again for another reason.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the members are ready, debate can continue. I recognize. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The members -- and ministers -- will come to order.

[ Page 9623 ]

D. Jarvis: It seems to me that every time the government decides to play silly fool, it's around 10 o'clock at night and I'm up speaking. And then at the same time, the member from interruption -- or the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- gets up, because invariably the Premier is not in town. So when the Premier is not in town, we know that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin gets up to speak. That's the only time he's allowed to speak since he got dumped out of the cabinet.

Anyway, I just want to say that I'm up here to discuss an amendment of the motion by the member from Kamloops-North Thompson, which is a hoist motion on the Labour Relations Act. What is really facing us now is that the ICI industry and the construction industry -- it is just about what's facing all of B.C. citizens in the resource end -- are almost at a complete collapse in this province. That's due to this socialist government over here. It's prepared to throw caution to the wind and sacrifice investment and jobs that are so badly needed in this province. All this is to favour the indebtedness to the B.C. Federation of Labour.

With Bill 26 this government is prepared to sacrifice this province for the sake of Ken Georgetti, whose union numbers in the construction industry, as we have been told lately, have been falling considerably over the years. Now they're down to about 46 percent from where they were before. There is a fundamental problem in this province, and that's mistrust of this government and of this Bill 26. Together these two aspects give rise to a very uncomfortable feeling of confidence for the people of British Columbia and especially for the building industries of this province that at any time in this province, with this government and their tie-in with the B.C. Federation of Labour, we could possibly see balanced labour laws made. There is, as I say, a great distrust that this could possibly happen.

Most people generally believe that the historical role of unions was that they did improve working conditions in the past. There is no question of that. That is acknowledged by a lot of people. However, they now see the NDP and the unions together as the root of most of the problems that are now surfacing in British Columbia. That is what's wrong with our economy. It's not a balanced economy as far as the NDP go. They are trying to change the ground rules.

This province is headed to or is at the best point already in a recession. Unless we see a sign that investment and jobs are around the corner or can be improved in some way, we will not see just a recession but a very deep recession. Hundreds of businesses have left B.C. and have gone to all the other jurisdictions. As we said before, many times, they are going to Washington and Alberta. Those jurisdictions have been the recipients of untold numbers of small and large businesses moving out of British Columbia. I think that the figure now is approximately 146 or 147 businesses that have moved their head office out of British Columbia into Alberta specifically, because it's too expensive to build in B.C. in order to make a profit. It's as simple as that.

[10:15]

Last year we saw Bill 44 appear on the scene and with it sweeping changes, with the introduction of mandatory sectoral bargaining. Well, that was fortunately pulled by this government. It was probably one of the only times that it had good thoughts that would be an advantage to this province. But now we have seen it reborn in the sense that Bill 26, although not quite as oppressive as Bill 44, will still affect the ICI construction industry. They all looked at it, and they say: "Here we go again. Here's a government whose first concern is for their union, rather than for the welfare of the whole province."

Madam Speaker, what we need in this province is a government that will create a climate that will turn this economy around, not a government that philosophically would destroy the economy through their doctrinaire policy. This NDP government, with Bill 26, is only going to make the situation worse. It's going to be more expensive to build in British Columbia, and at the same time, they are going to take away the rights of employers to negotiate freely with their workers and conversely take away the right of workers to freely negotiate with their employers. This bill is an interference in the marketplace at a time when our economy is very, very weak, and this is tantamount to ignorance on the part of the government.

The construction industry does not need more legislation, more rules and regulations or more taxes or higher labour costs, especially at a time like this. It needs fewer but smarter regulations that will help fuel the economy, not slow it down. It needs flexibility in the marketplace, not the restrictive policies that this government is presently trying to impose on the construction industry. We need fewer taxes, of course, and we need more dollars in our pockets. The construction industry is an engine for the growth of this province, and we all know that. The benefits of this industry are widespread throughout every community in British Columbia. This is a large and diverse industry with the potential to generate untold wealth in all the services, from planning and design to residential, commercial and industrial buildings and, when we're talking about engineering and construction, from roads to bridges and sidewalks and homes. All across this province the construction industry employs over 100,000 people, and they are provided with high-paying jobs.

The NDP government pretends to be concerned with even the young people, and yet our youth unemployment is now pushing 20 percent, which is alarming. Nothing is being done in this chamber to alleviate this situation. Certainly Bill 26 will not create jobs; rather, it will create a potential loss of jobs in this province.

When I was young -- that was a few years ago -- and up to the time just prior to the NDP coming into power in '91, there were jobs in the construction industry. There were first jobs for everyone. If you went to university, there was always a job for you. There were always summer jobs for high school students. Now there are no jobs. With this government, the jobs are gone, and that is the crime of this government we are faced with. Their concern is not for the welfare of the British

[ Page 9624 ]

To antagonize the industry by giving them more rules and regulations and putting them into a position that is not profitable is, as I said, tantamount to suicide. Yet we are seeing legislation to impede this industry, to curtail its wealth creation by imposing more restrictions and trying to slow it down, because that's what it will do. This will only add to our already high unemployment of almost 10 percent. I think we are pushing close to about 200,000 people in this province that can't find jobs. That's where the crime is, again.

We live in a province that is well known to have the most union activity in Canada and proportionately the largest number of union members. Over the last decade the numbers indicate that there is actually a slowdown of union activity in British Columbia. Correspondingly, this last decade showed high employment in British Columbia until this NDP government came into power -- until the socialists came in. This socialist, labour-oriented government was elected in '91, and they tried to socialize the economy from then on.

Then the changes to the Labour Code were introduced. I think it was in '92. The unionization of industry and business was made easier through the jigging of certification in Bill 84. Of course, it was supported and brought forward by this NDP government. Not only was certification of unions made easier, but this government put aside democratic principles in order to make certification easier, as I've said. Again, as a result of these actions, the corresponding unemployment grew worse, not better. Now we see high union activity with high unemployment. When we see lower, modest union activity, or equality, we will see low unemployment.

So high activity equals high unemployment; low activity equals low unemployment. This is not union bashing but simply showing that there is a time for change in labour laws -- but not now. Our economy cannot afford it.

We have sort of an economic meltdown that's going on in Asia. This economic meltdown has caused our commodity prices to fall. That's the backbone of our economy, no question about that. The minister over there will recognize that aspect. Our forest products, gas, oil, metals. . . . Resources are our best source of our best types of jobs, and yet we are not producing enough because of market conditions elsewhere. So why would the NDP want to bring in this new, additional labour bill to exacerbate the already troubled construction industry, or the forestry industry -- or any industry, for that matter? I think the construction industry now is down about 4,000 people below where it was just a short while ago.

I am really surprised because of the situation involving this socialist labour government. It was they who promised us more -- or the people out there, more -- and now have given less to those who traditionally have supported them. This NDP government has, no question. . . .

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Point of order. The member opposite referred to the official opposition as fascist Liberals. There is very little decorum in this House. The Minister of Employment and Investment is eating at his desk. There is a little gaggle of members over there having a little conversation, not paying attention. Hon. Speaker, I ask that the member opposite, who referred to the official opposition as fascists, withdraw his comments.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I appreciate the intervention about the noise. I appreciate the point and would recommend to all members to watch the noise level. It's difficult at this time of night.

On the second point, about language heard across the floor, I didn't hear it. The Chair did not hear any comments to that effect, so at this stage we will do nothing further about that. But I would caution all members about appropriate language in the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Debate can now continue.

D. Jarvis: The government's interventions can only be seen as impediments to the functioning of labour markets in this province, and they have resulted in high rates of unemployment. In the present labour markets, rigidity leads to lower levels of production. This is at a time when the population stats show that there's a net outflow from British Columbia and not an inflow that we could possibly prosper from.

At a time when industries, industrial countries and other jurisdictions around this country are enjoying an economic boom, this government is sending this province into a recession with more controls -- on the basis of ideology, not of the basic reasons of why or how to stimulate the economy. Our unemployment rate is, as I said, almost 10 percent -- 9.7 percent. A year ago it was at 8.8 percent. So now we know it's rising. At that time, a year ago, the national average of unemployment was over 9 percent, almost hitting 10 percent. Now the national unemployment rate is down to 8.4 percent, I believe.

The rest of Canada is reorganizing, realizing that massive debt is not the answer and that to create wealth you have to create jobs. This government is continually trying to put impediments in the way so that no jobs are created, and we are getting into a worse situation.

[10:30]

D. Jarvis: Pardon me for the delay there, but there was a little bit of humour being struck across the room, and I lost my thought of what I was trying to say.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: We have a problem here, Madam Speaker. It's not necessarily with the three women ministers over there, yakking away and trying to disrupt my train of thought. The problem is with this government. We have a personal problem in that the disposable incomes of people in British Columbia are down. They're down, they say, by approximately 2.3 percent this year already. That's 2.3 percent more than they were a year ago. . . . That's our income. That's net income after taxes. I say to some of them over there: "Do you not hear any of the bells ringing? Do you not hear the bells going, and that there's a problem in this province?"

[ Page 9625 ]

I said once before that I question whether there was mental incompetence on the part of the government. I think that with this bill, that statement has been confirmed that there is incompetence on their part. Bill 26 is going to affect our economy seriously, because people do not look on B.C. as a place they want to invest in. That is going to cause us problems in the long run.

There are flexible labour laws in many jurisdictions throughout North America. They show that their level of unemployment when you have flexible labour laws is lower. The right-to-work laws mean that everyone has a right to be employed, to acquire work with a willing employer. These jurisdictions with right-to-work laws are all across North America and all show much lower levels of unemployment. Granted, some of these jurisdictions are in the United States, and they have a lower wage scale. But the fact is that their unemployment is lower, the taxes are lower, and they take home more money. As I said earlier, we in B.C. have less money to take home, and our personal disposable incomes are down again -- and they're going to go down continually if we continue the way we are going. Investment for job creation would be higher in B.C. -- or in Canada, for that matter -- if we had right-to-work laws that were in effect, and I believe this to be true.

You, as a worker, should have the right to join a union or not -- but still be able to work. This government does not believe in this right to work, and that has to be considered basically undemocratic. Madam Speaker, how's my time?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I've still got lots of time yet -- good.

It appears that this government feels that things are going to change around slowly, because the Premier's out trying to create work out there by going and enticing industry to come to British Columbia, to give them a break on energy or taxation -- we don't know what he's trying to do to entice them here -- and that things will get better as they go around. . . .

But as I said, our economy is tied to Asia to a certain degree, and there's no upturn to the Asian market that is foreseen in the near future. It may take years for them to dig themselves out of their condition. So in B.C. we have to be concerned because our dollar has fallen in Canada -- and in B.C. -- and we are getting lower prices for all of our products. Our profits are down and no new investment or development is occurring in British Columbia. We have no exploration or construction going on in British Columbia. Ultimately, there will be no new mines or mills in British Columbia. It's a concern. I don't know where we're going to go in the future.

All the evidence that right-to-work laws are job producers is there. And it leads to the smooth functioning of labour markets. Investment from all over the world will come into a labour market of friendly, flexible laws -- and they'll function quite well -- but not into inflexible-law jurisdictions that will retard job creation. That's what is happening, as we see now, in British Columbia.

The construction sector has approximately 8 percent of all the jobs in British Columbia and employs about 120,000 people right now. A large percentage of those construction firms are considered small businesses. Again, in essence, these small businesses are the creators of most jobs in British Columbia. Small business contractors are faced with over 100 pieces of provincially legislated regulations at this point. That has to have an impact, and it's oppressive to say the least.

There is no consistency of contracts when dealing with the government, for example, and every ministry has its own regulations and documents. Tendering procedures are different for virtually every ministry when they are dealing for public facilities. On and on the regulations go, and they are ineffective and costly.

One aspect of this type of legislation before us could possibly be the price of new homes. We saw in the paper the other day that new home construction is down 32 percent, and it's not going to stay there -- it will slip further if we go on with this situation. Costs will certainly rise with Bill 26. As I said, although they say this legislation doesn't apply specifically to residential housing, it could force a collective agreement on the whole residential building industry, as this bill ties in the ICI construction when there is a multi-housing unit attached to a project.

Once again this government has decided arbitrarily to impose new Labour Code changes. Bill 84, brought in 1992, brought in significant changes; they eliminated secret balloting and lowered requirements for certification. Then they brought in Bill 44 last year, which brought forward sectoral bargaining, and then it was pulled. Now, once again, sectoral bargaining appears to be raising its ugly head in this province through Bill 26.

One wonders why. Why would this government bring it in? Why would they seem to have an obligation to react to this kind of legislation, when the province should be looking for stability in recession times instead of more controls and more inflammatory rhetoric by both sides of the equation? Our resource industries are in trouble, and no one seems to know where this government is coming from. Investors are afraid to invest in British Columbia because they have a justifiable impression that here in B.C. the labour climate is difficult to work in. We have impossible land use situations with aboriginal uncertainty, exploration restrictions, and parks and protected areas. This is the rhetoric that is going out to people who want to invest in British Columbia.

I see my time is winding up, so I'll conclude by saying that it is unfortunate that I cannot conclude further. I will say that I have to support the amendment to hoist this bill.

M. Coell: I am pleased to offer some comments on the motion to hoist this bill. This is about letting the government and the people have some time for communication. But I'm an optimist. I believe that we have a great province and great potential in this province. I also believe that one of the great things about this province is the entrepreneurial spirit and free enterprise that this province has. I think that the bill that we're attempting to hoist tonight dampens that. It takes away from individual entrepreneurs the ability to create jobs and oppor-

[ Page 9626 ]

Madam Speaker, it appears to me that there aren't enough members in this House, and I would ask for a quorum call.

Interjections.

M. Coell: The rules are very plain, Madam Speaker. I just want to abide by the rules.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

[10:45]

M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, thank you for that.

As I said, I'm an optimist. I believe that free enterprise is the job creator in this province. As we go through this process of opposition members discussing the merits of Bill 26 and labour legislation, I kind of think that even the Minister of Finance is going to jump up and embrace free enterprise and cast off the old socialist ways she might have. I think there's a potential for that. I'm pleased that so many members of the opposition seem to be here with me tonight, but I'm very pleased that so many members of the government have chosen to be here as well.

I think this is an important debate we're having. It's all about the government listening to the people. It's all about the government listening to the engine of free enterprise in this province, the job creator. One of the wonderful things about free enterprise is that it can be one person, two people. . .two workers decide to form a company and create more jobs -- small companies or large companies. Free enterprise is where the jobs are created in this province, not government. Government doesn't create jobs. It merely sets the tone through labour legislation. It merely sets an environment where jobs can either flourish or fail.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I recognize the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I merely wanted to observe that I was having considerable difficulty in hearing my good friend and colleague. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. Let the member finish his point.

G. Abbott: The members on the government side of the House seem to be quite discombobulated here tonight. But I would like the courtesy of being able to hear the words of my. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Stay in the House, then. Stay in the House, silly boy.

The Speaker: Hon. members, including the hon. minister, order, please.

G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, I would like the Government House Leader to withdraw her suggestion that I am a silly boy. I believe it's quite unparliamentary.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I absolutely withdraw that he's a silly boy.

The Speaker: Unreserved, hon. minister.

G. Abbott: If we could have relative silence in the House, I'm sure that all members would benefit from. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: If you stay, we'll be silent.

The Speaker: Minister, the member can't finish his point with interruptions.

G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, if we could have that relative silence, I certainly would benefit from hearing the words of my good friend and colleague, and I'm sure all members of the House would. I'd ask the House to respect that.

The Speaker: I thank you for your comments, member, and I'm sure the members will take that to heart.

M. Coell: As I said, I'm an optimist. I honestly think that after a few hours of discussion about free enterprise, the Minister of Finance, of all people, will embrace free enterprise, cast off her socialist robes and start to see that the economy is an important part of her job and that job creation is an important part of her job. I think that far too often the government, and especially the Minister of Finance, forgets who creates jobs. You know, it's pretty obvious sometimes when government brings legislation forward that dampens jobs and that scares jobs away from the province. I don't think that the Minister of Finance wants that. I think the Minister of Finance wants to create jobs. I think that possibly I can help her understand that free enterprise is the way to do that -- that individual entrepreneurship, men and women creating jobs, small jobs, small businesses developing into large businesses. . . .

You know, we have a history in this province of small mom-and-pop organizations becoming gigantic job creators. We can do that if we allow that entrepreneurial spirit to thrive in this province, and respect it. Sure, the minister may say: "Well, you have to control them." Sure, you have to control the entrepreneurial spirit. You harness it, and you create the jobs. You harness that spirit; you don't chase it out of the province.

That's what I'm hoping will happen today with this motion, that this bill will be hoisted, that people will start to feel like they're part of the economy again, instead of feeling that government is going to create jobs for them. We've seen seven years of government attempting to create jobs but not

[ Page 9627 ]

Most of the jobs that are disappearing, for a labour government. . . . They should be ashamed. Most of these jobs are union jobs: the forestry jobs, the fishing jobs. Many of the jobs that are disappearing and leaving this province are well-paid union jobs. This government is wrecking the jobs of the people it purports to protect.

You know, you need the entrepreneurial spirit to create jobs in all sectors, union and non-union. That's what's going to help this province recover. It won't recover when one portion of the pie, one portion of the jigsaw puzzle is taken out and thrown away. We need to work together. We need to harness the energy we all have, that labour has and that entrepreneurs have, and respect that. I don't see that in this legislation. I don't see that in the government budget, in the mandates over the years that this government has been in power. It surprises me that the government would hurt the people they purport to support and to represent. Too many jobs are being lost in this province. Too many opportunities are being lost. I think all of us in this House realize that when a job is lost, a family is hurt. Kids are hurt, and wives and husbands are hurt every time a job is lost. I don't know why the government would continue down the road to job loss.

Why don't they turn and say that entrepreneurs and labour, whether it be non-union or union, must work together? We must encourage the creation of free enterprise in this province. Then you're going to see union jobs created naturally. You don't have to government-create a union job. Business will create a union job. But you have to have business willing to invest, willing to come to this province and bring their money and their expertise. You have to be willing to let the mom-and-pop little business grow into a big business. That will create union jobs. If all you want to do is create union jobs, there's a way of doing it very successfully. You create jobs; you create opportunities.

I think that free enterprise is an answer that this government needs to think about. I know that a lot of them are thinking: "We've had seven years of one way of doing business. Has it worked?" I don't think it's worked. I don't think the unemployed of this province think it's worked. They're saying: "Let's change the way we're doing business. Let's change the way we tax. Let's change the way that we encourage free enterprise. Let's change the way we bring the jobs back to this province."

I see one member shaking his head. I would be remiss if I didn't remind government what has gone wrong. That's our job as opposition -- to point out what has gone wrong.

The Minister of Finance can't be very happy right now. I know I wouldn't be if I was the Minister of Finance, and I couldn't balance my budget, and the bond-rating agencies were downgrading me and continued to put me on credit watch and my friends were losing their jobs. I wouldn't be happy. I can see she's not. That's understandable. I want to help her through this. I want to help her bring the jobs back to this province. Chase them out of Alberta. Chase them out of Saskatchewan. Bring them back here. They belong here. It won't be too long. It doesn't happen overnight. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Finally an agenda from the Liberal opposition. Some policies will bring them here -- hang on.

M. Coell: You know, you have an ability to bring the jobs back. You can -- you alone. You alone can bring the jobs back to this province.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry. I was wrong. There's no policy.

M. Coell: The policy that the minister is looking for is very simple. It's called encouraging free enterprise. Don't chase it away. It's pretty simple. And bring the jobs back -- very simple. I think the minister realizes that because, although in some respects her philosophy is socialism, which is: "I've got all the power, and you do what I say. The ministers have all the power, and you do what the government says, because government can do everything. . . ." That's nonsense. You have got to encourage people back here, and you've got to do it through your actions.

Hon. J. MacPhail: How?

M. Coell: Well, the first thing I would do is lower the tax rates. That would be a good start. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay -- carry on. Just a second, I'm getting some policy here.

M. Coell: I think the minister is starting to embrace capitalism. I think two or three more speakers and this minister will be a capitalist. It will be all right then. She'll bring the jobs back naturally. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: How much? Name a number.

M. Coell: "What would be a number?" the minister says. What would be a number? Why don't you just lower them by 10 percent, just to start? I know the minister lowered it by 1 percent in her speech -- 1 percent next year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Carry on. Ten percent. What would you pay for health care with? Come on. . . .

M. Coell: I've got to tell you, Madam Speaker, that I'm enjoying this. The minister is starting to embrace capitalism. I think she's starting to understand that she alone cannot create the jobs. You can create jobs with your budget. You don't legislate jobs; you do it through your budget. The more you legislate jobs, the less jobs you'll have. I've got to tell this minister that the jobs that she could create would be magnificent for this province -- magnificent. But you know. . . .

Interjection.

M. Coell: This minister is really grasping free enterprise. She's getting it, Madam Speaker. I think that by four or five this morning -- or maybe more years; I don't know -- she will understand that the creation of jobs is not her job. The creation of jobs is by the free enterprise system and the entrepreneurs that she can encourage in her budget. You know, if we were to create 50,000 more jobs in this province, you'd have more money for health care, and you'd have more money for education. You can't legislate jobs -- you just can't legislate jobs.

I know the government would love to legislate jobs. They've tried. They tried the timber accord, the fish accord, the forestry renewal accord -- who knows how many accords they've had. Legislating jobs doesn't work. The minister has got to realize that jobs are created by free enterprise. Jobs are created by individuals who take initiative. They aren't legislated. Surely the minister knows that after all these years. Surely the minister knows after eight years in government

[ Page 9628 ]

[11:00]

I know there are members over there in the back bench that are really worried that we're not able to create jobs and that we're not able to listen. . . . They're thinking of voting for this hoist motion. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

M. Coell: . . .for hope in the future, for a new way of doing business in this province. That back bench is ready to go.

I'm telling the minister that she has got to change the way she is doing business. These people are frightened; they're very frightened. They're very, very frightened, as a matter of fact, because they see that the minister might not grasp the free enterprise system, and there will be no jobs -- none at all. But these people want to create jobs, like we on the opposition do. They want to create good-paying jobs, union or non-union -- good-paying, free enterprise jobs. It could happen in this province. The minister just has to change the way she's thinking.

Madam Speaker, we can hoist this motion, and six months can go by. During that time the minister might even want to bring in a new budget. She might take the opportunity in the fall to bring in a new budget and make those tax cuts and make those changes that will make the jobs and the investment rush into this province. It's out there. It's all over the world, and it's watching us to see whether we'd be a good place to create those jobs, whether we're the sort of people who would welcome those jobs. I welcome those jobs. While the Premier is running around North America right now, trying to create jobs, I think he'd be better off to stay here and correct his budget and make some changes so that people think that free enterprise is welcome in British Columbia. Make the changes in the budget. Make the changes in some legislation that would allow the Minister of Finance to be proud that she can balance her budget, proud that she's creating jobs, lots of jobs -- union and non-union. That's what the minister wants to be proud of. I think she probably realizes that.

I know that members of the government back bench want to create those jobs. They see that the way of doing business in British Columbia isn't working anymore. It's sad that it isn't working. It's sad for all those people that believed in the socialist ideals. They've gone and tried them, and they've failed. It's time for a change. This motion gives the government time for reflection and change, time to grow and develop that entrepreneurial spirit, which I know is deep inside the Minister of Finance, pounding away, trying to get out, saying: "Throw off those socialist robes. Embrace the free enterprise system." By the end of this debate -- by the end of the next day, week, month -- she'll have an idea of what the free enterprise movement is to jobs. She'll understand that the mom-and-pop store becomes the Safeway. She'll understand that the mom-and-pop store becomes the Canadian Tire. These corporations are built from individuals, men and women, who believe. . . .

Interjections.

M. Coell: I think Safeway is unionized, my friend.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Well, they don't all have to be unionized. Maybe free enterprise would have some union and some non-union that work together. I don't think you need them all the same. I think we've tried that: everyone has to be the same and carry the same card. It doesn't work in the real world. It didn't work in Russia; it didn't work in Cuba. It didn't work anywhere in socialist countries. There's a new way of doing business. It's simple: encourage the individual, the free enterpriser, to come out to create the jobs. Don't worry about what card they're carrying, what party they belong to or what ideology they believe in. The individual will create the jobs in this province. This is a great province; it has potential. This is a great country; it has potential. Why do we. . . ?

The Speaker: Will the hon. member take his seat. The Government House Leader is on her feet.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I believe we have a hoist motion on the floor, which means that the bill will be hoisted. It seems to me that the hon. member is speaking in favour of the bill. I was hoping that he would clarify his comments and speak to the hoist motion.

The Speaker: I thank the minister for her intervention, and I recognize the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

M. Coell: I think what the hoist motion does here is allow the minister some time to reflect, some time to think. What I'm suggesting to her is what she might think about. She might think about the way of doing business now in British Columbia. . .

Interjections.

M. Coell: . . .whereas that former minister says that we'll all have the same card, everyone will be in one big union and we'll all be controlled somewhere else. What I'm suggesting to the minister is that she needs time to reflect. Reflection would be good for her.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

An Hon. Member: Hallelujah!

M. Coell: Hallelujah! The minister will reflect on what is working and not working in the province. I think what I'm trying to do is set in motion what she could be looking at for six months, while we hoist this bill. She could be looking at what she has done as a minister in the last year, at what former Ministers of Finance did in this province, and at what the Premier and former Premier did. Those are the sorts of

[ Page 9629 ]

What I'm also trying to add is what the Liberal opposition believes would create jobs and generate interest in this province, and that is to harness free enterprise once again. Don't be afraid of it; harness it. Make it work for you; make it create jobs. Make it create the jobs that were lost in the forest industry and in the fishing industry. Let's make up for all those jobs that have moved to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Washington. There's an opportunity here for the minister, and I don't want her to miss it. There's an opportunity for her to reflect on the past and move forward to the future.

We have a brilliant future in British Columbia, with or without this government. What we have to do as the opposition is try and help the government to see the error of its ways, to see that maybe socialism isn't the way to go. Maybe it isn't what these members were brought up with and spoon-fed. Maybe, just maybe, there's a better way to create jobs than to legislate jobs with big government. I think there is. I know that there's some members over there that agree with me. I know that the minister is starting to come around. I think there's potential -- I can tell.

What this hoist motion will do is allow for that reflection. And that reflection should happen all the time. It's not something that should just sort of happen when the opposition wants it to happen. It should be a natural thing for this NDP government that whenever they come up with a new way of doing business, they test it out, shop it around and maybe ask a few people other than their own friends. You kind of get stale when you only ask your own friends about ideas you might have. Maybe sometimes the people you don't think are your friends might have good ideas too. I always found that was helpful in municipal government, and I know other members in this House know that as well. I think that many times a member of the opposition would say something to a government backbencher, and maybe they'd listen. Maybe they'd say: "Ah, I don't necessarily agree, but I have enough respect that I'll listen." That's all I'm asking for here: a little thought towards the free enterprise system.

I know that for some socialists, it causes revulsion to think that free enterprise could actually create a job. But throughout the last ten years, all the successful job creation in this country and in parts of the United States. . . . And I know some of the socialists hate the United States too -- and it's got all sorts of problems. But they do have some good ideas, and maybe we should look at them. Maybe we should look at Alberta's ideas. You know what? As a Liberal and a free-enterpriser, I'm willing to look at Saskatchewan. I think they're doing a great job in many areas. So it's not just a one-way street, where we say to the socialists: "You've got to look at some free enterprise ideas." I'm willing to look at some of your ideas, and I'm willing to maybe look at some of the things that the Saskatchewan government is doing.

But one thing we've got to do here is we've got to reflect on the past seven years -- where we've got to in this province and where we're going to go in the future. This motion gives us an opportunity to reflect. It gives an opportunity for the members in the back bench to reflect and maybe talk with the minister and say: "You know, maybe these free-enterprisers have got an idea. We don't seem to be creating any jobs; we seem to be losing our friends' jobs. We seem to be losing all the people that work in the woods; we seem to be losing their jobs."

Those are good British Columbia jobs, whether they're union or non-union. If those sorts of things are starting to bother the government and the minister, I've got to tell you, they're bothering me. They're bothering the people on this side of the House. We don't want to see any more jobs lost. We want to see jobs created. We want to bring back the jobs to this great province.

But I don't think you can do it going down the road you are. You're going down the same old path that's been tried and tried and hasn't worked. There is a new way of doing business. A new way of doing business for this government would be to start to think about, yes, free enterprise. How do we encourage free enterprise? I know that some of those ministers are thinking: "If we could only get some free enterprise, if they'd only listen to us, because we've stomped on so many of them and kicked them out of the province. . . ."

But I've got to tell you: if the minister comes back in the fall -- I think after this bill is hoisted, and I'm sure it will be -- and tables a new budget, which I'm sure she will. . . . She'll table a new budget; she's writing down ideas right now. She's going to come back and table a budget that will start to bring back the free-enterprisers and the money, one by one -- not big corporations, but individuals. Individuals will step forward and say: "You know, I trust this government. I trust this system that's set up. I trust this budget. I trust the minister. I'm going to invest my hard-earned money and take a chance. While I do that, I'm going to create a job. Maybe I'm going to create two jobs, and if I'm successful, maybe I'm going to create six jobs."

And maybe, just maybe, they'll be union jobs. I don't know. Maybe they will; maybe they won't. But they'll be jobs, and that's a start. Because if we don't start creating jobs, we're not going to have any union jobs or any non-union jobs. But I've got to tell you, in my books they're all good jobs as long as someone's working, because when someone isn't working, their family is hurting. We can't afford to hurt another family in this province because we're going down the wrong way. We have got to stick up for individuals, for youth -- I think the heart of everyone in this chamber breaks when they see 20 percent unemployment for youth in this area. That's no good. We can do better than that. We can create those jobs. How do we create those jobs? We create them by reflecting. What this motion does is it gives us some time to reflect on the path we're going down, and maybe to change that path and the direction, embrace some new ideas, create those jobs so that children and families can work and people can get on with their lives in British Columbia. I hope the government supports this motion.

B. Penner: I stand today in support of the motion moved by my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, suggesting that Bill 26 be shelved for at least the next six months. There's a very good reason why Bill 26 should be shelved for the next six months. I was here when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved this motion earlier today, just as I was here -- unlike most members of the government benches, all but two -- when he moved a motion two weeks ago which effectively derailed the government's plans to ram this labour legislation down the throats of British Columbians. The government members couldn't bother to be here. I understand the Minister of Agriculture was out having a ham sandwich, and perhaps that's where he is now, because I don't see him. But I was here then, and I'm here today supporting my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson and his reasonable suggestion that this House move Bill 26 off the rails for the next six months. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Take your seat, please. I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment on a point of order.

[ Page 9630 ]

The Speaker: I'm sure we're all aware of that, and we'll take that to heart. I would ask the member for Chilliwack to continue.

[11:15]

There's a reason why I support the motion put forward by my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. . . . I was looking earlier tonight at some quotations I've got that are attributed to Sir Winston Churchill. There's one that struck me as being rather apropos: "There are men in the world who derive as stern an exultation from the proximity of disaster and ruin, as others from success." It seems to me that the NDP government enjoys bringing ruin upon the province. Certainly they have succeeded in bringing economic disaster to British Columbians.

Last week, the day after Canada Day, I was looking through the Vancouver Sun newspaper for July 2, and on page A7 I encountered the following extract:

"During the period from 1992 to 1997, rapid population growth made the B.C. economy seem relatively robust." Just as an aside, that was a period when the NDP was in office. "However, during this period, the province's gross domestic product per person declined by 0.5 percent. All the other provinces were going in the opposite direction. Newfoundland's economy grew at ten percent GDP per capita; Saskatchewan's grew by 20.6 percent. The average increase for all provinces was 7.8 percent. Many B.C. business leaders have laid the blame for this bleak record at the feet of the NDP, and the labour bill" -- that's Bill 26 -- "has become a symbol for all that is wrong with the NDP's economic policies."

When I think back to what got me involved in politics, it was the realization that the NDP did not celebrate success. In 1991, I spent some time in Southeast Asia on a law co-op program. When I returned to British Columbia, I was struck by the contrast between the excitement around new investment and job creation in Southeast Asia and the attitude on the part of this government that if somebody was successful -- if an enterprise was succeeding and making profits, if people were risking their future and investing capital -- somehow that was a negative thing. It was almost a sense of jealousy towards people who were successful, held by those who were not entrepreneurially inclined for whatever reason.

I'm not the world's greatest entrepreneur, and I realize that there will be people who are more successful than I, particularly in the world of finance and economic endeavours. And I will never be a rich person financially; I don't expect to be. I accept that, but I don't begrudge those that are successful, provided that they play by the rules and pay their fair share of taxes. We need to learn to celebrate success in British Columbia, rather than criticize those and somehow demean them and use them as a political whipping boy -- if that's not politically incorrect -- just to achieve our own political ends.

I support the motion to adjourn debate and effectively shelve Bill 26 for the next six months because I don't think our economy can take any more abuse, ruin and disaster brought by the NDP. As you know, Bill 26 will dramatically expand the power of unions in the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors. It will make it easier for trade unions to recruit new members by allowing them to offer a single standard contract, instead of requiring newly organized union members to negotiate a first contract from scratch. It favours a one-size-fits-all contract in an industry which has become competitive by moving beyond sectoral bargaining. This law will turn back the clock on the increased efficiency that's been achieved, with unions who recognize the advantage of going to wall-to-wall bargaining. That is, in a particular construction site a person who's a tradesman -- for example, a labourer -- could also help an electrician. This bill goes back to the era when an electrician would refuse to pick up a hammer, the result being that the employer has to call in somebody who's a carpenter and pay that person for up to four hours even for a small job, even if the task at hand takes only five minutes to hammer in a nail.

In my view, Bill 26 is deliberately and dangerously ambiguous. If any residential construction project -- even a few townhouses or condominiums, for example -- has a commercial component such as a small restaurant, a corner store or offices on the ground level, it will potentially fall under the agreement of the commercial sector. As a result, unions will be able to organize the multi-family residential sector through the back door. This means less flexibility for employers and workers and, ultimately, higher costs for consumers. The Premier has made it clear that Bill 26 is only the beginning. Last summer's Bill 44, which the government abandoned after a public outcry, will simply be introduced in stages, incrementally, one year at a time.

The NDP says that Bill 26 will increase stability in the construction industry. In fact, there is no evidence of instability. B.C. has enjoyed a long period of relative labour peace, even in the construction industry. The NDP says that Bill 26 will have no economic impact; yet they haven't conducted an economic impact study on this bill. Bill 26 cannot fix what isn't broken; it can only make things worse. At a time when our economy is faltering, these Labour Code changes will do nothing but discourage investment in B.C. and cost us badly needed jobs. Working people aren't helped by putting them out of work. Our provincial unemployment rate is near 10 percent -- it's almost 20 percent for students -- and that's double the rate in Alberta and Washington State. Under the NDP we have gone from being the fastest-growing economy in Canada to being dead last. That's nothing to be proud of or delight in; that's nothing to take credit for. But that is the record of this government, and they keep carrying on in their outmoded socialist ways. They can't seem to understand. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Neo-socialist.

B. Penner: The Minister of Finance would like me to preface my comment by saying "neo-socialist" policies. But their policies are straight out of the 1950s: more government spending, more government taxes, more government borrowing and more government disaster.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member, could you take your seat please? The member for Shuswap rises.

G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, I'm having some difficulty again hearing the words of my friend and colleague. Given

[ Page 9631 ]

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate your point of order, member. The Chair would also like to remind members that we're dealing with the amendment on Bill 26, and we are becoming fairly repetitive in regard to the debate.

B. Penner: The actions of this government have become rather repetitive. As we look over their track record in the last seven years, almost every single action they've taken has hurt the B.C. economy. That is repetitive. If you think it's painful for us to sit here and watch their repetitive actions, think about all of the people they've put out of work and the impact that's had on British Columbians and their families. That is shameful, hon. Speaker, that is repetitive, and that is what should be stopped in British Columbia.

We have to delay this bill -- at the very least by six months, if not forever. I said earlier that I don't think the economy in British Columbia can take any more disaster imposed upon it by this provincial government. This session alone we've seen numerous examples by this NDP government which have hurt the economy. It's not one piece of government legislation alone that will do it. It's a series of government policies instituted in British Columbia over the last seven years that has driven the B.C. economy from number one in Canada to being dead last.

The NDP doesn't understand, but it's the truth. You just have to ask the people who are leaving British Columbia. Two weeks ago, Statistics Canada revealed that for the first time in 15 years more people are leaving British Columbia to go to the rest of Canada than are coming to British Columbia from the rest of Canada. That is the legacy of NDP policies over the past seven years. It's the result of one bad idea imposed upon another.

Earlier this session we had Bill 14, also brought in by the Minister of Labour. Incidentally, that was tabled in this Legislature the day after the Minister of Finance appointed a committee to examine ways to reduce red tape. The very next day the Minister of Labour got up and tabled a bill that brought more red tape for small businesses in British Columbia. That is sadly ironic. And it is repetitive, hon. Speaker. That's exactly what it is -- repetition by this NDP government of harmful policies that are detrimental to British Columbians. There's no way to deny the statistics. Our unemployment rate is the highest in western Canada. It's higher than our competitors in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. It's higher than Washington State, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California and Nevada.

Tell me, hon. Speaker, why can't the government understand the result of their policies? Everybody else in British Columbia realizes it. In fact, 3,500 British Columbians, according to Statistics Canada, realized that there was no hope here, and they got up and left -- 3,500 people got up and left British Columbia because of the policies of the NDP. So much for success.

I want to take a look at Bill 14, which was tabled earlier in this session. I think it tells us why the economy in British Columbia can't take any more harmful actions on the part of this government. Bill 14 requires all businesses with ten employees or more to have a designated safety representative and to pay that person for eight or more hours of training per year. There's no certainty in the legislation. The requirement could be increased by regulation. Businesses with 20 employees or more, such as restaurants with four full-time and 16 part-time workers, will have to form health and safety committees. Each employee on the committee is entitled to eight hours of safety training at the employer's expense -- or more. Again, the number of hours required could be increased by cabinet at some later date, and there would be no public input into that decision -- a decision made behind closed doors. Employers must pay for the equipment, premises and clerical personnel used by these committees.

Other jurisdictions have tried this approach, and there's no evidence that this route leads to fewer workplace injuries. As we've said repeatedly -- talk about repetition during debate, but the Minister of Labour didn't seem to understand it -- we all want safer workplaces. But Bill 14 is more about process, red tape and extra cost than it is about safety. The NDP says that they're candid in admitting that they made a mistake with the Forest Practices Code by focusing on process rather than results. Yet they're making the same mistake with Bill 14. They're making the same mistake with Bill 26. When will the NDP realize that their repetitive actions of hurting the economy are not even good politics? They're certainly not good for British Columbians.

Talk to the people that are out of work. I talk to the people in my constituency who are trying to make ends meet. In fact, I just got off the phone about two hours ago with a person who runs an auction house for cattle in my community. He says that a few years ago there were 1,400 farmers in British Columbia. Today he says there are approximately 600. Do you think that affects a cattle auctioneer? You'd better believe it does. I asked him: "Where have they gone?" He said: "Alberta." I asked him: "Why do you think they went to Alberta?" He said: "Well, Barry, you know the reasons. It's the policies of the NDP government -- taxes, taxes, taxes."

You know what is behind that? It is the attitude displayed by the Minister of Labour: "People be damned -- it doesn't matter. We can do whatever we want as government. We can impose whatever new regulation we want, whatever new taxes we want, because we know best. After all, we're collecting our fat salaries at the expense of taxpayers in British Columbia." Well, guess what: those salaries are going to dry up if there aren't taxpayers to pay them. Taxpayers are leaving British Columbia because of the policies of the NDP government. That's what constituents tell me when I take the time to listen to them. I suspect that the government doesn't do much of that.

There are other pieces of legislation that the NDP has tabled this session that I think are also detrimental to the economy of British Columbia. Again, as I've said, no single piece of legislation can kill an economy the way the NDP has killed the B.C. economy over seven years. It's incremental; it's policy by policy that is slowly driving the life out of the B.C. economy. One more example was Bill 19, which contained changes to the Residential Tenancy Act. At the end of the day, investors in my constituency are telling me that they will be less inclined to build more rental housing because of the changes that the NDP brought to the Residential Tenancy Act. In a nutshell, the changes contained in Bill 19 allow an arbitrator to overrule an eviction notice where the arbitrator thinks it may cause undue hardship for a tenant.

[11:30]

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 9632 ]

Deputy Speaker: Member, we're dealing with the amendment. . . .

B. Penner: That's one policy, and Bill 26 is another. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please. We're dealing with the amendment to Bill 26. I would ask the member to direct his comments to that amendment.

B. Penner: The amendment is needed to support the construction industry in British Columbia. Bill 19 already hurts the construction industry by discouraging investment in rental housing. Bill 26 will do the same thing. It's one more nail in the coffin of the B.C. economy, thanks to this NDP government.

You know, throughout the province the response has been the same to Bill 26: why now, why ever? In the Chilliwack Times there is an editorial dated June 19, 1998. I'll quote a small excerpt here: "Retching can be heard. . . ."

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. I'm having trouble hearing the speaker.

Interjection.

B. Penner: I can hear the cackling of the Minister of Finance. I didn't think it was that late.

"Retching can be heard in offices and restaurants from Rupert to Osoyoos. No need to slap us on the back. Naught will stop it. That unpleasant sound you hear is British Columbia gagging. It's a reflex. Bound to happen, any biologist will tell you, when something is rammed down your throat. That's what's up in Victoria today. I speak of changes introduced in the Labour Code.

"The NDP calls them 'minor,' but please don't be naïve. Naïvety of the electorate got this sorry lot elected, and we've seen B.C. sink into a cesspool of bad credit, lost jobs and fading opportunity since. The government of [the Premier] introduced Second Reading of the Labour Code changes yesterday, not 24 hours after tabling Bill 26. Why the rush?

"So next year, sectoral bargaining could swallow residential construction workers, then civic workers. . . . It's all part of the master plan, I figure, to have 60 percent of B.C.'s workforce unionized. That may be Glen Clark's dream, but I don't believe for a minute it's shared by a majority of his constituents. And I believe he knows it. That's why he's trying to shove it down our throats before we notice. Let's not let him."

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair, and perhaps I have an odd moment here in the break, a lull from across the House, in order to say that I'm having some difficulty once again in hearing the thoughtful comments of the member. It seems that, while they recognize the direction and suggestion of the Chair to pay some respect and courtesy to the speaker, after a period of a few minutes that direction and advice seems to be lost. As a consequence, I and other members of the House may be in jeopardy of not hearing the thoughtful comments of the member for Chilliwack.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your point is well taken. The Chair doesn't like to interrupt the speaker often to make that point, and I'm glad you brought that up.

B. Penner: I'll just continue with the remarks from an editorial that appeared in the Chilliwack Times on Friday, June 19. The editor says that he knows why the Premier is doing this, and it's to reward his trade union friends who financed his campaign. And he says: "That's why he's trying to shove it down our throats before we notice. Let's not let him. Bill 44 was bad a year ago. The NDP knew it, and worked to better it. If Bill 26 is a true fix, what's the rush to get it through?" And I think the editor answers his own question with the headline: "Why a Rush? Because Bill 26 Is That Bad." It's bad for B.C., it's bad for British Columbians, and we should delay this bill for at least six months, as proposed by the motion put forward by my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

I don't mind the members of the government actually listening to this debate for once, because they certainly weren't listening two weeks ago when my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson moved his other motion, and all they could think about was a ham sandwich. Now, I won't make mention of the fact that many members of the government aren't present, because I know it's not appropriate to do that, so I won't do it. But at least tonight, they are listening to what's happening in the chamber, unlike two weeks ago.

There are other comments about Bill 26 that I'm receiving from people in British Columbia, in particular in my constituency, people that I speak to on a regular basis. This is a letter I received from one gentleman in my constituency, and he says:

"Once again, we were introduced to Labour Code changes that will hurt the working class. How does this benefit us and our suffering economy?" He's referring to Bill 26. "The economy of Newfoundland is more buoyant than that of B.C., for all the wrong reasons. Barry, would you please get the message out that at least one of your constituents has become irate enough to question what is going on. What can be done about this?"

Here is some more commentary that I've reviewed in recent times, in considering my position on Bill 26 and this motion about delaying the bill. In the Vancouver Sun of June 20, 1998, there was an opinion piece by a person by the name of Maureen Enser. She talks about the impact of Bill 26 on British Columbia:

"There is little doubt that the Labour Code changes presented in the Legislature this week are bad for business, jobs and the economy in British Columbia. Any labour law amendments that favour unions and entrench archaic labour practices are a red flag to investors. It seems that once again the provincial government has decided to put the interests of its union allies above the need to formulate credible public policy that builds confidence in our economy. The government is out of touch with economic reality if it believes these changes will not drive businesses out of the province and further undermine investor confidence. Although the amendments will introduce

[ Page 9633 ]

sectoral bargaining in only the industrial, commercial and institutional. . .construction sector, mixed-use projects which have a blend of commercial and residential use may also be affected. The Premier apparently believes he owes these changes to the unions in return for their support at the polls. But he needs to realize that the jobs at risk as a result of the proposals include those of union members. He is doing the unions a disservice rather than a favour."

Last week I received a letter from a different Penner, a Mr. Paul Penner, who is a land surveyor in my constituency -- no relation. This is what he says in relation to Bill 26:

"My business practice is a small, hands-on, professional practice. At the present time, and for some time now, business has been less than favourable due, in large part, to the record and performance of the NDP government. Bill 26, in my opinion, will only tend to aggravate the slump in our province's economy. After 18 years of serving the local market, my business is slowly dying. Thank you very much, NDP government. It is time to act. Withdraw Bill 26. If you must enact legislation, enact legislation that will encourage and not discourage economic growth. Withdraw Bill 26. Give small business a chance."

Frankly, I think the bill should be gone forever, because when I asked the Minister of Labour what Bill 26 will do to create jobs, his answer was: "It's not intended to do it." And I think that was a candid answer. He's right. It will not create jobs. It will have the opposite effect. British Columbia will lose more jobs, and in fact we lost jobs last year in British Columbia. We were the only province in Canada that lost jobs. Newfoundland had growth in jobs, Prince Edward Island had more jobs, Quebec had more jobs, but British Columbia lost jobs.

What happened in Alberta? I have friends who have moved to Alberta. People I went to high school with have moved to Alberta from Chilliwack in order to get employment. When I talk to them they tell me that they have more work than they can handle. I have one friend who I have known since about grade 5 who in a given week can work up to 80 hours if he wants the overtime, because the economy is that strong in Alberta. He's had to abandon Chilliwack and his family in order to get long-term, meaningful employment. That is shameful and it makes me angry. The members opposite cackle and laugh, and I suppose they do that because of taxpayers supporting their paycheques and pensions. But it's not fair. It's not fair to British Columbians; it's not fair to the people who pay taxes or to people who have hopes and dreams of building a prosperous life for themselves in British Columbia. Thanks to the NDP they've had to leave B.C., because the NDP has killed the economy in British Columbia.

I think I'll share with the members opposite some more commentary that is circulating in my constituency. I know that they've been interested so far. I'm referring now to the Chilliwack Progress and an editorial dated May 10, 1998. Headline: "NDP Tying Up Small Business in Death Grip."

"With much fanfare [the Minister of Small Business] announced the creation of a task force that would deal with the problem of bureaucratic red tape that continuously strangles small business. But at the same time as this act of propaganda was taking place, the NDP were preparing Bill 14" -- something I've alluded to earlier -- "a piece of legislation that will send any diehard B.C. business people to Alberta.

"Under Bill 14, all businesses with ten employees or more must have a designated safety officer and pay that person for eight hours or more of training per year. Businesses with 20 employees -- full- or part-time -- must form health and safety committees, and each employee on the committee is entitled to eight hours of safety training at the employers' expense."

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a point of order about the relevancy of debate. I think the member shows admirable progress in his reading skills, and I think he should be lauded for that, but it's irrelevant to the debate.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Members, the Chair has made remarks in that regard. We are repeating ourselves in this debate, and we should really try to make progress. I would ask the member for Chilliwack to continue.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker. You're right: the government is very repetitive, with bad policies that are hurting the economy in British Columbia. Bill 14 was one; Bill 26 is another. The economy in British Columbia can't take much more, and that's why I support the motion to delay Bill 26 for at least six months. If the government can't get that through their heads, well, I'm not surprised. After seven years, they haven't understood that their policies have hurt the economy in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Just before I recognise the next speaker, I really must emphasize that we are repeating ourselves in debate. Members should try to bring forward some fresh ideas. With that, I recognize the member for Okanagan East.

J. Weisbeck: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. These are definitely some new ideas, some fresh ideas, and a whole different look at this debate.

An Hon. Member: So far, so good.

J. Weisbeck: Do you like it so far?

This motion is to hoist this bill for six months and give some time for this government to reflect on what they've really done. I'd like to thank you, hon. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak to this very controversial bill. The controversy arises from a concern regarding the effect that this bill will have on our economy by the removal of flexibility in labour law and of the ability to be competitive in the new global economy. The lack of support for this bill has been shown in a recent poll. Only 19 percent of the public feel that changing the Labour Code to move the balance in favour of the trade unions is good for investment and business in this province.

[11:45]

[ Page 9634 ]

It is on behalf of my constituents, as well, that I rise to speak on the amendment to Bill 26. Many of them have expressed their concerns about the state of this province. They are concerned about their futures as they see their taxes rising, their pocketbooks shrinking and the health care and education systems falling into shambles. The riding of Okanagan East is very diverse. Historically it has been able to withstand fluctuations in the economy over the years. But even in Okanagan East there are limitations. The negative impact that current NDP policies are having on the local economy. . . . There is no doubt in their minds that the introduction of Bill 26 is bad for business, jobs and the economy of B.C.

Bill 26 is not just a statute. It's not just words. It's what that bill symbolizes. Any changes to the Labour Code are negative signals. Any labour laws that favour unions and entrench archaic labour practices are a red flag to investors. It would appear that the NDP would rather put their own self-serving interests ahead of the formation of credible public policy that builds confidence in our economy. Kelowna's economy is not the only economy in B.C. that has been affected. The latest Fraser Institute survey of senior investment managers emphasizes that B.C. and Quebec are the worst investment climates in Canada; 49 percent of investment managers held negative views about the investment climate in B.C., and British Columbia gained only 3 percent of the positive responses.

The relative rankings reinforced the negative view of B.C., which was awarded ninth position amongst the other provinces and territories. The report also stated that between 1994 and 1996, the average business investment in machinery and equipment, as a percentage of GDP, was lowest in B.C., at 7.7 percent. In the same period, business non-residential investment was lowest in B.C.

The survey results show that B.C. is perceived to have the most hostile investment climate of all the provinces. Respondents indicated that taxation policy and labour legislation were the key reasons for B.C.'s dismal performance -- another reason why this bill should be hoisted. This bill introduces sectoral bargaining in the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sector. The problem lies in the mixed-use projects which have a blend of commercial and residential use -- projects that are being promoted by many municipalities. There certainly was a time when I was on city council when there were many attempts to revitalize downtown with such projects. This is not a front-door route to get unionization in the residential construction industry, but rather a sneaky back-door approach.

A study of the impact of sectoral bargaining in the B.C. construction industry was undertaken by Roslyn Kunin and Associates on behalf of the Urban Development Institute. The report showed that the threat of increased unionization, through the Labour Code changes, has pushed the cost of doing business in B.C. so high that 80 percent of developers and builders interviewed said that they are seriously considering moving their operations out of the province. The report also stated that the combination of poor business climate and the threat of new legislation is causing a continued flow of construction industry capital, affecting jobs, out of the province.

This certainly was evident in a letter I received from Acorn Homes in Kelowna. I'll just quote a couple of parts from that letter. Acorn Homes employs 22 full-time employees. They build 80 to 100 homes per year. Their paycheques are between $800,000 and $1 million per month for labour and materials. He says:

"I believe that the proposed changes would adversely affect my business, causing me to close down and move away to a place where we are not to be penalized for being an entrepreneur. Several others have already gone, and this option looks better every day. The economy is already the worst in all of Canada, and when you add this burden to the already sinking ship, it will wreck us."

The NDP government is constantly abusing the democratic process and fairness in the introduction of this bill. Why would they call second reading the day after the bill was introduced? Why would they not give British Columbians a chance to review and respond to the bill before it is passed? I think this is another reason why we should hoist this bill. Give us a chance, six months -- an opportunity for the public to have a look at this bill and, obviously, for the government to respond. But this whole process by the NDP government is predictable. Only this government would abandon all tradition and bend the rules of the House -- laws that we have to follow -- to suit their own purpose.

So what is their hurry? Why are they so quick to ram through this bill? Could it be that they understand the reaction that British Columbians will have towards this bill? They know, and they are attempting to pass this bill without the majority of British Columbians knowing. Do they feel that the reaction will be softened if it becomes law before the working public can respond to a bill that will have a huge impact on their futures? Along with that problem was that the NDP did not do an economic impact study. They introduced this lopsided piece of legislation, caring only about paying back their union supporters and without caring about the consequences of the opinions of British Columbians.

I would suggest this to the government: the public will not accept this type of management. Actually, I should say mismanagement. The public's trust is at an all-time low. Not only are they angry, but they don't trust this government. They want to be involved in the decision-making -- not some phony summit where their concerns are not listened to. They want an honest analysis of their needs.

The public wants some accountability in the system. They want a strategic plan with some measurable outcomes. You can appreciate their annoyance when this government introduces this narrow-minded piece of legislation without any idea of the outcome, without an economic impact study. They continue to claim that this is a modest adjustment, but without an impact study, this is an empty statement. It's not a piece of legislation that creates balance between business and the labour industries. This is not about common sense; it's about political intervention.

I would suggest that the Premier must be under incredible pressure from his nineteenth cabinet minister to subject himself to this much abuse. The marker has finally been called in, and it's now payback time for the support the NDP received in the last election -- as well as at the Premier's crowning. His friends tell him to ignore his constituents, ignore business and ignore the damage that his actions could do to the B.C. economy, and ram through this bill. The Premier is obviously desperate to win votes from the unions. However, he must realize that the jobs at risk as a result of those proposals include those of union members.

[ Page 9635 ]

I'd like to quote from another letter. This is from the general manager of a hotel in Kelowna. His letter states:

"The introduction of mandatory sectoral bargaining is simply not fair to small business. I'm not naïve enough to believe that it will be limited to commercial construction only. This legislation shows no regard to the rights and needs of individual companies and their employees. It shows little regard to our province's ability to attract and keep investments and the jobs associated with those investments. The economic and investment climate of this province is an embarrassment. The last thing that B.C. needs is unbalanced labour legislation that further undermines the stability of this province."

We've had a whole year since the introduction and withdrawal of Bill 44 to hear our constituents' concerns. The comment has been made that Bill 26 is a watered-down version of Bill 44. The son of Bill 44 must consider the business climate of a year ago and, as a result, the impacts of these two bills are equal. One year later, 198,000 are unemployed, a growth of 12.1 percent in the last 12 months; there is 9.7 percent unemployment, compared to 8.7 percent unemployment one year ago. And B.C. is going against the trend in the rest of Canada: in B.C. the average weekly earnings are declining.

The bill should not have been read a first time; it should not have been read at all. The business community has said loud and clear: "Do not tinker with the Labour Code. It will kill jobs and tell the rest of the world that B.C. is not open to investment."

Why, then, after a whole year of hearing the public's concerns, would this government introduce this bill? Some would say it's payback time -- time to pay the union piper. B.C. has garnered a lot of attention over its failing economy, probably because we have always been a province of surplus, hope and opportunity. The rest of the world looks at us in astonishment: how could a government, given a province in the beginning of their mandate, mess up everything so badly?

B.C.'s economy is at a time of considerable uncertainty. Confidence is at an all-time low. There is a widespread feeling that our competitive edge has worn thin. The Wall Street Journal tells the world that this Premier's socialist government has crippled B.C.'s economy:

"Canadians are having second thoughts about this Lotusland of the north. After years of vigorous expansion the province's economy has fallen off the rails. Unemployment is rising, bankruptcy filings increased 12 percent last year, housing starts have been falling since last summer and many people are leaving. Jock Finlayson, an economist with the Business Council of British Columbia, notes that the province's economy began underperforming Canada's well before Asia's problems surfaced late last year. He charges that the government has created barriers to business by increasing labour costs and the cost of complying with a thickening forest of regulations."

"Many British Columbians remain troubled by the province's track record and its continuing budget deficit."

Numerous speakers from that side of the House have claimed to be the white knights of the working class, the great saviours, the protectors of the working class. I've always found it curious that the NDP can separate the working class from the rest of British Columbians. I suspect that this party makes a distinction in the working class: those that they support are workers carrying a union card. I'd like to know if the working class that the NDP relates to is as subject to overtaxation as the rest of British Columbians. Are they affected by a health care system in disarray? Are they affected by overregulation? Are they affected by the lack of jobs? Are they affected by unemployment? I really do challenge the unions to get a consensus from their union members, a consensus from a secret ballot, free of fear of reprisal. I'd like to see the result of that vote, with some of the following questions. Would you like to see the reinstatement of a secret ballot? Are you happy with the direction your union is taking with the Labour Code? Would you like to see more flexibility in light of the current economic conditions in British Columbia? I suspect we'd see some very interesting results, ones that would demand the withdrawal of Bill 26.

[12:00]

My constituents are shaking their heads in disbelief over the introduction of this bill. They cannot believe that this government is so shortsighted as not to see that any changes to the labour laws of this province will further erode the certainty and confidence for investment in B.C. Numerous people have approached me and are asking: "Why would this government do this? Why would the government be ignoring the job creators in this province when they have said: 'Leave the Labour Code alone'?"

It's very frustrating to see the lack of common sense, to look around the rest of the country and see where others are doing better. Is the NDP so blinded by their archaic party ideology that they can't see -- or probably do not want to make the adjustment to their policies so that this province can once again be labour-friendly?

I had the privilege to attend a conference in Austin, Texas. The conference was called "Managing for Results -- Decision-making in the Age of Accountability." The conference theme was performance-based budgeting. It's the idea that one should have a strategic plan with a set of indicators where one can measure the outcomes. I mention this conference because the whole concept of accountability is important to this bill. In Bill 26, the whole process was sidestepped when this government introduced a narrow-minded piece of legislation without any idea of the outcome. They have gone ahead and introduced a piece of legislation without an impact study. They continue to claim that this is a modest adjustment. Well, without an impact study, this is just an empty statement. We need to base decisions on performance so that outcomes can be predicted. What is the strategic plan of the government when it comes to investment and job creation?

In spite of all this, I cannot believe the contempt for business that this party has. We need to work together in this

[ Page 9636 ]

The Kelowna Chamber of Commerce is very concerned about the impact of the Labour Code amendment. I'd like to quote a couple of pieces from a letter written to the Minister of Labour:

"There is no other piece of legislation that has the same potential as the B.C. Labour Code to drive job-creating investment away from this province. . . . The needs of business to innovate and adapt in an increasingly competitive world marketplace are realities that none of us in either business or labour communities can afford to ignore. Simply put, the laws of economics cannot be legislated and existing job-creating investors -- as well as potential new investors -- are increasingly looking elsewhere to locate their businesses. The corresponding loss of employment opportunities, government revenues and related economic benefits cannot be ignored when changes to the code are contemplated."

British Columbians have always been proud of their status in Canada. They've always been proud to be in a province with so much diversity and potential, but this has all changed. We now see ourselves moving down the ladder. We've become the laughingstock of Canada. Our mayor was at a CFM conference in Saskatchewan recently and was riding the bus back from the conference to the hotel with a delegate from Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. The delegate very boldly asked what it was like to come from a province of have-nots. Can you imagine that somebody from a province that drinks screech and kisses codfish is calling us have-nots?

The NDP must take responsibility for our economic woes. They should take the direction of Alcoholics Anonymous, when they stand up and admit they have a problem and understand that they can't have healing until there's an admission. The government needs to admit that it has a problem with creating a negative climate for our business in the province. They must admit that they have a serious unemployment problem -- higher than the rest of the country, at 9.7 percent. They must admit that 12,000 workers have lost their jobs. They must admit that they have forced the migration of people out of this province. There must be some aggressive steps to turn our economy around. It starts with this government taking its head out of the sand and admitting that it has a serious problem.

With all these facts it is inconceivable that changes to the Labour Code are introduced without an economic impact study being done, especially at a time when business is saying not to touch the Labour Code. The effect will not be modest. It will have a profound effect by saying that B.C. is not open for business.

The events that have transpired over the past few days, the need for Motion 50, are the actions of a sloppy government. This shows once again that they are not fully prepared to be a government, that this government does not represent the majority of British Columbians, and that they have no strategic plan to rescue our failing economy. These past few days show that this government lacks discipline, sensitivity and vision. What this whole issue has further shown is the arrogance and contempt for procedure and this government's lack of respect for this House -- their attitude that they can do anything they want.

I have never heard as much public outcry to any piece of legislation. This piece of legislation has become an election issue. I challenge this government to take this issue to the public. Call an election and get a picture of how much support is out there for this economic policy. At the very least I challenge the NDP government to give their members a free vote. These members can stand up before their constituents and, in conscience, vote for this amendment. If the minister feels that confident that these are modest changes, go to the people with a referendum.

Hon. Speaker, this bill should be hoisted.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Just before recognizing the next speaker, the Chair needs to remind members that we're dealing with the amendment to Bill 26 and that relevance is essential to the debate that we have in this House.

J. Wilson: It's a pleasure to get up and speak to the motion of hoisting this bill. The amendment reads that it be hoisted for six months -- that's a start. What should happen is that this bill should be hoisted overboard. It should be gone. Hon. Speaker, if you were operating a trawler, and you pulled your net in, and you had a stingray in it, what would you do with it? You'd hoist it overboard. You'd get rid of it right now. This bill is no better than an animal like that, so why are we even considering it? Why don't we just throw it out and be done with it? It's bad.

Unfortunately, the government that we have to contend with today is rather headless because they are being controlled by a few individuals and by a few of the leaders of the unions. This is why we're dealing with Bill 26. It's terrible; it really is. We keep hearing the fact that it's a rather benign piece of legislation, and there's no problem with it. Does anyone believe that? I don't. No one on this side of the House believes it. No one out in the public believes it.

It's a strange thing, but this government has added a whole new dimension to the game of word association. It's remarkable what they've done in the last two years. If you walk down the street and you walk up to almost anyone and say "NDP," what answer do you get? "Bingo!" You could walk up to someone else and say "NDP," and they would say "job loss." We have had more job loss in the last two years than this province has ever experienced in its history. Unemployment is going up every month.

It's not just that unemployment is going up. There are thousands and thousands of people leaving the province to find employment. They don't register; they're not part of the numbers. But they're gone. They were here; they were working. They had a job at one time. When British Columbia was number one in Canada for job creation and economic develop-

[ Page 9637 ]

When you say NDP, hon. Speaker, what do you think of? You think of taxes. You don't think of taxes that you can live with; you think of high taxes -- not just high taxes; you think of the highest taxes in the country. They have really set a benchmark here. They've got the highest tax rate in Canada and the United States. They're really doing a job on taxes.

[12:15]

When you say NDP, what comes to mind? Red tape and regulations. In the last seven years, since this NDP government took office, regulations have increased by 26 percent. What's being done about it? They're running around saying: "We're going to cut it." They didn't say how they were going to cut it. They didn't say they were going to cut it lengthwise and make it twice as much, but that's what is happening.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: I can hear that the member across would like to stand up. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member, if you could take your seat. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson is not in his proper place in the House, so I can't recognize him.

Now that the member is in his proper place, I will recognize him -- on a point of order?

K. Krueger: Yes, hon. Speaker. I wonder if the NDP den mother could get a cookie and a blankie for the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke and tuck him in for the night.

Deputy Speaker: Member, that is not a point of order as I understand it. Perhaps I could suggest that the member for Cariboo North, who has the floor, direct his comments toward the amendment to Bill 26.

J. Wilson: I would love to address the amendment. We would like to hoist this piece of rotten legislation. Where else would we like to start? The reason we're here is to try and get something straightened out here that. . . .

An Hon. Member: Tell us about shoeing a horse.

J. Wilson: I'd love to, but unfortunately, that's not going to help the people of this province out. It's not going to create employment. It's not going to get rid of bad labour legislation. Bill 26 is going to do nothing for this province except create more job loss, more unemployment, more regulations -- all of the things that, when you mention the word NDP, you can associate with that party. We've got an education system that's deteriorating. We've got a health care system that's deteriorating.

An Hon. Member: The bill, hon. member.

J. Wilson: The bill -- we will talk about the bill now. When this government says that this is an innocuous bill, no one buys that for one second. Two years ago this government ran an election platform on a hundred promises. What happened to those promises? Not one of those promises was adhered to; they were not met. There were only two promises that they kept, and neither of those promises was mentioned during the election. Unfortunately, that's what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with a bill that is so insidious that we cannot trust anyone on the other side of this House.

An Hon. Member: It's diabolical.

J. Wilson: It's diabolical, that's what it is. You've got it right there. You talk about broken promises -- well, there are going to be a lot more coming up. Two promises that were kept. . . . We had a Crown corporation set up that had the potential of actually doing something in this province, and that was Forest Renewal. But there was a promise there to hand that huge fund over to the IWA forest workers to spend it however they felt necessary. What has happened is that this government has literally destroyed the forest industry in this province, and that money has now gone to help support all those workers that lost their jobs.

Deputy Speaker: Relevancy, member, to Bill 26.

J. Wilson: The other promise, hon. Speaker -- and this is quite relevant -- is that there was some pressure put on the Premier by certain union leaders that they wanted to unionize the workforce in this province. That's where we're headed with this bill. This bill came in, and we did second reading in 24 hours. You don't do that. Why was it done? It was done to get it through -- to ram it through as fast as possible. They don't want any input. They don't want to hear what this bill will do. They want to get this bill through, get it passed, so that they don't have to put up with all of the unhappy people out there, all the people who have concerns that it's going to cost them their jobs and their investment in this province. That is the intention of this government.

That is the reason that I'm addressing this hoist motion. If this bill is hoisted, it will allow time for all those groups that have major concerns to write letters, to make phone calls, to put pressure on this government, to bring their concerns to the forefront -- to allow this government a little bit of time. Just maybe, they will suddenly wake up and realize that these people do have a point. That's what we're asking for here. . . .

Interjections.

J. Wilson: I see that the Minister of Labour is back. We were just doing a little word association.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Would you take your seat, please. The member for Shuswap rises on a point.

G. Abbott: I just noted that some of the members opposite were heckling the speaker -- which may be a fine thing, but they were not doing it from their seats. They were doing it from other members' seats.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. I'm sure all members realize the importance of that point of order.

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is here. I'm glad he came back in, because I think this is relevant; he should be here to listen to this.

Interjections.

[ Page 9638 ]

Deputy Speaker: You have the floor, member.

J. Wilson: Well, I'm glad of that, hon. Speaker. It's a little tough to be heard above the din here.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Matsqui rises on a point of order.

M. de Jong: I know that there has been some disorganization in the House, and I just hope that the Speaker will add that time to the member who's speaking.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair would comment that disorder is fairly evenly distributed amongst the members. It would be in the interest of the House to hear the member who has the floor. Member, continue.

J. Wilson: Thank you -- I'll do my best. I realize that our audience has picked up on the other side; we have the Minister of Labour back who is trying to get this bill passed.

An Hon. Member: What bill?

J. Wilson: Bill 26, for your information.

The minister made a few statements. He said: "We must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplaces." Hon. Speaker, if I were to associate that with this government, I'd say: well, bingo! You hit it right on. But can we believe that? That's not what this bill says. No, it's absolutely, totally the opposite. This bill will do the exact opposite of that statement. It's pretty obvious. . . .

An Hon. Member: Tell us how, John.

J. Wilson: How? Oh, I'd love to. Oh, we'll get to that. Just be patient. If the hon. members would keep quiet for a little while, they might hear something. Maybe they might learn something.

The minister also made this statement: "We must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected." And: "We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." We're now at number ten in Canada; we've been there for a year, and we don't seem to be coming out of the cellar. What happened to job creation and economic development in this province? It's dead. Why is it dead? Because of the NDP government -- that's why it's dead, no other reason whatsoever.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The minister also states that we must consult carefully with key stakeholders before making changes to laws, policies and regulations. We've had one of the most stable construction industries anywhere in Canada for the last few years. Who was consulted? Well, I'm sure that the union leaders were consulted, but 70 percent of the workforce in this province. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the hon. member take his seat, please. I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: Point of order. I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but given that lucid and clear explanation, I would like to plead with my colleagues to please allow a little quiet so we can hear this crystalline distillation of insightful comment.

The Speaker: Well said, minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. Cariboo North continues.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Alberni will come to order. Cariboo North will continue.

J. Wilson: The consultation that the minister so eloquently referred to no doubt meant the consultation with the leaders of the unions. That was it. No one else was consulted; 70 percent of the workforce of this province was not consulted.

Here's another statement, and this one really does it: "We must work to bring business, labour and government together to address issues of common and public concern." Well, they've brought government and union leaders together, but they haven't brought labour together.

[12:30]

J. Wilson: Well, unfortunately, I expanded on that one.

The economy in British Columbia is in terrible shape. The only thing that can happen with this bill is that we will go from a recession to a depression. Once we hit a depression, which we have in some areas. . . .

Interjections.

J. Wilson: You know, it's really something. You try and bring some issues out, and the Minister of Labour can only make fun of the problems that he and his government are creating.

I will make a point. It's bad enough that you harass free enterprise in this province; you chase all of the industry out of this province. That's bad enough. But if I were a rank-and-file union member in this province, I would be terrified today. If I sat down in a meeting, I would look on my right side and I would look on my left side, because I would know very well that within two years neither one of those employees will be there. They will be gone, because there won't be a job for them.

Those are the facts. All we have to do is look at the forest industry in this province and we'll see exactly where they went. We look at the mining industry and we see where they went. Why? We've got labour laws, and we have a government that doesn't understand anything about job creation and investment. They understand taxes. They understand how to raise more money by taxes -- yes.

[ Page 9639 ]

J. Wilson: If I could only get a word in edgewise, because. . . . The minister would like to address this subject; I know he would. I would be more than happy to give him the floor. If he will just be patient for a couple more minutes, I'll gladly give him the opportunity to speak.

Unfortunately, they don't have the foresight to see what they're doing. They have destroyed the mining industry in British Columbia. Thousands of jobs are gone. In the forest industry 12,000 jobs are gone. "We're going to create 22,000 new jobs." Well, lots of luck.

They blame it on the Asian flu. Well, it started a long time before that. It started when this government took office, and their economic policies. . . . That's what happened. It's got nothing to do with other jurisdictions; it's got nothing to do with international trade. It's got everything to do with NDP policies.

Look at Alberta: they're booming today. Look at Washington State: they're booming. Their economies are booming. Look at Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec: they're all ahead of us. We're so far behind out here. . . . This government have their heads buried in the sand; they think they're first.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. It makes it very difficult to hear.

J. Wilson: The reason that we want this bill hoisted, as I've said before, is to allow adequate input by the public -- all of those people who are affected -- so they can get their concerns to government. Unfortunately, this government has no intention of doing that. They're going to railroad it through so fast that nobody will know that it's in before. . . .

Interjection.

J. Wilson: That's right, that's why we're here at 12:30 at night debating this bill, so that they can railroad this thing through and get it done -- get it over with -- and hope that all the complaining will be after the fact.

What is really behind all this is a promise during the last election to the leaders of the unions that this government would help them unionize the workforce in this province, and that's what's happening. The sectoral bargaining. . . .

An Hon. Member: Nobody believes that, John.

J. Wilson: Everyone in this province except this government believes it, and they believe it because they know what they're doing. They're not that stupid.

Interjections.

J. Wilson: There's a member, too, that believes it. He knows what he's talking about. He believes it; they all believe it.

With the stroke of a pen, it won't be the construction industry any longer. It could be the restaurant trade; it could be any number of jobs out there. . . .

An Hon. Member: The veterinarians.

J. Wilson: Well, they could even do that to the veterinary profession. I would hate to think that they would, but. . . . Your retail industry could become part of this, high-tech companies, manufacturers, insurance brokers -- you name it. No one is protected from the agenda of this government. Unfortunately, they come in and they say: "Oh, we're only going to put it into the ICI part of the construction industry. That's all we're going to do. We're not going to force this on anyone else."

Well, there is one thing we have learned in the last two years: we can't believe what they tell us. This government has deceived us every time they've turned around. Every bill that's been brought in has had a double meaning. Everything that they do has got an hidden agenda. That's the way they work. We can't believe for one second that they don't have the intention of forcing this onto every workplace in this province. That's the sad part of it. They're going to take away all the democratic rights of workers in this province. There won't be such a thing as anyone having a democratic voice in the workplace in British Columbia.

The construction industry is already under a lot of duress in this province. We are down; Alberta is booming. Their construction is up 20 percent; ours is down 10 percent.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Well, not quite.

Unfortunately, they have an economy over there that is going ahead. People have jobs; unemployment is under 5 percent. Where is it in British Columbia? It's in the double digits. What is it for our youth? It's almost 20 percent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

J. Wilson: As a result. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, one moment, please. The government benches might wish to extend a certain courtesy to the member who has the floor. Thank you very much.

J. Wilson: At present, the way this bill is designed, it will have a considerable impact on construction in the industrial, institutional and commercial portions of the industry. It's going to create a 20 to 30 percent increase in costs, at a time when we can't afford costs. We have to cut costs. We have to encourage investment to come back into this province, not chase it out. What really amazes me is that these government backbenchers can sit here and make fun of the fact that they're chasing jobs out of British Columbia. They take it as a joke: "Get rid of them all. Get rid of all the jobs in British Columbia." That's their attitude.

An Hon. Member: How much did you make as a vet?

J. Wilson: A lot more than I would ever make working here, but unfortunately, I'm not doing this job because of money. I'm doing this job because we have to come here and fight tooth and nail to try and keep this province together.

Every time I see a family pack their bags, rent a U-Haul and head to Alberta, Saskatchewan or Washington, it bothers me. It really bothers me to see good, hard-working people moving out of this province. Why are they moving out? You

[ Page 9640 ]

If I had the time, I would run a little economics course for the members opposite. But it probably wouldn't help a lot. The cost of our residential buildings will jump dramatically as well.

I see my time has run out, unfortunately. I had more that I wanted to say.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

J. Wilson: Perhaps I'll save it for another day.

The Speaker: I see the member for Alberni rising.

G. Janssen: I'm enthralled by the member's comments, and he's just asked for extra time to make additional comments. I'm sure members on this side of the House would agree that additional time should be allotted for the member. I ask the House to allow the member to continue.

The Speaker: It would seem that there is unanimous support for the member to continue, should the member wish to continue. [Applause.] Hon. members, we can agree on about five minutes, probably.

J. Wilson: Five minutes? Okay.

The Minister of Labour says that this bill will not have any impact on construction in the province other than in these three sectors.

An Hon. Member: They prefer to cut the wages of public servants by 10 percent.

J. Wilson: If we could reduce taxes by 17 percent, we'd be going somewhere. There are more ways of making money in the province than increasing taxes. You encourage investment; you encourage jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: The member for Alberni stood up and offered extra time. If he was genuine in that offer, perhaps he'll extend the courtesy of listening to what the member has to say.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Alberni has some reason. . . ?

G. Janssen: It's a time-honoured practice in the Houses of parliament around the globe, and I ask the member for Matsqui to respect that.

The Speaker: Hon. members, this is also a House where certain courtesies and civilities are required, as well as, perhaps, a well-placed phrase in heckling -- perhaps, and well-placed.

J. Wilson: Most construction outfits in this province bid on any job that comes along. They don't have the luxury of bidding on all-commercial jobs, or institutional or whatever. They bid on any job that comes up. When a contractor gets a job, that may be building a school or a store. Whatever it may be, he's also got other jobs on the go. At the same time, he could be building a condominium, a single residence or any number of construction projects. More often than not they will have two or three projects on the go at once. They are not all within the commercial and institutional sector, because they can't operate that way. They have to bid, and they have to have work.

As soon as his crew goes to work on a commercial project, they will come under sectoral bargaining. That immediately will add to the cost of all the other projects that the contractor is working on, because in the morning the crew will be working on a commercial project, and in the afternoon they will be working on a residence. This goes on every day. You cannot separate the two in the workplace. You have one crew. They work by the hour; they work where their job is and where they're sent.

It is a problem, and it is going to add 20 to 30 percent onto the cost of residences in this province. They're already overpriced; they're the highest in Canada right now. Do we need higher-cost housing? Is that what we want in this province? No, it isn't.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: It would appear that the member opposite would like to change his occupation and get into veterinary medicine, by the sound of it. I think he would have to change his whole philosophy before that would happen.

Anyway, thank you.

[12:45]

K. Whittred: I have great pleasure in rising at almost 1 a.m. to speak to the amendment to Bill 26. This amendment is, of course, to hoist Bill 26 for a period of six months. I would like to begin by thanking the Minister of Labour, through you, hon. Speaker, for speaking this afternoon and for giving us a lesson on how to give a proper debate on a hoist motion. It was really quite refreshing, and I'm really pleased, because he's enabled us and prepared us with a very good outline as to the proper method -- at least in his mind, and I'm sure in the mind of this House -- for how to address this motion.

However, before I begin to address the motion, I do have some concern for the words that came from the minister. He started out his address by saying: "I have been sitting here lusting mightily for an opportunity to address this chamber." He went on to say that because one couldn't participate in Motion 50. . . . Well, I was taken aback. I had no idea that the hon. minister's inability or unwillingness to participate in Motion 50 debate had caused him this amount of discomfort. I mean, "lusting mightily" is quite extreme language.

[ Page 9641 ]

K. Whittred: I looked it up in the dictionary. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member will continue.

K. Whittred: . . .and I found out. . . . I discovered that the definition of "lusting" is: "(1) to have an intense desire or need." It had a second description which I suggest is unparliamentary in nature, and I wouldn't even begin to repeat it in this House. And "mightily" means vigorously. I must confess that my mind was boggled at the notion of the hon. minister lusting mightily to speak to this particular motion. I do regret. . . . In fact, I said this in my remarks on the previous bill. When we were speaking on Motion 50, I expressed my regret that none of the members opposite had chosen to defend the motion, and now that I have learned the distress that it caused one of the members of the cabinet, I am even more distressed that they did not take an opportunity to debate that bill.

Moving on, I think probably that's enough attention paid to that particular concept. So we move on now to a definition: what is a hoist motion? I can go right to the horse's mouth. A hoist motion, according to the minister, is simply a motion to delay the bill -- to put it on the shelf for six months. The minister goes on to say that it's a perfectly legitimate parliamentary strategy. He says it twice: "It's a perfectly legitimate parliamentary strategy." He even goes on to say that he doesn't fault the opposition for using it. Well, there you have it, from the words of the government. This hoist motion is a good strategy. We are doing something that even they agree with; they agree that this is good strategy.

Somewhere, I believe, in the minister's remarks, he talked about and he gave quite a lecture, as only this minister can. . . . He gave quite a lecture about how we should use this chamber as a means to achieve our objectives. He pointed out that it's the role of the opposition to question and to oppose. That is what we have been doing.

I think that it is no secret at this point in this debate to say that we have been using some very legitimate strategy. We have used our numbers in debate. On this side of the House, we never cease to be reminded that the members opposite have more members than we do -- but not very many more members. So when it comes to debate, if all 33 of us speak, it takes quite a long time. According to your own minister, that is a good strategy.

We are doing our job. Part of our job is to oppose and to question legislation. We have used procedural methods, the rules of this House -- good strategy. We are good at our job. We're doing a good job, even according to the lecture given to us by the minister. This is not my evaluation. This is the evaluation directly from the minister on the opposite bench.

Now we are into the amendment, which, by his very words just before the supper break. . . . He said: "It's a perfectly legitimate strategy." So here we are. This is good, hon. Speaker. I am so pleased that the hon. minister stood up before supper and gave us this lecture on how to give a proper debate on a hoist motion.

Why hoist? Why do we have a hoist motion? Well, obviously, it's part of a strategy. But what is the purpose of this hoist motion? Well, again, I thank the minister. He gave us guidance. What effect does a hoist motion have? Why are we asking the government to set this aside? Why are we doing this? Well, we are asking this government to set aside this motion to give themselves and, of course, the people of this province, businessmen, job creators, workers. . .

Interjection.

K. Whittred: Women as well -- businesswomen. Thank you, hon. member.

. . .a chance to reflect. A time for reflection is always in good order.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I wonder if you'd take your seat for just a moment and hang on to that thought. I want to have a word with the government side of the House.

If conversations are important to the members, then I suggest that they take them out into the corridor. It's late. Members who have the floor are entitled to speak. Other members are interrupting, and I think it's not fair.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I agree.

The Speaker: Thank you, Government House Leader, for that vote of endorsement. I appreciate it very much. I recognize the member who has the floor, North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

K. Whittred: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you for noting the noise level in the House.

I was speaking about: why hoist? Why do we ask for this bill to be put aside for six months? Well, obviously one reason -- and it was suggested by members opposite -- is that it gives an opportunity for reflection. It gives an opportunity for the government to sit back and to take a kind of a sober second look at this legislation. It gives them a chance to look at what difficulties might arise. It gives a chance to look at the involvement of the parties. And in general, there's no big hurry about it. We have not noted -- nor do I think the government side has noted -- anybody marching in the streets. So if this bill were to wait six months, I don't think it would have any disastrous effect on the economy one way or another. Much has been said about Bill 44, and it was suggested that it was hoisted. I would submit that that is not true. I would submit that public opinion killed Bill 44 and that it was withdrawn. Public opinion played a great role, and it was simply put aside.

Part of the reflection which this six-month period would allow for is consultation. Now, this government likes to talk about how it has consulted. It has had panels and it has had this and that, but I don't think it has really listened. I'm quoting now from the two authors of their report, Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Lanyon, who told the government that it was up to them to gauge whether or not the economy could absorb any changes in favour of the unions. They said: "The recommendations are not based on the state of the economy at any particular time. Whether they will be introduced and the timing of their introduction are ultimately questions for the government to decide." So for the government to say that this bill was recommended is not correct. The timing of this was left to the government. That was their roll of the dice, and they chose to roll the dice now. I think they did not listen to the business community very well.

[1:00]

[ Page 9642 ]

A third reason that might be given for the hoisting of this bill is what are largely political reasons. In this House over the last several weeks, we have thrown accusations back and forth that one side or the other is doing this to pay off their particular political allies. However, I suggest that there are other political reasons, and I think the government ought to listen to this. If the minister is correct that this bill is nothing more than a bill that looks after a subset of a subset of a subset, then he is talking about very few people -- which would mean, in my mind, that there are far more people opposed to this bill than are in agreement with it.

In my opinion, a very smart reason to hoist this bill, if I were on the government side, would be for purely political reasons. It is not a popular bill; therefore I would think it would be a smart move to get rid of it. I would encourage all members on the government side to support this hoist amendment. I think it would be smart politics on their part.

The other thing that rather amazed me as I listened to the words of the hon. minister this afternoon was his admission of failure. He said in his address: ". . .try though we will to explain it, try though we will to point out what it is and what it is not -- is nevertheless being attacked by all kinds of people. . . ." This minister has not been able to get his message out. Nobody understands it. Imagine that! This is an amazing remark for a minister to get up and make in the House.

He goes on to talk about this bill. He says: "It's a subset of a subset, but nobody understands that." Well, whose fault is that? It is the government's fault if nobody understands it, because it is their legislation.

He goes on to say: "The member opposite says nobody buys that argument. That, I submit, is the tragedy and the problem with political discourse in this province." Now he's blaming the whole political system for his failure. That is even more amazing. The minister, who is supposedly defending his own legislation, is telling us that he is a failure in communicating the message that he tells us is really very simple: a subset of a subset of a subset. If it is so simple, why doesn't anybody understand it? That, I find, is an amazing statement.

Now we move on to the role of the opposition and a discussion of what minorities or majorities are within this House. Again, I was amazed to hear the minister and his description: "The opposition does its job, it seems to me, when it says: 'Here's what we're opposed to. Here is the strong position we are taking. We fought the good fight, but we are the minority and the minority is not going to win the battle.' " Is that what we are here for? I thought we were here to govern for the people of this province and to protect minorities and majorities in the population.

I remind this House that the governing side does not enjoy a majority of the popular vote. I remind the House that if we do this another way, the people that are benefiting from this legislation are a minority, not a majority. I simply point out that there are any number of ways that we can define and talk about the relative importance of majorities and minorities. To suggest that the opposition is always wrong because we are in opposition is, I suggest, a ludicrous notion.

Finally, in the minister's own words, I would like to mention something about perception. This gets back, again, to the whole concept of business climate and our principle objection to this bill. On this side of the House, our principal objection to this bill is that it really hasn't got very much to do with labour relations. What it has to do with is the economy, and at this point in time it is harmful to the economy. It is doing more harm to the economy than good, and therefore it should not be put forth. The hon. minister said, at some point in time: "The reality of the modern economy. . .is that it functions to a huge degree on perception as much as anything else. If there is an impact, I suggest it will be because enough people -- opinion-makers and others -- say it will have an impact." This minister knew that that bill would have an impact. He knew that there would be a perception by those people who are the opinion-makers in the province that this was bad legislation. He knew there would be a perception by those businesses that create jobs that this was bad legislation. He knew that before he brought the legislation in. Therefore one can only assume that this is a government that really didn't care.

Even today this minister went on to say: "What has impact on an investment climate is essentially attitudinal. . . ." Well, of course it's attitudinal. Then he goes on to say: "The assertion of a proposition is not a defence for the proposition; it's merely a statement." Now, what kind of a pompous statement is that? What he's saying is: "If you don't agree with me, then it simply cannot be true." There's definitely the attitude here that if it looks like a duck and quacks and walks like a duck, it must be a duck. There is a total putting of the head in the sand. He says: "That's what I've been struggling with from the beginning. I have read very carefully all the correspondence I've received. I've looked at all the so-called arguments adduced, and I see no evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that this. . .change to the Labour Code is going to have any kind of negative effect on the economy." Yet sentences earlier, he as much as admitted it. He talked about the attitudinal changes. He talked about his inability to convince the opinion leaders -- all of those things that he said he could not do. Yet this minister continues to stubbornly cling to this notion that this legislation is somehow desirable.

Let's go back and just review exactly what we're debating here in this hoist motion, so that I will not be accused of being off track. We're talking about whether or not this bill should be delayed for six months. It is, as has been noted, one of the ways that oppositions can oppose. We've talked much in this debate about the limited and very small and unsatisfactory toolbox that the opposition members have. This is just one of the very small methods that we have to use. To hoist this motion would allow some time for the government to just have a little bit of a think with themselves, to reflect on this motion and perhaps to listen to the business community. Perhaps it would even give the economy a little bit of a chance to recover. Perhaps they could take a second look.

Hon. Speaker, I have suggested in all good faith that, in my opinion, the best thing that this government could do would be to drop this bill. I've suggested that it would probably be in their own best interests. We have certainly tried our best and are doing our best and will continue to do our best to oppose this legislation, because we do feel so strongly that this legislation is bad and is not opportune for the people of British Columbia at this time. I urge all members of this House to support this amendment.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move that the house do now adjourn.

[ Page 9643 ]

[1:15]

K. Whittred: Sorry -- the end of debate, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The motion to adjourn the debate is in order. I'll put the question to all members.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 7
de Jong	Abbott	Whittred
Dalton	Stephens	Hawkins
	Nebbeling

NAYS -- 35
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Ramsey
Farnworth	Waddell	Hartley
Sihota	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht		Janssen

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, it's nice to see a full House for this debate, and it's nice to see that Mr. Lynch is still with us. See, the press is paying every attention to our words of wisdom.

I've had to do some review of the history of this bill as it reached the floor of this House, the bill which, of course, is before us this morning -- which is now July 8, if I'm not mistaken. The reason why I've had to review it is that I had the pleasure of touring parts of this province during this rousing debate on Bill 26, and I'll be making some comments in my remarks about what the people of British Columbia feel about this government and this bill.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order, please. Again, if you wish to have a conversation, I suggest you do it in the hall. There are plenty of members here who can participate as they wish, but conversations should be in the corridor.

J. Dalton: What I will be saying in my remarks in addressing the hoist motion is that this government, in its history of the last seven or eight years -- I guess coming up to seven, heaven forbid -- has consistently demonstrated its inability to understand the economic woes that it has created by its unfortunate legislative agenda. Bill 26 is but the latest in a long series of bills and government policy that further drive people from this province. Let me give you an example of why this bill should be hoisted and sent to a committee or should be sent somewhere -- maybe to purgatory.

I was speaking with a Vancouver lawyer yesterday morning. I don't know if the government speaks to Vancouver lawyers, but I do. This lawyer is very typical. The story he told me. . . . In fact, I asked him directly. I called him on another matter, but he has clients in business, and I asked him: "How many of your clients have either left or are preparing to leave for Alberta or other jurisdictions?" He couldn't give me an account, but he certainly made the point that many of his clients -- and he's not unique in the legal world -- have left for Alberta, Washington State, Hong Kong, wherever it may be. Others are certainly seriously contemplating it.

I cite that because I'm sure that if the government chose to pick up the phone and call a lawyer or two, if they know any, I think they might find the same story. In fact, I know they would. I think this government would be well encouraged, if it cares to consider it, to adopt this hoist motion and send this bill back for review -- maybe back to Messrs. Kelleher and Ready, or to whomever they chose -- although this bill and its predecessors have been reviewed and considered so many times now that I think the same message will be very clear. Or send the bill to committee. I'll be commenting later about the committee process or lack of it in this House, which is another issue this government is sorely lacking on. As I recall, the Harcourt regime, when it campaigned and was, unfortunately, elected in 1991. . . . I recall the 41 points. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I think tonight we have, on this side of the House, shown remarkable patience with the government members who have been, if not impolite, abusive and certainly disorderly in this House. Now we have the Government Whip not only sitting on our side of the House but also heckling from that side of the House, and I find it most objectionable. I don't think that any member of this House should have to put up with this kind of behavior.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's not a point of order, and the member for Alberni is not sitting on the opposition side of the House; he's sitting in a desk over here. We're subject at all times to the opposition changing desks to give the appearance of full benches. That's not a point of order. The member should know that.

The Speaker: One more submission from the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I don't intend to get cute about this. I think that what we have here is behaviour which is not parliamentary, and I ask the government to correct itself.

The Speaker: Members are aware that they have been assigned a seat and that that's the seat that they normally would sit in. Particularly, if they wish to make any interjections or any comments in any way, it's from their own seat.

J. Dalton: I know that the Government Whip, of course, will not make any inappropriate remarks, so I don't think we need to worry about his physical location in the House.

Again, as I review some of the history of this bill as it hit the floor, I see that the Minister of Labour introduced this bill

[ Page 9644 ]

An Hon. Member: Where were you?

J. Dalton: Oh, I'll be quite happy to share with the government side where I was, and some of the economic and other statements I got from people, including many of their constituents -- but perhaps they're not interested in that.

As we address this hoist motion on Bill 26, which is, of course, Bill 44, or a part thereof, revisited. . . . I know the government will always downplay Bill 26. They always say: "That's only a little thin version of Bill 44, so what are you worried about?" Well, I can assure you that the people of British Columbia, the ones who are left, are extremely worried about Bill 26.

Over the last two or three weeks, I had the opportunity to visit various parts of this province during the exercise -- the dropped order and all the other interesting things that have occurred while this debate on Bill 26 has been going on. The very clear message that I have received from people in the Okanagan, the Kootenays -- both the East and West Kootenays -- the Shuswap, the Cariboo and, just last weekend, the Chilcotin plateau. . . . It's the same message wherever I've been in the last two or three weeks. Number one, that message is: "Well done to the Liberals for nailing this sleepy government on the dropped order." I got many compliments from people, including Chilcotin ranchers. The government might think: "Well, they probably wouldn't pay attention to the day-to-day routine of the House." But I can assure you that they do, because the Chilcotin ranchers, the Kootenay foresters and the Okanagan fruit growers are all of like mind. This government is harmful to their economic activity and future. Everything that they do, legislatively speaking, is harmful. Obviously Bill 26 fits into that description.

[1:30]

It's the same message, as I've said, in my travels throughout the interior as it is on Georgia Street. The reason why I mention that is because, as I drove into town from the airport last Sunday evening, right along Georgia Street at a construction site was a large sign on the fence. Guess what it says. It says: "Stop Bill 26." [Applause.]

The Speaker: Hon. members, I want to draw attention to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who is making a good deal of noise and is not in his own seat.

J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's good of you, of course, to maintain order in the House. But I can assure you that I was not in any way distracted by anyone in this House, and I'm quite happy to carry on.

"Stop Bill 26" is the clear message on Georgia Street. Of course, it's not just on Georgia Street that you'll see that message. I'm sure the members opposite, if they've had the occasion -- and I presume some of them do -- to go back to their home ridings or somewhere in this province other than this chamber, are probably getting the same message: stop Bill 26.

What we're inviting the government to do through this hoist motion is. If you're not going to stop the bill, at least put it on hold for six months. Trot the thing around the province, and let the members opposite hear from their constituents, as I and my colleagues have done in the last three weeks, as to the harm that this bill and other government policies are causing. The harm is demonstrated in the extreme.

You know, the people of British Columbia have got more important things to do with their lives, normally speaking, than to pay attention to dropped orders, bill kits and things like that, which you and I, hon. Speaker, deal with in our day-to-day lives. The people of the Chilcotin, the Cariboo, the Shuswap, the Kootenays and the Okanagan don't normally pay any attention to these things. But they are paying attention this spring and summer. Again, it's because of the economic harm that Bill 26 and related legislation and policy are doing to British Columbia.

I think it's a very telling statement when, for example, a Chilcotin rancher comes to me, over the last weekend -- and I know some of the members opposite are very interested, of course, in the economic activity of their constituents; I hope they are -- and says: "Well done for what you, the Liberal opposition, did over the last week or so. Keep up the good work." That is our job as opposition: to keep up the work of challenging this government, of inviting it to examine seriously -- and not just because we happen to disagree with them on ideological viewpoints -- the fact that Bill 26 is harmful, and it should be hoisted.

In fact, I was hoping as I was learning about the motion that my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson had presented to the House that infamous Thursday morning. . . . As I was learning some of the detail and the background as to the fallout from that motion, I was hoping that the government wouldn't be in the position we are in this morning -- considering a hoist motion -- but that the government would have said: "Well, we blew it. We did drop the ball on this one. We did drop the order." They should have left it out there.

When we consider this hoist motion, I think it actually indirectly fits into their game plan, if indeed they have one -- although it was obviously lacking in the aftermath of that Thursday morning motion. I hope this government, even though they obviously don't care to listen to us, will consider the views of British Columbians along Georgia Street, in the Okanagan and the Kootenays, and up in the Peace country. It's the same message, and the message is: "Stop Bill 26; stop it in its tracks." There's nothing harmful in the government considering this hoist motion in the reality of the economy of this province, and allowing the bill. . . .

You know, they talk about consultation all the time. In fact, before I came into the House to make my remarks on this hoist motion, I was reading the GVTA bill, which I guess we'll be dealing with sometime in the next week or two, or month, or decade. Right in the middle of the GVTA bill is that good old descriptive: consultation. The authority will consult with the good people of the GVRD and after they've consulted, they will dump on us a whole pile of new taxes, tolls, revenues, levies, and this and that. So there you are, hon. Speaker. Every time we turn around this government lauds itself on its

[ Page 9645 ]

We know the track record of this government on consultation. It seemed to me rather surprising and somewhat phony that right in the middle of the GVTA bill they would even have the audacity to have a descriptive there, right in the heading of the section: "Consultation." So let's consult with the people of this province on Bill 26. Let's not just go through the motions. Let's not just put it in the middle of a bill and say: "Well, we've consulted." Let's try it on for size. Let's put the bill, through a hoist motion, to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development. In fact, I invite the House Leader to seriously consider activating the committee process. There are -- what, hon. Speaker? -- 12 or 15 parliamentary committees. I can't recall the exact number; there are quite a few of them. Other than Public Accounts and, of course, the Forests Committee that has to sit to deal with FRBC, how many other standing committees of this House ever sit?

The Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt, but it's very difficult to hear what the member is saying because the conversation levels have risen enormously.

I appreciate the quiet. Member, continue.

J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know that you are very interested in the opposition's viewpoint on Bill 26 and the other issues that it invites. I know that the members opposite are being at least somewhat attentive. I mean, at least they're physically here. We give them credit for that.

Now back to the committee process or the lack of it. I can recall -- and I've been here for almost seven years now -- that I've been at least a nominal member of the Education Committee, I believe maybe with only one exception for one session. I am currently a nominal member of the Education Committee. In my seven years in this House, I can recall that committee being convened once for half a minute to elect a convener. That committee has never sat since; it certainly never sat before that.

If the education situation in this province isn't demanding a committee or someone that would take a serious look at it, I don't know what is. We'll be dealing with Bill 39, as well, in the course of the next few weeks, which deals with the public education system. I cite that as an example, because we have a hoist motion which would allow the Economic Development Committee to take Bill 26 and maybe have that committee actually perform a useful function. One of the government members opposite can chair it and get the $6,000 or whatever the Chair of the committee will earn; that's fair enough.

What we have now is, at best, a shell game. You've got all these committees listed, and the members should go and review the committees that some of them sit on. I've seen that some of the members are on eight or ten committees. Well, they'd be very busy and maybe useful people if those committees actually sat. Bill 26 would be an excellent opportunity. If we hoist this bill, as this motion is inviting the House to do, send it to committee, take it around the province -- take it to the Kootenays, to the Okanagan, to the Shuswap, to the Peace, to Prince George, to Prince Rupert, to Prince Anything-Else-That-You-Can-Think-Of, and let the people of this province have at it. . . . Let the people of this province tell the government what I and my colleagues are hearing: Bill 26 is harmful. It's not a productive way to approach the economic woes of this province; in fact, it's quite the opposite.

What Bill 26 is doing is driving the clients of my lawyer friend from this province, and it's driving the constituents of the government members from this province, and it's discouraging investment. The message is very clear, although it does seem now that perhaps the government members are less and less attentive to what British Columbians are trying to tell them. But the message is very clear.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: There is a tradition in this House of heckling that I recognize. But if the member for Alberni is going to talk to himself in a tone that prevents me from hearing the speaker, I'll ask him to stop.

The Speaker: Thank you. I'm sure the member for Alberni will come to order and has heard the message.

J. Dalton: On the hoist motion, we know how useful it could be if this motion were (1) passed. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. The member for Alberni will come to order.

J. Dalton: We know how useful it could be not only to pass this hoist motion but also to consider seriously in the aftermath of that, if we were to do so -- and we could have the vote right now and clear up this matter. . . . The important thing is that we could take this bill, send it to committee, send it around the province and let British Columbians -- the taxpayers and the wage earners -- tell the government. Maybe they'll tell them something that would surprise me, but I doubt it. Maybe they'll tell them: "Yes, Bill 26 is acceptable." But it is totally unacceptable for this government to come in, in the latter days of June. . . . When was it? It was June 18 when the minister, on second reading, got this debate started.

I might ask, in the aftermath of June 18: what else have we had? Not only have we had some rather interesting procedural matters about Bill 26, but we've had the education bill introduced since then, the GVTA, an environmental bill and other pieces of legislation that are, in a way, equally as important as Bill 26 on some aspects of the problems of this province. But we haven't even got to those yet.

[1:45]

But, oh no, not this government. They bring in this bill; we started second reading debate on June 18. I left for my tour of the Kootenays and the Shuswap on June 21. As I've told the

[ Page 9646 ]

The Speaker: Member, take your seat, please. The Government House Leader, on. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's on the point of order that one must talk specifically to the motion, and one must be careful not to be repetitive. I've actually checked the Blues for the member's last speech, and while it is repetitive, it's not identical. I would expect that if he was going to be repetitive, he would at least be accurate in his repetition.

The Speaker: I think the hon. member can ignore that interjection and carry on.

J. Dalton: This is actually the first time I have made any comments in this House about Bill 26. In fact, as I've already put on record, for many of the days preceding this morning I wasn't even physically here. I was just saying. . . .

The Speaker: Member, take your seat. The member for Matsqui rises. . . .

M. de Jong: Well, I know that the Government House Leader would not want to be guilty of having misinformed or misled the House. Apparently she has -- inadvertently, of course. I think she should have an opportunity to withdraw her remarks.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, hon. Speaker, I didn't. There was a motion to recess the House, and at the time the hon. member addressed the matter of Bill 26 in exactly the same fashion -- the same travelogue that we're getting now. There were a few differences. All I'm asking is that his repetition be accurate.

J. Dalton: I will repeat the point I made: this is the first time on my feet on Bill 26 or a hoist or anything else. I did make remarks a week ago Monday on Motion 50. Actually it was the recess, but that's got nothing to do with Bill 26. I will carry on.

There was an interesting procedural problem that occurred when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson presented his motion on the morning of June 25. It's just a point that I might draw to the attention of the Government House Leader. Committee A was actually still sitting when the House moved to adjourn that morning at 11:32.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

K. Krueger: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I thank you for directing my attention to the green light moments ago on behalf of my colleague who's been speaking. As you know, there has been a great deal of interruption the whole time that he has been speaking. You have repeatedly had to caution the government benches to behave themselves. He's been interrupted many times, and I request that you start his time over in recognition of that fact.

The Speaker: I thank you for the suggestion. I recall that about an hour ago, I offered an extra five minutes to a previous member who had a similar number of interjections, and I'm prepared to do the same thing in this case. So because of the interruptions, we'll add another five minutes to the member's remarks.

J. Dalton: I thank my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson, and I thank you hon. Speaker. I won't take the five minutes, I just want to make sure the House Leader is aware of this technical issue.

The point I was making is that when the dropped order occurred at 11:32 on the Thursday morning, Committee A was still sitting. The motion that we passed on April 8, creating the two committees, provides that Committee A will report to the Speaker when it adjourns. It wasn't able to do that, of course. I know this is only a technicality, and maybe it's not a big deal in the scheme of things for this government, but it does provide in the motion that the committee will report to the Speaker. That committee actually adjourned at 11:45 that morning. I've checked the record. You see, I was not here, as I've indicated, but I've checked the Blues carefully. In fact, it was the first thing that I was curious about when I came back the Monday following, the 29th. I asked someone if Committee A was still sitting after my colleague's motion was passed and the minister rushed off to get his ham sandwich. Sure enough, Committee A was still sitting. In fact it sat for 11 or 12 minutes or so. I don't know whether it was sitting in limbo or sitting in the broom closet, as I described it -- or where it was sitting. Just a point for the House Leader to consider: when motions are presented to this House, whether they be at 11:32 on a Thursday morning or whether they be as presented by the previous speaker, my colleague for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, I think the government should be at least somewhat attentive to the House business. That's really what this hoist motion is about.

I will conclude my remarks on this point: this hoist motion is about the government 's management not only of this House but also of this province and the economy of this province. That's what this hoist motion is about. Again, I invite this government -- because I know they are attentively listening, and I thank them for that -- to do at least two things. One, support our hoist motion. Secondly, I invite them, if we approve the hoist motion, to send this bill to committee and, least do something that this government said it was going to do seven years ago; that is, get committees working. I've cited the example of the Education Committee, which has never met, and I'm sure the Economic Development Committee has never met either. So let's hoist this thing, send it to committee, take it around the province, and then maybe we can get on with the other important items of business: Bill 39, the GVTA bill and the other pieces of legislation that are still before this House.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted to be able to join in this debate on a very important issue that's facing us here: a good piece of legislation, one of many pieces of legislation that are before the House for debate here. We have outstanding legislation in the area of transferring authority for public transit to

[ Page 9647 ]

It is unfortunate that we are entering this debate and spending a great deal of valuable time debating actually eliminating a piece of legislation. It does seem to be, in a way, counter-intuitive to what our jobs are as legislators, which is to bring forward good legislation that meets the needs of our society and delivers on economic objectives -- one of a package of excellent legislation that our government has put forward.

I am perplexed, though, by some of the debate that has occurred, particularly around the hoist motion. There's been what I would suggest are some inaccuracies in interpreting the legislation and therefore perhaps misunderstanding and misguidance on the part of the opposition as to hoisting this bill. I would suggest that we take time to review the debate and to inform the House, after that review, with an accurate reflection of the state of our economy, the state of the initiatives of our government -- frankly, the state of the legislation. I suggest that we all take this opportunity to reflect on our debate, perhaps to withdraw some of the inaccurate remarks that have been put on the record and to reconsider the hoist motion. I would suggest that we take time now to have a little period of rest, reflect on our discussion and then re-engage at a time later on in the session.

I reserve my place in that debate, and I move adjournment of debate now.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress and resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

J. van Dongen: In line with our continuing discussion on land tenure issues, forest releases and that kind of thing, I just had something handed to me by the critic. There are a few questions from an individual who was concerned about getting foreshore leases for the purpose of dewatering salvaged logs. One of the questions is: if an individual is awarded a licence to salvage logs -- and this is through the Ministry of Forests small business program -- what is the procedure for them to apply for a foreshore lease in order to have a site to dewater the logs?

Hon. C. McGregor: It will depend on the time period in which the foreshore is required. If it's for a short period time, what's issued is what's called a temporary short-term permit, and that's done very quickly and can be dealt with expeditiously with just an application to our office. If it's required for a longer period of time, then obviously there's a greater test to the application process and that includes more assessment, including consultation with aboriginal people.

J. van Dongen: I'm just looking at a letter from this individual, dated July 2 and talking about the process taking approximately two years. I think the issue here is that these people go in and bid on a salvaged-log operation through the Ministry of Forests program and aren't able to tie in in any sort of expeditious way, timewise, an ability to get those logs dewatered.

One of the questions he has is: is this a standard procedure that's the same for all districts -- for both the short-term one and, say, a longer-term lease? Or is this something that's very much at the discretion of individual employees within the ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, the criteria should be applied in the same way as it is in any part of the province. The decisions in terms of how to process it -- whether it's a short-term or longer-term lease and so on. . . . In fact, the strategy we're using in terms of the groups of staff who are really almost like a SWAT team dealing with the backlog. . .is a good way of handling these questions because they take a common approach to all of them. If the member wishes to pass on the information he has about the specific problem, we'll certainly be happy to follow up with it.

J. van Dongen: Well, certainly, I'll do that. I'll turn over this letter.

Just maybe one or two quick questions. I understand that the person making an application in a case like this has to put up a performance bond. How is the size of that bond determined?

Hon. C. McGregor: The performance bond is based on the cost that would be incurred in order to remediate the site should any environmental damage occur.

J. van Dongen: Just one more question on this topic and we'll go back to shellfish. I don't know the prevalence of these kinds of requests. I'm wondering whether there is an effort by the Ministry of the Environment people to work together with the Ministry of Forests small business enterprise program in trying to expedite these applications generally.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, as part of our strategy to reduce the backlog, that is indeed what we have been doing -- trying to do better coordination across government, including the Ministry of Forests. As I indicated earlier, if there is a particular concern in this case, perhaps we can address it. I think the processes we've designed are to enable a faster process to approval. I will certainly be happy to assist in this case.

[6:45]

[ Page 9648 ]

The other issue of the three -- if the minister could comment on. . . . I know there have been some pilot projects or pilot policies developed with respect to aboriginal bands getting into shellfish and possibly having opportunities that other people didn't have. Could the minister comment on those three points, please?

Hon. C. McGregor: Those are all future policy considerations that I can't discuss at this time.

J. van Dongen: If I could go back to June '97. . . . This is the Coopers and Lybrand Ltd. study that was done -- I think a very comprehensive study, good solid information and good solid recommendations. Does the ministry have a strategy for shellfish expansion -- aquaculture expansion -- within its operations in British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I believe I indicated in response to an earlier question from the member, we're engaged in a policy review, and we're hoping to make a policy statement on new initiatives shortly.

J. van Dongen: If we could focus on the operations of the ministry with respect to shellfish tenures, then, are any new licences being issued? Is there any activity with respect to shellfish tenures at the present time?

Hon. C. McGregor: There have been no applications for new sites, and there are no applications pending for new sites. But there are several applications pending for renewal of sites.

J. van Dongen: I'm a little bit surprised by the answer, and I will dig out a couple of letters I have here expressing frustration about the process. I think that in this case we're talking about new sites. In the interest of time I will simply leave it at that at this point. I won't quote the letters, but I think that there certainly is interest in new sites and, I would think, applications, so I'm surprised at that answer.

In terms of the shellfish aquaculture industry, I just want to record my view that it is very, very important for the ministry to clearly address this issue from two perspectives. Firstly, it's important for the government to have a long-term strategy for growth in this industry. I think there's tremendous opportunity there -- opportunities that we're missing, opportunities for jobs in coastal communities, that we're clearly missing. I think it can be of some assistance in the current fishing crisis. So I think it's important to have a long-term strategy, and certainly this report lays out a ten-year game plan. In the absence of something better, I would hope that the ministry and the government would adopt this plan.

Secondly, it's important that the ministry address the operational issues that need to be addressed -- and that's a whole range of issues that the report talks about. Very often it's one thing to talk about strategy, and it's another thing to actually deliver the goods. I think that it's important that the operations be reviewed, updated and organized so that we can actually give effect to some of the objectives in the study.

I want to move from there to salmon aquaculture. We had some discussions earlier today in the House about the role of the environmental assessment office. I understand the independence of that office, but the first project that that office did was a salmon aquaculture review. It was a very, very major review. It cost the government over $1 million. It was completed and tabled almost a year ago. It's a very, very comprehensive review in terms of all the environmental issues, the economic issues and the social impacts. It brought together, I think, a very unprecedented amount of expertise. If I could paraphrase the outcome of that report, it was that salmon aquaculture should be pursued in a managed and regulated fashion and that it is a low environmental risk -- the way it's currently operating -- provided that it's properly managed and regulated.

Yesterday we had Western Economic Diversification table another report, and this one talked not only about opportunities in the shellfish industry, but also about a much larger opportunity in finfish aquaculture. I recognize that this is possibly an issue of some difficulty, but I'm concerned about the lack of action, or apparent lack of action, by the government on this issue.

As we speak, as I understand it, there are leases of existing salmon farms, or fish farms, that are coming due, and some of these leases and renewals are possibly fairly tenuous. I just wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions. One is: how many of the existing leases have expired, where there are various types of discussions and negotiations going on involving fish farms?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are 12 salmon aquaculture tenures that have currently expired. Two more are expected to expire by year-end. In the meantime, because we have been engaged in a moratorium and are anticipating that the Ministry of Fisheries will be making an announcement around salmon aquaculture decisions, we've extended the existing opportunities so that those salmon farms can continue to operate as they did prior to their lease expiring.

J. van Dongen: I'm sure the industry appreciates the temporary holding pattern at the present time. How many of those expired leases involve disputes with native bands at the present time?

Hon. C. McGregor: In a legal sense, there are three currently being challenged.

J. van Dongen: If I could ask about one specific farm -- I think this site's lease expired some time last summer or last fall -- the Pacific National Group took the government to court, and there was an arrangement negotiated subsequently whereby that particular farm was moved to another site. The last I heard, that operation was located at another site temporarily; this was a couple of months ago that I received that information. Has there been a permanent location found for that particular operation at the present time?

[ Page 9649 ]

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the fact that there's a time limit on the process -- and I know we could talk forever on these issues. The critic is not giving me that opportunity; the minister will be happy to know that. But I'm wondering if the minister could just. . . . On the issue of referrals and that process and given all of the issues involving native bands and the Delgamuukw decision, is there going to be or has there been established within the ministry, on these tenure issues, some form of time limit on a referral process? I think that is absolutely critical to trying to get to some resolve -- in terms of not just tenures for fish farms but all the tenures that we're talking about within the management of the ministry.

Hon. C. McGregor: There currently aren't such time lines in place. However, I think I indicated to the member that we're engaged in a policy review within government related to aquaculture and hope to be making an announcement within a fairly short time frame.

J. van Dongen: I hope that that review includes fish farms and also all the other various sectors that are making applications for various types of leases, and that it involves some time limits on the referral process. I think that's one of the difficulties. It gets caught up in the bureaucracy, and unless government is prepared to establish some time limits, we'll never get through expediting some of these decisions and getting rid of some of this backlog.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

Again, I simply want to emphasize that I think there's opportunity in the industry. It was interesting to me. I still get a farm newspaper at home, and I got home the other day. . . . The Western Producer, June 25, 1998, has a headline here and two articles -- one from Alberta: "Alberta Farmer Looks to Water for Diversification Inspiration." And it goes on to talk about this particular farmer in Alberta who raises live fish and sells them to Safeway and other marketers -- sells 30,000 to 50,000 pounds of live fish a year. In Saskatchewan, a company called CanGro produced 680,000 kilograms of rainbow trout last year. So I guess I simply point that out as an indication that B.C. has a head start right now in salmon and fish farm aquaculture. But even fish farms can move to the Prairies. I think it's just important from a competitive point of view that we deal with the issues that are impediments to these industries growing.

[7:00]

I will make other comments to the current review that's taking place on the fish protection legislation, but just to underscore some real life examples of my concern. . . . Certainly I personally get so concerned about these issues because I see examples of where farmers and ranchers have cooperated, in my opinion to the nth degree, with the Minister of Environment and have had absolutely no cooperation in return for that -- no fair or reasonable consideration for agriculture's perspective. As an example, I cite Beaver Meadow Farm in the Comox Valley operated by Edgar Smith and his brothers. I knew Edgar's dad, who started that farm. He started the hatchery that's on that farm that's been operating for 15 years with the cooperation of a community group. Ah, the hon. Chair knows about that farm.

But when I look at the history of that file. . . . And I've gone through the correspondence. I have a very huge problem with the way that's been handled and, as I said, it exemplifies the problem. It's sort of the worst-case scenario, and when other farmers look at that situation, they say: "Well, there is no hope for us to come to a reasonably balanced, sensible decision with the Ministry of Environment on some of these issues. So why bother trying?"

I know that in that case the Minister of Agriculture took the initiative to meet with Ministry of Environment staff to talk about the issues -- I commend him for that. The last time I checked, and I've checked a number of times, that issue was not finalized. In that case, there were four licences involved: one dealt with ditch maintenance, one was a major irrigation licence and two involved small volumes of water in the fish hatchery. Again, I'm not going to belabour the issue, but I want to put it on the record as an example of why farmers throughout this province are concerned.

One of the issues in this case is -- just to get it down to a specific issue because I think there are systemic problems here -- letters being written to Ministry of Environment offices that are not responded to. And in another case that I'll mention because the issues are the same, Mike Anderson and Mike Elliott in the interior are involved in the water system that involves Six Mile Ranch. If you look at their correspondence, the pattern is exactly the same: no responses, no answers -- didn't deal with the issues. And it's interesting when the ministry staff don't respond, because what it does is prevent those individuals -- farmers and ranchers -- from actually filing an appeal with the Environmental Appeal Board. And the minister knows my belief in appeal systems. But because they've been ignored, there is no real decision to file an appeal on.

So I just wanted to put those two cases on the record. I hope that the Beaver Meadow one is solved, and solved completely. I wonder if the minister could comment on some of the systemic issues that I've raised.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I guess I appreciate the member's reading specific cases into the record, but as the member well knows, all he has to do is to contact my office. I don't think there's anybody who's sitting on that side of the room at this point in time who hasn't been treated fairly. And we've tried to pursue any member's issue that comes to this minister's office when it's raised with us, and we do our very best to resolve them to the satisfaction of every individual involved. And I've had dealings with dozens of MLAs, on

[ Page 9650 ]

Broadly, on the question of dealing with the conflicts, or potential conflicts, there seem to be between farmers and the Ministry of Environment, we've gone to great lengths in this ministry to work with the Ministry of Agriculture on this question, as well as the ranching and agricultural community. We're working very hard right now with the Fraser Valley on our ten-point action plan. We've made great progress on those points. I think it's the beginning of a very cooperative relationship. I can't stress enough how important it is for MLAs to contact our office with specific case details, because we simply can't respond to it in this kind of a setting; whereas if we have the opportunity to know what your issues are, to review the correspondence, then we can make the appropriate contacts within the ministry to assist in that regard.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate those comments by the minister. It's certainly not my intent to be combative or to go through the details of these individual cases. As the minister knows, we are working with her office on some cases already and appreciate the efforts made by the minister and her staff in that regard. While we're at it, I also want to thank the minister for the meeting that, I understand, is being set up on the Chilliwack River valley, which is another big issue.

I simply want to say to the minister that there's more to it than just the individual cases. I'm hoping that we can work on some of these systemic issues, because I think that they're pretty significant. I'm going to close off here; I'm running out of time. I want to simply state, for the record, my concerns on drainage and irrigation and the involvement between farmers and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment. As I said, I think that this is not a simple matter. It is not going to be fixed overnight. I think that we're going to end up breaking a few paradigms and a few historical ways of doing things before we're finished. I think the process that we're engaged in is that significant. I'm hoping that we can continue to do that in a constructive way.

I have one item that I've made a copy of for the minister. It's basically a book review. I should mention this book review is done by a fellow named Jack Carradice. I'm not sure if he was a deputy minister in the Ministry of Forests, but he was certainly a senior staff member at one time. He's retired now. He writes a regular newsletter on forest-related issues and environmental issues. In this he does a book review. The name of the book is Conservative Environmentalism: Reassessing the Means, Redefining the Ends. The basic theme of the book compares the whole concept of sustainability, as we all tend to understand it, and a concept called resource multiplication.

Just quickly, in his mind an example of resource multiplication is something that the city of Abbotsford is doing right now. They're putting in some detention ponds. They're taking a piece of farmland, putting in some detention ponds and, in fact, creating much more intensive habitat than there was there before. That's an example of resource multiplication. I think it's a very interesting concept. The reason I raise it is because I think it's part of the solution in some of these agriculture and fish conflicts.

I think there may be certain areas -- in the Fraser Valley, for example -- and certain types of farming where we have to say: "Here we're going to farm, and in these areas here we're going to really focus on fish." Those types of trade-offs are going to be part of the solution, rather than trying to farm and fish everywhere and not doing anything very well anywhere. I'm going to pass this on to the minister and, with that, thank her for her responses. I think we're going to be spending a lot of time in the next little while dealing with some of these cases. Thank you, minister.

G. Abbott: I would just like to briefly raise an issue again, given that time is a consideration. I just want to raise the question, and then I'll pass some information on to the minister and ask her to follow up on it.

This is a constituent and, I guess, a company in my constituency -- Silver Cross Spring Water Corp. They have been attempting to develop on Crown lands a bottled water operation in the west Shuswap. They began this process, at least in terms of contact with officialdom, back in 1995 and early 1996. They have done -- it seems to me from what I've seen from them and heard from them -- a fairly methodical job in terms of dealing with the requirements around accessing Crown lands. Indeed, the correspondence and so on that I have seen reflects the fact that, from a Crown lands perspective, the applicants have satisfactorily met the requirements which have been put before them. Where this company seems to be running into a problem is that the area in which they are hoping to access the water from Crown land is an area of interest to some of the aboriginal bands in the area as well -- and I guess, in particular, to the Little Shuswap Indian band.

I guess the problem for the corporation is that they have on the one level been able to complete all of the standard requirements of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Crown lands division. They have met the requirement for the review of possible aboriginal issues. And the archaeology branch of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture accepts the archaeological impact assessment that's been done and states that the proposed development be allowed to proceed without further need for further archaeological studies. So that part of it seems to be satisfied.

Nevertheless, the company has run into the larger problem of the bands in the area feeling that not alienation of the Crown but even the conditional use of this Crown land -- or licence of occupation to these very small bits of Crown land that they'll need for this operation -- would in some way jeopardize aboriginal title or aboriginal rights in the area. So that's the dilemma facing this company. It seems that they are held in a kind of limbo at this point. I know I'm raising a very big issue here, but I want to hear the minister's comments on this. I don't want to enter into a great debate about it all. I'll send this information along to her and ask her to look into it. But that's the dilemma that's faced by the company, and I did want to make the minister aware of it.

[7:15]

K. Krueger: Some concerns have been raised recently with me about a matter that's apparently been on the bubble for some time, so to speak. It has to do with the disposal of septic tank effluent. The entrepreneurs who travel around and

[ Page 9651 ]

Some of these people are actually approaching ranchers and farmers, looking for sites where they can just dig a hole in the ground and dump the stuff in. When we look at that potential solution along with the ongoing concerns that all of us have about groundwater in British Columbia and contamination and all of those things, it seems as though it has come full circle and it's almost the situation of the provincial government cutting off its nose to spite its face -- with a very perverse result. Instead of a relatively controlled way of dealing with this material, it's going to be catch-as-catch-can, and all kinds of bizarre outcomes.

My opening question, obviously, is: can the minister give us an update as to what the ministry is doing to assist with this problem of a lack of disposal sites? In this particular regional district, I'm told, the deadline is quite firm -- December 31, 1998. They simply will not accept that material being dumped in their sites any longer.

Hon. C. McGregor: I've just briefly consulted with staff, and we have no regulatory role on the dumping of sewage into collection facilities. The nearest we can figure is that it must be a Ministry of Health regulation, because they do have regulations around sewage discharge into septic tanks and so on. I've only been recently apprised of this situation myself, and I'm puzzled over the letter I just received from the TNRD on this question about why they were getting out of the business. They simply indicated they are, and now they're trying to imply that this is now our problem because they don't any longer want to accept sewage that people have to have pumped out of their septic systems. So the letter has only recently crossed my desk, and I've asked staff to do some follow-up with it. But as far as we are aware, there is no regulatory role that this ministry is playing on this question.

K. Krueger: I think we're probably looking at the same letter from the TNRD. It just arrived in my mailbox yesterday and is dated June 16. I had been contacted by an operator in Barrière who's been providing the service for eight years and is becoming increasingly desperate as to what he's going to do at the end of 1998. He was actually given an extension of something approaching two years, I gather, by the regional district, because it's been facing this problem for quite some time and wanting to get out of the business. In the letter we've both referred to, if it is the same letter, the TNRD refers to trying to operate in compliance with B.C. environmental waste management criteria. I assumed, and apparently they did too, that has to do with the Ministry of Environment. Whichever ministry, obviously it's going to become an environmental problem. Could the minister advise us who handles the B.C. environmental waste management criteria?

Hon. C. McGregor: What the member makes reference to are guidelines that are put out by the ministry related to how to manage for disposal of material at landfills. But they are not regulatory in nature; they are guidelines.

K. Krueger: So what are the consequences to a regional district that doesn't comply with those guidelines?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think that before we go much further down this road we need to do some more investigation into the specifics of this case. We just don't have the information available to us. I was as puzzled by the letter as the member opposite is. Until we have a bit more information, I don't know if it's useful to engage in questions-and-answers, when we can't answer the questions.

K. Krueger: I accept that, and I won't proceed much further on this, except to point out -- what is probably obvious -- that it's an emergency situation at this point. There's less than six months left until the deadline, and generally things don't happen that quickly. The regional district is referring to the difficulties that everyone's encountering in trying to come up with alternatives and suggests that this ministry might make Crown lands available. I would think that, from a control point of view, that might be a wise suggestion. At least the way the material is dealt with could be policed by the ministry that way.

Clearly it is going to be an emergency situation. Much of the province handles its sewage disposal in this way. Just to assist the minister, I'll advise her that I've been exploring whether the city of Kamloops, for example, might be willing to take this material on, even though I don't think it's much of an answer, because it involves such long-distance trucking of something where people don't really don't make much profit on the job. But municipalities aren't interested, because the high concentration of this material upsets the chemical balance of their treatment facilities, and they already feel as though the municipal taxpayers are paying the freight for their own sewage disposal. There doesn't look to be many quick answers to this, but it is certainly going to be a very pressing problem when it occurs.

Perhaps we could just conclude with a request that the minister commit to make this a high-priority item to make sure something is available on January 1, 1999, for disposal of this stuff.

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me assure the member that I have already given the letter to my deputy minister. I've alerted my assistant deputy minister, and we will be doing an investigation into the situation and getting back to the member as soon as we can with as many answers as there are, to try to resolve this situation.

K. Krueger: I appreciate that commitment. I'll leave it at that.

On a totally unrelated matter, I've been asked to question the minister with regard to. . . . This may be one of those questions out of the blue that the minister needs to have someone check out. There's apparently a gravel operation that is being developed, and that has been approved through this ministry, near Englishman River, less than one kilometre from a park. The individual who raised the concern with me asked whether the ministry didn't have concerns about the proximity of this gravel operation to the park. Is that something the minister is familiar with and could respond to?

[ Page 9652 ]

K. Krueger: Is the minister aware of this specific matter -- this site?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

K. Krueger: Has the ministry, then, fulfilled that role of giving advice to the other ministry and approving this operation?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we have fulfilled our advisory role.

K. Krueger: I believe that concludes what we need to cover on those two issues for the time being. I look forward to working with the minister on the problem of septic disposal -- I sort of look forward to it. I'll pass the chair to one of my colleagues.

R. Coleman: The critic tells me I can't take six or seven hours to discuss items with you this evening, hon. minister. I would like to just ask if I could have the minister's commitment to have her office have meetings with me relative to the Shiell and the Horner files in the Fraser Valley, because there are obviously some very large concerns there. Also, obviously the relationship and the decision-making between DFO and MOE and future opportunities for the province relative to economic opportunities. . . . I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for your ministry to make decisions, where they can make things almost happen, and then the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can actually supersede you and then we have difficulty in finalizing the relationship.

Also, I wouldn't mind having some time with one of your staff with regard to the operations of the Surrey office. If I could have your undertaking to do that, I'd just as soon not canvass that in estimates tonight and spend a lot of time on it. If we could just get together on those files, it would be great.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd be happy to accommodate such a meeting.

M. Coell: Earlier on, I went over the expenditures for the fiscal years from '92-93 until now. We looked at a 21 percent reduction in expenditures in the ministry and, further to that, a 3 percent reduction this year. So there have been continual cuts to the ministry as a whole. I'd like to look at the seven regions and the cuts to those regions this year. Just to go through what I've seen, and my research, for '96-97 to today: in Omineca-Peace, there was a 26 percent reduction before this year's budget; in the Skeena, a 22 percent decrease in their budgets for environmental pollution and prevention programs; 19 percent in the Cariboo; 18 percent in the Kootenays; 12 percent in the southern interior and in the lower mainland; and 14 percent in Vancouver Island. Those are the reductions I've seen from '96-97 to today. What I'd like is for the minister, through her staff, to give me the dollar figure that is going to be spent in those regions in this year's budget, if possible.

[7:30]

To begin with, the defence -- the best way of putting it, I guess -- is that that isn't truly reflective of the work that's gone on nor of the reductions that have gone on in regional operations. Nonetheless, there have been some. If the member looks at last year's budget and this year's budget -- and I will give him the numbers for regional operations reductions -- we have had some increases in regional operations, particularly to implement the Fish Protection Act -- consultations and work around that -- as well as water use planning, which is a significant part of our approach to dealing with fish protection measures. So there have been increases in those categories. In fact, we did make a decision to make far fewer reductions at the regional level and make more reductions at headquarters.

So the numbers, in terms of total dollars reduced, are: in the Vancouver Island region there was a reduction of 0.8 percent, which amounts to $71,215; in the lower mainland there was an increase of 0.5 percent, for a total additional expenditure of $53,110; in the southern interior there was a reduction of 0.8 percent, for a reduced amount of $83,605; in the Kootenay region there was a reduction of 1.5 percent, for an amount of $105,140; in the Cariboo there was a reduction of 1 percent, for the amount of $51,090; in the Skeena region it's a 0.8 percent reduction, for an amount of $50,170; and in the Omineca-Peace there was a reduction of 1.2 percent, for a total amount of $92,770.

M. Coell: The reason I want to deal with that issue. . . . You've got over a period of years continual cuts to regional offices; there have been continual cuts to the operation of the offices. I think some of those reductions have been part of the problem in backlog, and you have reductions again this year. So we've got 40 more auxiliary FTEs in and around the office, but we still have reductions in those regional offices. What I don't understand is how you can have an increase of 40 bodies but still have continued decreases in the regional offices.

Hon. C. McGregor: Those 40 additional bodies were added after these budget figures were developed, so the 40 positions are not reflected in this budget.

M. Coell: That's not very helpful if we're supposed to be doing estimates on actual estimates rather than. . . . So what other changes would have happened to these budgets since the addition of the 40 FTEs?

Hon. C. McGregor: That's the only change, and it was as a result of making a consequential decision post-blue book to add those additional staff.

[ Page 9653 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: We can redo the numbers, but it is a bottom line of about an additional $2.2 million overall.

M. Coell: I would appreciate getting those numbers from the minister. I suspect that when you spread that over the seven regions, you're going to be adding a couple of bodies to each area. Knowing that they are auxiliary, they may not be there halfway through the year, because they're the easiest to lay off if the ministry changes its mind. So I have some concerns there.

Earlier in the estimates we touched on the question of the number of employees. But do you have the number of employees being paid out of FRBC for the '98-99 fiscal year?

Hon. C. McGregor: I believe the member has this page that was provided in the budget briefing, which indicates that it is not paid out of the ministry budget but funded through FRBC. It's 108.91 FTEs for '98-99.

M. Coell: The other question -- and we touched on Crown lands earlier -- is that I would be interested in knowing what lands are actually for sale over the $10 million mark. What lands has the ministry identified and sent to the new body that are over $10 million?

Hon. C. McGregor: We can provide the member with whatever information has been made publicly available in terms of lands that are actually listed.

M. Coell: I would be interested in receiving that as soon as possible, not later in the year, if that is available.

I'll share my frustration with the minister. The tendency of government seems to be to shift people out of the ministry roles -- this particular ministry -- and to fund them from other sources, and to fund programs that used to be funded by the ministry from other sources, as with the 108 people funded by Forest Renewal and then shifted to the new body for sales of Crown lands. To me, the integrity of the ministry is under threat. I look at a number of the staff cuts. . . . And the minister is correct. When you look back as far as '92 the ministry has gone through a number of changes -- additions and subtractions. Your staff supplied me with some of them, but in the overall concept, it's almost as if it's under attack in the fact that it is going down. There are reductions in bodies, transfers out of the ministry, and the funding of programs by FRBC that the ministry used to fund. I don't think that the integrity of the ministry is served well by that. I offer that as an outside view to the minister, realizing that she obviously has restraints in her role as a minister.

The habitat conservation fund, which we touched on, is down 37 percent over a period of years. The sustainable environment fund is being somewhat siphoned off. There are just a whole bunch of kind of red flags for me as a critic: the multiculturalism subvote discounted, the regions having more and more difficulty in making their jobs, I would think, satisfactory as well as successful. The backlog in Crown lands is still at 3,000 and there doesn't seem to be a fundamental change in how the ministry is going to attack the problem. I appreciate some of the comments the minister has made with regard to the Tantalis project and a number of the other innovative ideas.

[7:45]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: I certainly appreciate the member's comments in the context that he means them, I believe, in a constructive way. One should always take constructive comments in the manner in which they are given. Certainly, as someone who has come into government at a time when we aren't in a period of growth in budgets and growth in spending, I don't have the same advantage as some of my predecessors did in being able to start new programs and initiate new dollar commitments. We simply can't deliver in the same way any longer.

Nonetheless, I think the ministry has been fairly creative about how to approach these questions. I look at the model of industrial stewardship as a means through which the ministry has been able to tackle its priorities in the handling of hazardous waste and other waste products that need to be diverted from landfills and to deal with our questions, quite frankly, as wasteful Canadians -- although I guess Canadians aren't alone in that wasteful practice.

I would say that we are a ministry in transition, and we are in transition from what I would describe as the old ways of doing business, which was simply saying: "Here's the problem. Okay, let's now design a program that's going to solve the problem and government will deliver it." I think there was a time when most people used that kind of an approach to deal with complex problems because budgets weren't the same and didn't have the same kind of concern as they do now. As the member knows, as a result of spending priorities that this government has in protecting core services to the broad public -- particularly in the areas of health care, education and social services -- we do have to spend more wisely and differently. We have to be able to achieve the same level of commitment and priorities that we had in the past, but to think about our work in a different way.

Frankly, I can't think of another ministry in government that is as farsighted as most of the senior staff that I have the opportunity to work with in this ministry. They are constantly amazing me with the approaches they take. They are avid readers; they are well-researched; they are well-educated. They envision and take advantage of new trends in environmental protection -- new ways of thinking about how to get our business done. They bring forward very innovative programs, like the industrial stewardship model, in order for this ministry to continue with its priorities.

So do I think the commitment has lessened? No, I don't. Do I think we have to do our work in a different way? Yes, I do. In particular, I think we have to broaden our definition and our view of who is the steward of the environment in our province. It isn't simply the role of government. I know the critic will agree with me on this: we all have a part to play. Local, regional, federal and provincial governments have parts to play. We all have to get better at making those parts fit together.

Some of the initiatives we've done recently with the federal government are about overlap and duplication, envi-

[ Page 9654 ]

But if there's one area that I think this ministry needs to spend more time on -- it's a personal bias I have -- it is in the area of education and of working with young people and the public broadly on the questions of environmental protection and what each of us can and should be doing on a daily basis to promote a safe and clean planet on which all of us can live and to protect it for the future. If there is one area that I would certainly like to enhance, it would be that role. I hope that if I get the chance to keep this job for a little while, I'll have the opportunity to work with the Minister of Education, in particular, on how we might do that kind of work better. I do believe that our role has to be one of broadly educating, across our province and nationally, with all of us recognizing the part that we need to play in terms of environmental protection for now, for our generation -- and for future generations, of course. That is why we're taking many of the steps we are in order to protect this planet for our children and grandchildren, we hope.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for those comments. The fear I have is that environmental protection is possibly. . .not taking a back seat in the ministry, but taking a back seat in government priorities. That is something that the minister, the Premier and fellow cabinet ministers have to deal with. It appears to me that in many respects the ministry is seeing cuts and squeezes and changes, but there are other parts of government, other than the Health and Education ministries, that seem to be steamrolling ahead with new-found moneys and policies. So I offer those thoughts on the ministry. I think it's a very valuable ministry, and it's one that should be expanding and growing with the times and using new thoughts and ideas as much as possible.

As we are talking about the minister's office budget, I would be remiss in not asking at least one question about the minister's office budget. There are reductions in most of the budget. Could the minister tell me why her budget has a $30,000 increase in it and where that money is going to be spent?

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually the salary amount went from $400,000 to $403,000, so it was a $3,000 increase. It was designed to deal with an administrative salary adjustment as well as some employee benefits.

M. Coell: Thank you very much for that clarification. I thank the minister for her comments, and I thank the ministry staff for being here for the last number of days. I have no further questions.

Vote 34 approved.

Vote 35: ministry operations, $151,032,000 -- approved.

Vote 69: environmental assessment and land use coordination, $15,679,000 -- approved.

Vote 70: environmental boards and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,132,000 -- approved.

The Chair: If it is the will of the committee, the committee will recess until the next set of estimates takes place -- until Aboriginal Affairs staff come into the committee room.

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 7:55 p.m. to 8:09 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Hon. D. Lovick: I am looking forward to this estimates debate. I think we are, all of us, involved in what everybody must recognize are important and, indeed, perhaps historical events and circumstances. I'm sure my colleagues opposite share with me just a little trepidation, knowing that what we do in British Columbia is going to be watched by other jurisdictions not only in North America but perhaps the world. My guiding faith in all of this is simply that we can indeed do it right and we can make a significant difference which will be good for all of us in this province.

This is, of course, my first effort presenting budget estimates as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I am, as I say, delighted to present the estimates for the 1998 legislative session. By way of opening, most of my remarks will effectively be a progress report on British Columbia's treaty process: the process for resolving land claims, for achieving economic and land use certainty and for creating jobs and new economic opportunities -- resolving those old problems of what I will call unfinished business; i.e., settling treaties. But I think we too often forget that it is also about creating economic opportunities and doing exciting things by way of economic development.

I said that the primary business of the ministry is negotiating treaties. I want to quote for the record, if I might, the mandate statement of the ministry: "The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has primary responsibility for treaty negotiations in the province of British Columbia. Through treaties and other negotiated agreements, the ministry works with other agencies and first nations to enhance self-reliance in aboriginal communities both on and off reserve." The key phrase there, it seems to me, is "to enhance self-reliance." What we're talking about is, in a word, empowerment -- to use an old and perhaps overworked word, but that's what it's about -- and I think it's a valid concept and aim.

Let me start by making absolutely clear that the province of British Columbia has not wavered in its commitment to resolve land claims in B.C. There have been some voices raised suggesting otherwise, but I am here to state as emphatically as I can that we have not wavered. Rather, we remain committed to resolving these claims through negotiation to ensure that we achieve economic and land use certainty in this province. And we have made significant progress. Today, 51 B.C. first nations groups are currently active in the B.C. Treaty Commission process. In fact, we have some 36 tables at the agreement-in-principle stage -- what we usually refer to as the substantive stage -- of negotiations. These negotiations -- I will state the obvious -- could not have moved forward without the province's ongoing involvement and our approval of framework agreements.

I want to just clarify a point. I have been quoted as saying that I was frustrated with the pace of our progress in terms of treaty settlements. I think that is more of a confession about who I am as an individual than it is about the treaty process. I say that simply because I am not as patient as I could wish. If I remember to put the activities and efforts of British Columbia

[ Page 9655 ]

Let me just give you a brief context for this. I recently had an opportunity to read a little bit of that newest book on the Nisga'a, which came out, I think, a couple of years ago now. The preface was written by Joe Gosnell. What Joe Gosnell says in that preface. . . . It's quite brief and worth reading; Joe's usually worth reading and listening to. He doesn't say it with any firecrackers going off or flags waving or any great fanfare, but he makes the point, very emphatically and clearly, that what has happened in British Columbia since 1991 is hugely significant and represents a major -- I'm tempted to say radical -- transformation, a radical shift in policy. I think he's right.

If we remember that until shortly before 1991. . . . In fairness, let's give the Social Credit government some credit. British Columbia up until that point was effectively in denial. We as a province were saying land claims, shmand claims. They didn't matter. They weren't on the agenda. Happily, I think, everybody in this province -- certainly the mainstream opinion in this province -- now says that it is unfinished business; we have some obligations; we must do something about that. My frustration in saying that things aren't going as rapidly as I could wish is based, as I say, more on the fact that I am not as patient as I would like to be -- recognizing moreover that in historical terms we are making huge progress. We have done more in this province in the last six and a bit years than in all of British Columbia history combined before that. That is something we should all take pride in.

Outside the treaty process we have also made, I think, much progress in a number of different areas. Clearly, our first priority is Nisga'a. That's our high priority. As well, I should put on the record that our negotiators recently signed an agreement-in-principle to resolve the very specific McLeod Lake claim, which is outside the courtroom and again outside the normal process. Our province is committed to working with Canada and with first nations to improve the process and to fast-track the negotiations. This process, I must emphasize, involves all three parties working in cooperation and partnership. Nobody can do it alone; we all require each other. The relationship is very much symbiotic.

[8:15]

Let me briefly turn to the Nisga'a circumstance and update my colleagues on the negotiations. You will appreciate, of course, that I can't be terribly specific without breaking faith with the table, but I can give some information. Everybody here knows that we have had extensive consultation prior to and indeed following the agreement-in-principle. I want to assure members that the ministry will continue to ensure that the public is fully informed, in keeping with the Premier's commitment to further engage the public in the process, before a final agreement is sent to the Legislature for debate and for ratification. The Premier has also, it's worth noting, committed to ensuring that every B.C. household will receive a guide to the treaty -- some very specific information on what the treaty contains. I give notice that we will make cost-effective use of radio and television to provide the public with information about the treaty and to let people know where they can get more information. We believe that the citizens of this province ought to be well informed.

Negotiators are now working through the outstanding issues as we speak, and we are hopeful that a final agreement will be concluded within the next few weeks -- I'd better say within weeks, rather than be much more specific. The Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Jack Ebbels, was asked to work full-time on the Nisga'a negotiations in order to facilitate the discussions and to move the process along. That was a conscious and deliberate decision made by me, in consultation with my cabinet colleagues, simply because we wanted to send a very clear signal to Nisga'a that we think we can do it. We think this is important enough that we want a gesture of good faith to show them that somebody whom they know, whom they respect, who is well known in first nations and indeed in other communities, should be at the table. Thus we asked Jack to do that. I'm happy to report that he has been there for some while now and I think has performed very good service indeed.

I want to emphasize that we as government don't have a specific time line. We're not saying we have to have a deal within the next two weeks. Similarly, we are not for a moment suggesting that an agreement for its own sake will happen. We are still bound by the principles that we have stated from the beginning. We want to ensure that a final agreement is fair, that it's affordable and that it is indeed in the interests of all British Columbians. Once the agreement that we're hopeful will happen is initialled by the three parties, it will then be sent to the Legislature for a full debate. The Premier has indeed stated that there will be a free vote in the Legislature prior to ratification of the Nisga'a final agreement. I believe that's a position enunciated also by the Liberal opposition, and that a free vote is, in their minds, the best and right thing to do in the House.

The province is involved in the treaty process, obviously, to ensure that treaties work in British Columbia. The Nisga'a process, we believe, demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that treaties reflect the interests of all British Columbians. I'm very mindful of the fact that my responsibility as minister is, on the one hand, to do my best to represent the legitimate interests of first nations people, but it is also to represent everybody else. I think that it's sometimes a difficult balancing act, but it's one that I certainly accept with alacrity and some humility.

We believe, too, that the federal government's involvement is absolutely vital to the treaty process. Canada -- and we have said this on a number of occasions -- must fulfil its historic obligations. It must address the concerns not just of those first nations who are committed to the treaty process, who are part of the treaty process, but also -- and here's the sticking point -- of those first nations who do not wish to participate in the process. As members will know, some 30 percent of first nations in this province are not in the treaty process at the moment.

We recognize that many, many aboriginal people do not live on reserves. The province, therefore, is actively working with urban aboriginal groups, including youth groups, on issues such as child care, education, jobs, training and those kinds of bread-and-butter issues that we obviously think are of great importance. A program to help aboriginal youth throughout British Columbia find jobs and careers or to start their own businesses was launched on April 4 by the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. That important initiative, which is part of Youth Options B.C., responds to the needs of aboriginal youth by showing them -- that is, the youth -- how to generate opportunities leading to full- or part-time jobs or to self-employment.

[ Page 9656 ]

I want to very carefully state here, however, that the amount of money announced by the federal minister today -- some $3 million to $5 million, I think it was -- for the next period of time to help first nations people acquire the capacity to manage their lands and resources is (a) very small, and (b) especially small relative to what British Columbia has done in the last few years. We've spent more than $3 million in forestry alone and created 370 jobs in the last fiscal year for first nations people -- firefighting, woods training, things of that sort. So while we welcome the federal initiative, I want to make very clear that our own efforts are, I think, nothing to be reluctant to speak of in any way. I think we have a pretty good record, and we have a right to brag a little bit about that.

We've repeatedly expressed our interest in working with Canada on a number of issues, especially on things like ensuring that aboriginal peoples have the resources, jobs and training so they can indeed seriously address those horrible endemic issues, such as unemployment. We continue to do that. We will continue to work on those issues with Canada.

In the meantime, the province has, as I suggested, been taking significant steps to address jobs, training, education and unemployment issues. Let me give you another couple of examples, if I may. In the Ministry of Education, for example, $36.3 million was spent in 1996-97 for K-to-12 incremental funding for each student of aboriginal ancestry to cover costs associated with aboriginal language and culture and community support programs. This incremental funding, I want to emphasize, is not recognized in the district per-pupil funding or average paid by the federal government for each status Indian student. Therefore, when we hear $3 million from the federal government and suggestions from the feds that "We sure hope B.C. is going to come to the table and match these dollars," our temptation is to say: "Where have you guys been for the last few years? This is what we've been doing." So we're not sure that we're exactly behind when it comes to addressing problems.

Another brief example is in the Ministry of Forests. I think I referred briefly a moment ago to $4.8 million that was spent in 1996-97 on firefighting, training and employment opportunities for aboriginal people. In the MOF alone, that translates into 370 direct jobs.

One more example is the traditional-use study program funded by Forest Renewal B.C. It has funded 26 different programs for first nations communities in the last four years, employing approximately 200 people. The annual budget of that one program for this fiscal year is $5.4 million. I want to simply get that on the record so people understand why we are not exactly leaping with joy when we hear that the federal government is going to put up $3 million.

The role of business is also extremely important. Business and first nations communities need to continue working together to develop partnerships and to create new economic opportunities, to create jobs and to create healthy communities. In my work so far, by the way, I've had numerous opportunities to deal with and talk with leaders in the business community, and I want to say that contrary to some of the mythology out there, business is miles ahead of popular opinion in many cases. They're well aware that there is a post-Delgamuukw universe, and they are saying that the post-Delgamuukw universe is one full of opportunities. The Business at the Summit conference -- which is now in its fourth year, getting bigger and better every year -- is a wonderful illustration of just how that mind-set, that awareness, has set in for the business community. So I congratulate them. They have been most helpful. They have certainly been understanding and tolerant, and I'm looking forward to continued partnerships with them, just as I'm sure first nations communities are.

The ministry's primary focus, though, as I've said a couple of times already, is on treaty settlements, on economic certainty and on providing new opportunities for jobs for local and aboriginal communities. I think it's true that probably everybody in British Columbia wants negotiations to move forward. Certainly that was made clear to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs when it held hearings throughout the province in 1996 and 1997. The committee's report, which was released last summer, validates, it seems to me, the province's approach to treaty negotiations, for it affirms that there is indeed strong public support to pursue the completion of modern-day treaties that are fair, affordable and workable.

I said in the House not too very long ago that government does indeed accept and agree with all 72 recommendations in the committee's report. Thirty-six of the committee's recommendations have been implemented; 20 recommendations, such as those regarding certainty and compensation, are being pursued with the appropriate parties, such as advisory committees, third parties, Canada and first nations; and 16 recommendations will be implemented at the appropriate stage of the treaty process.

We believe treaties will bring economic prosperity. They will provide a stable environment for investors in British Columbia. We're intent on sending the message that the economic certainty which international investors are looking for will come from treaties and the certainty they will bring to land and resource use in B.C. The legitimate concern about lost investment and economic uncertainty was one of the major factors in the province's decision to participate in the tripartite negotiations with first nations and with Canada. We have always maintained that the benefits of treaty settlements will outweigh the costs -- hugely outweigh the costs. The province expects about $3 worth of total benefits for every dollar's worth of cost. This is money that will flow into local and regional communities throughout the province.

Of course, treaties that are fair, that are affordable and that will last -- survive the test of time -- will take time. We should have no illusions about that. They will take time to negotiate, they will take time to ratify, and they will take time to implement, no doubt. In the meantime, though, govern-

[ Page 9657 ]

[8:30]

Let me give you a couple of brief examples of the role that government has been playing in that area. The forest technician training program -- a working partnership among industry, the Ministry of Forests, the Council of Forest Industries and Forest Renewal B.C. -- provides both technical and hands-on forestry training to aboriginal people. Similarly, the joint efforts by the Moricetown band council of the Wet'suwet'en first nation, Northwood Pulp and Timber and Forest Renewal B.C. has resulted in the opening of Kyah Forest Products, which is a value-added enterprise employing 50-some workers. As a key employer in Moricetown, the $6 million Kyah Forest Products operation represents how forest companies and first nations can work as partners to get more value out of woods harvested from Crown lands. Those are just two of many examples of cooperative, productive relationships involving first nations and business. I am sure that all members would agree with me that these kinds of joint ventures can only build an economic base that advances the interests of first nations and therefore the interests of all businesses -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

I want to say a little bit now about Delgamuukw. I know it's certainly a concern to many people, and I know we'll have many questions about Delgamuukw, as we should. The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Delgamuukw reminds us above all of the need for and the absolute importance of working together to solve issues. In Delgamuukw, the Supreme Court made it very clear that negotiation is preferable to litigation. We are all in this together; we are all going to be here at the end of the day; some give and some take are required -- all of which cashes out to be an argument for negotiation. They said: "Go out and do that."

Much has been written and said about the court's decision. Above all, it seems to me, though, that the decision affirms very clearly that we are on the right track -- that is, negotiating issues rather than saying: "See you in court." Let me just give one anecdotal and simplistic -- simplistic, I acknowledge -- explanation of why that is better. The reason is just this: that court almost inevitably, it seems to me, involves people in a circumstance of competition, where there will be winners and there will losers. I think negotiation, on the other hand, makes it much more likely, if not inevitable, that we can have solutions that are indeed perceived to be to the benefit of both parties. I don't think we need to see people in terms of plaintiffs and defendants when we talk about negotiation, and I think that's to the good.

Here's a brief outline of our position and our approach to this decision. First, the province remains absolutely committed to the tripartite process, and we're actively working with Canada and first nations to improve the process and to fast-track negotiations. Representatives from B.C. first nations and senior officials from B.C. and Canada, as some people here know, reached agreement on a package of recommendations for improving the treaty process. Third parties and local governments also participated as part of that process. The parties proposed an agreement for improving and fast-tracking treaty negotiations, and they agreed to take the proposal back to their respective principals. If adopted by all the parties, an agreement would have made treaty tables throughout the process move more efficiently and expeditiously, I think, and would have allowed us to resolve land claims through negotiation to ensure that we did indeed achieve what we're all after -- namely, economic certainty and land use certainty.

That process, I am happy to report, though it reached what I have referred to in the past as a bit of a rough patch along the road, is back on track -- we like to believe. We think our position is still the right one. I don't need to spell it out in too much detail, because I know my colleagues in the opposition have seen the document. They know what the package is. Indeed, I recall from their statements at the time that they were broadly supportive of the position that B.C. appeared to be taking, based on the documents that were leaked.

The province, as I said, has clearly indicated its willingness to get back to the table. We want to pick up from that point. We think that is the right way to go. Let me offer just a few more comments, if I might, on Delgamuukw, and I'll start by putting it this way. This is, if you like, the judgment one makes where the two roads diverge in the woods. I want to put this on the record, because I think it's an important context for discussions that one will have about Delgamuukw.

It was decided fairly early in the game that one has a choice and that one could go down one road or another. One road effectively says: "Let's start with the first item on the table, the first item for discussion -- the concept of aboriginal title." You can do that. We know that the title is deemed to exist and is defined in a pretty specific way in Delgamuukw; we know that. But it also, however, in its long and elaborate description of aboriginal title, doesn't say where it is or how much there is. What it does, however, is provide a test of title -- how you prove title. One road you can go down in the post-Delgamuukw environment is to simply say: "Come to the table. We'll have a discussion about title." You, the first nation, will say: "We own X, Y and Z -- all of the following area, bound by our traditional territory." And we, the provincial Crown, will say: "Well, that's more than we can deal with, so prove it. Then, five years later, we'll see you." Guess what happens in the course of that five years. Not a hell of a lot, to be quite blunt -- not a great deal. I don't think the interests of first nations or other parties are much advanced thereby.

The other way we can come at it -- and the position that we as provincial Crown have taken -- is to say: "Let's start with land, resources and cash. Let's start with the tangibles; let's start with the means whereby first nations can acquire self-sufficiency and self-reliance, some means to achieve their potential as human beings -- participating and complete human beings -- rather than a marginal culture that we have created in this society and in this province." We think that's the way to start. That is the primary animus for our position on Delgamuukw -- a position, as I said, that I think members opposite know about. There are lots of other dimensions to it, but on that basic choice -- which way do you go? -- we have come to an answer that we think is the right approach. And I am happy to report that I think most first nations agree with our approach -- we shall see.

[ Page 9658 ]

Recently we reached an agreement with Canada on sharing the costs of negotiating a specific claim with the McLeod Lake Indian band, and we're now back at the table to settle the band's claim. For those of you who don't know, McLeod Lake is a bit unique, because it is an adhesion to an existing treaty -- a very old treaty from the 1890s, but that outstanding business was still there. We think we have the basis for a good agreement for an adhesion to the treaty.

As I've said a few times now, the province believes that negotiation and not litigation is the best method of resolving these issues. We're pleased that negotiations have resumed. We'll seek a fair and affordable settlement with McLeod Lake and Canada, and we believe that settling this claim will result in land use certainty that will benefit third-party interests including forestry, as well as taxpayers.

We're also looking forward to the following initiatives this year. An agreement for improving and fast-tracking treaty negotiations remains a high priority of the provincial government. We're obviously encouraging first nations and Canada to support an agreement and find solutions that will allow the economy of B.C. to flourish while negotiating effective and workable treaty settlements. Once again, Nisga'a negotiations are working through the outstanding issues, and we all believe that a final agreement will be concluded shortly.

However, if treaties are to work, it's of the utmost importance that the public be informed as to the history and the explanation behind the treaty process, to be sure that they are kept up to speed with the process being made at each table. In this regard, we'll continue to work with the B.C. Treaty Commission, with the First Nations Summit and with the Federal Treaty Negotiation Office to help develop provincewide public education programs, including speakers, tours, publications for schools, cross-cultural workshops and treaty-specific newspaper inserts.

The Chair: Minister, you have run out of time.

Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry I have. I had a thousand other things I wanted to say, but I will catch them at the first opportunity.

M. de Jong: Do you have more?

Hon. D. Lovick: Very briefly.

M. de Jong: I'm dying with curiosity to hear the remainder of the minister's concluding remarks, hon. Chair.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to thank the member for the courtesy shown; I appreciate it, and I am sure I can reciprocate at some point -- assuming that he will ever talk for more than 15 minutes at a stretch, of course. Believe me, I'm not going to go on at much greater length; I promise you that.

Treaty table meetings will continue to be open, I am pleased to note, and will be advertised in advance. The ministry will continue to supply treaty-related information on request. We will continue to evaluate our consultation methods with a view to streamlining consultation effectiveness -- streamlining them, increasing effectiveness, improving information exchange and adopting new consultation methods as new stages of negotiation are entered. Outside the treaty process, we will continue to support consultation processes related to interim measures, to dispute resolution and to other negotiations.

Finally, a brief word about fiscal management. The government is committed to sound management, obviously, and we recognize that the public also places a very high priority on that matter of sound fiscal management. In this regard, all provincial government ministries must continue their commitment to keep spending under control, and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is certainly no exception. For the record, the ministry trimmed its budget last year in a number of areas without, I think, undermining our ability to participate in negotiations or to conclude treaties, which is, as I've said, our main priority. The restated budget for the 1997-98 fiscal year was $30.2 million; we actually spent $1.5 million less. This year our budget is about $32 million. The increase in the budget reflects an allocation of $2.2 million for the amortization of treaty settlement and implementation costs.

Before taking my seat, I just want to make two points. Number one, I want to introduce staff. But I also want to acknowledge a problem that I think all of us are now aware of in our dealings with the First Nations Summit. As members perhaps know, the First Nations Summit recently held elections and chose what is called the working group representing the First Nations Summit and consisting of three people: Joe Mathias, Ed John and Jenny Jack.

[8:45]

Having said that, let me just introduce some people here with me. To my immediate right is Philip Steenkamp. Phil is the acting deputy minister in the ministry -- filling in, in Jack Ebbels's absence at the Nisga'a table. Christie Brown, sitting behind me and to my right, is the assistant deputy minister responsible for negotiations. Anne Kirkaldy, sitting to my immediate left, is the executive director of management services. We're also joined by Peter Smith, assistant director of communications.

I look forward to comments and questions from members opposite and thank them all for their very kind attention.

M. de Jong: I resolved in preparing for these debates and these estimates to resist the temptation to embark upon a

[ Page 9659 ]

I have a couple of questions, and I'm going to start right in. These estimates debates take place on the eve of what the minister and the Premier have described as the imminent unveiling of a treaty. It might be days; it might be weeks. No one, of late at least, is speaking in terms of months with respect to the Nisga'a treaty that would flow from the agreement-in-principle. As the minister has pointed out in his opening remarks, the government has indicated that there will be a free vote on that document.

It's significance as the first modern-day treaty cannot be -- and I don't think is -- underestimated by anyone, least of all anyone in the Legislature or any serious commentator around the province. That these discussions take place on the eve of the presentation of that document I think will be largely influenced by what the minister can tell us now about the nature of the debate that will take place around that document when it is ultimately presented to the Legislature. I guess the question that I am getting to. . . . We know that there will be a free vote. We know that that is part of the ratification process. What I would like to know from the minister is whether the document, the treaty that will be initialed by the three parties, will come to the Legislature in British Columbia in its entirety for a clause-by-clause analysis and debate, or whether he as minister contemplates some other form of presentation to the Legislature.

Hon. D. Lovick: My commitment is that the treaty document -- the entire package with all the chapters, a hugely complex and detailed document -- will indeed come in its entirety to the Legislature.

M. de Jong: That's helpful. I take it, therefore, that what the minister contemplates is an opportunity for all members of the Legislature to pose questions, section by section, article by article, clause by clause, as a means of clarifying any confusion that they may have and articulating any concerns that they may have about that first modern-day treaty.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite correct.

M. de Jong: In his opening remarks the minister referred to a campaign or a program. I'm not sure of the words he used, but he certainly referred specifically to an advertising budget that would be applied to honour a commitment he indicates the Premier has made to put a summary of the Nisga'a treaty in the hands of all British Columbians. There are a bunch of words in those statements that cause oppositions, not least of all this one, some concern. Informational advertising is one thing -- and I have to say this to the minister with all candour -- that in the past, both in this ministry and in others, that has been a catchword for what I can only describe as propaganda. By that I mean British Columbians have some widely differing views, not so much anymore on the need to negotiate settlements but on what those final settlements should look like.

One of the things that I hope to do during the course of these estimates is to present the minister with some public opinion survey findings that relate to issues that are very much part and parcel of these treaty negotiations. People become concerned when their views are portrayed by government or other senior agencies as being wrong views. When they see their tax dollars -- public dollars -- being spent to promote a point of view about treaty settlements that they do not necessarily share, the minister will not be surprised to learn that they become even more concerned. I guess the obvious question is this. Part of the minister's communication budget has been set aside to fund what he termed an informational campaign. He says that it is a modest amount. Let's hear from the minister just how modest it is.

Hon. D. Lovick: I do not have the final figure for the member. What I can tell him, though, very clearly, is that because of the scale of this thing and what the Premier has committed to -- which he has referred to, as the member perhaps knows, as an information campaign -- it will not be borne entirely by this ministry alone. I can tell him that.

I think, though, the larger question that I think he's getting at is simply whether this will become some kind of propaganda campaign, effectively selling a particular point of view. I fear that to a considerable degree, that is a judgment call. It very much depends on the eye of the beholder. My perception, belief and notion of what is right is that we do have an obligation as government with this particular measure to give information to explain what the treaty is and to explain why it is X and why it isn't Y -- that sort of thing. But in terms of it being a hard sell, attacking those who disagree with treaty processes or something, no, I don't see that as a part of it. I guess I don't, in all candour, have too many reservations or qualms about it slipping over and becoming a blatant propaganda campaign. As I say, I think that will be a judgment call to a considerable degree. That will depend very much on who's ox is being gored, as it were.

M. de Jong: Well, I can't speculate about what may or may not be part of the ad campaign. What I can do today, though, is try to ascertain with some certainty the degree to which governmental resources will be committed to that campaign. The minister has kindly pointed out that he believes money will come from elsewhere in government, beyond his ministry. That suggests to me that the campaign will be directed from elsewhere in government. Which wing of government will be responsible for the campaign, and where will the money come from?

Hon. D. Lovick: What I will do is give the member my assurance that tomorrow morning I will bring in this information in terms of up-to-date budget figures. The suggestion that because we are going beyond this ministry's budget it therefore belongs to somebody other than the ministry, is a bit of stretch. But I'm not about to pretend that I am an absolutely free agent in an issue such as this. I think the member well knows that the Premier has claimed a certain ownership of this issue for some while. I, for one, am pleased that this is the case.

It seems to me rather exciting that the Premier of the province would say, as he has on provincewide television, that in his mind this is perhaps the single most important thing before the people of the province and that if there are things that are worth being defeated for, this is certainly one of those. So that commitment has been made very publicly by the Premier.

I can tell the member opposite that the Premier loves to tell the story about how, two years ago, despite being in cabinet for the last six years and despite all of this stuff in terms of aboriginal treaty negotiations and the Nisga'a being very much part of cabinet discussions for a very long period of time, he paid no attention -- didn't take it very seriously at all. But he's a very quick study indeed and right now probably understands what's going on in terms of the Nisga'a AIP and ongoing negotiations as well as anybody.

[ Page 9660 ]

M. de Jong: Not being as intimately acquainted with the Premier as the minister, obviously, I am perhaps a little bit more cynical about what has motivated his more recent interest in this matter. I don't know that sinister is the appropriate word for describing my interest in this. It is difficult for the opposition -- and for people generally -- to critique whether what government is embarking upon is a legitimate exercise of its spending authority if one is not at all certain about where that spending authority emanates from. The Premier has a sizeable communications budget in his office, and if this campaign is going to be funded and directed largely from that office, we'd like to know that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I mentioned to the member earlier that I will give him some detailed and specific information in terms of dollars tomorrow morning. I'll be happy to do that.

M. de Jong: Thanks. The minister refers to tomorrow morning. It's either an ominous sign of how long he intends to sit tonight or of his desire to come here tomorrow when I don't intend to be here.

Hon. D. Lovick: Time flies when you're having fun.

M. de Jong: I can tell.

A matter arose today. . . . This is not necessarily in the order that I wanted to raise it, but because it was dealt with in the main chamber today, I thought I would canvass it very quickly with the minister. If something arises out of our discussion here tonight, at least we will have an opportunity to come back to it. As the minister knows, we were discussing in the main chamber the SkyTrain announcement that was made by the Premier. Today's discussion during question period related more to the application or non-application of the environmental assessment review legislation and that whole process. But as that discussion was taking place. . . . I received calls several days ago, and another one today, as a matter of fact, posing the question to me. . . .

I should preface my remarks as follows. The opposition pursued -- I think it's fair to say -- that line of questioning today from the perspective that as members of society as businesses and as individuals, certain obligations are imposed upon us. The Environmental Assessment Act is one of those obligations. In the post-Delgamuukw era that the minister spoke about at some length in his opening remarks, another set of obligations has fallen to citizens, individuals, companies and also to government.

[9:00]

Companies are now confronted with litigation from first nations, who are suggesting that the obligation to consult has not been properly discharged. That's a roundabout way of getting back to the SkyTrain announcement and asking the minister to what extent his government has followed through on the obligation that falls to them to consult with, for example, the Burrard band or the Squamish nation, whose traditional territories are likely to be impacted -- for better or for worse, I suppose, depending on your perspective -- by a move to implement the Premier's announcement on rapid transit.

Hon. D. Lovick: First, a generic answer, a broader answer, and then to the more specific one.

Regarding the matter of the provincial Crown's obligation to consult, as the Supreme Court's meaningful consultation. . . . Government, I think it's safe to say, is finding its way, and some parts of government are doing much better than others. The Ministry of Forests, for example, despite the fact that it's in the news a great deal, and as you know, we've had little difficulties in Tsilhqot'in, and so forth. . . . I think the Ministry of Forests has done a superb job in terms of learning how to change its ways. Other ministries may not be as far along that track. But pretty clearly, government has got to accept the fact that it has a responsibility -- indeed, a legal responsibility as well as a moral one -- to ensure that it lives up to the intent and the letter of the law in terms of consultation.

I'm sure the member is familiar with what the Supreme Court says about consultation: that it covers a range of possibilities, to the point, sometimes, of up to and perhaps involving permission to trespass or to infringe on territory. Consultation as defined by the Supreme Court can even go that far. We're mindful of that. We have worked very hard to establish protocols in consultation with all ministries. For example, we met very recently with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in terms of how their processes are working. So that's going on; it's ongoing. We're improving the process.

The member's quite right that there have been some problems along the way. I think part of the reason is that historically, again. . . . Remember that certain ministries saw their rights as being almost feudal in nature. They didn't have to answer to anybody. The Ministry of Highways comes to mind. Highways was well known to do that, not just with first nations people, but with everybody. They went in and they did what they wanted. The new universe we have to function in obviously doesn't allow that. Nor should it: even if we didn't have Delgamuukw, it probably shouldn't. We're moving in those ways.

In terms of the specifics -- the lower mainland and the possible route for SkyTrain -- I don't know those details. I can't imagine, frankly, that any serious discussion about SkyTrain would have occurred without some discussion already, or some consideration, at least, of first nations' interests and their right to be consulted. Again, I can check that out, but as I say, I can't imagine that anybody in this day and age would assume you could embark on a project like that without some kind of consideration and consultation.

M. de Jong: I'm going to pursue the point a little bit. From the perspective of an opposition member of this chamber, one is naturally inclined to be suspicious about an announcement that seems to have been conjured up in relatively short order. It seems to. . . . Well, I'm not going to debate with the minister what my thoughts or suspicions around the announcement might be. I presume, however, that it is an announcement of projects of such magnitude, involving billions of dollars, that it would involve cabinet. I won't ask the minister to disclose what may or may not have been discussed around the cabinet table. But I'm trying to understand the process by which government now works when an

[ Page 9661 ]

A similar -- similar to the extent that you can have similar transit projects in the private sector -- private sector company or group that wants to pursue a project that for them is every bit as important wouldn't think about making that kind of declaration. It wouldn't think about promising the final completion of the project -- or its commencement, even -- by a certain date, without having tied up what you could call loose ends. But they aren't loose ends anymore.

I understand that the minister likely doesn't want to be in a position to mislead, and I don't mean that in a nefarious way. I'm trying to understand how an announcement of this magnitude could be made by the Premier without the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs having signed off in some way the consultation everyone else would be required to undertake with the Burrard, Squamish and Musqueam bands -- whose traditional territory, we know, is claimed along any one of a number of corridors involved. How could that announcement move to this stage without the minister being in a position to offer that sort of sign-off?

Hon. D. Lovick: As the member quite rightly points out, I am loath to leap into this particular battleground, because I don't know the turf very well. I'm also obviously not about to talk about what was or wasn't covered in cabinet.

It raises an interesting question. I'm not familiar with all the routes that are on the table, but I suspect that most of those are probably going through developed property, most of which would be fee simple in nature. Clearly, as we've said from the beginning, private property isn't on the table. If you weren't contemplating infringement of land that is in traditional territory and that has already been alienated by becoming somebody else's property and fee simple land, then clearly you wouldn't have the same concern.

Again, I'm quite prepared to have a look and see if I can find out more details. Again, I don't know enough about that particular project. I remember the concept. I've been in the House like the member has, and I've certainly heard comments about that, but in terms of our responsibilities as the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, no, we have not devoted huge attention to that. We may have to. I think at the moment that we are simply talking about a concept and an idea, rather than saying that there is a deal done. Isn't there a memorandum of understanding or something with Bombardier, rather than a statement that says we are indeed going to build it and it's going to happen on this day, and so forth and so on? But again, I don't know.

M. de Jong: Well, it was the flashiest announcement of a "maybe" project that I've ever seen. But I am more concerned about the process of government. On the one hand -- and let me try to present it in this way -- the minister was also in the House the day we confronted his colleague the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks on an issue arising out of the Okanagan Valley. An individual whose application to follow through on an option to purchase Crown land -- the legal obligation existed -- was told by the ministry that in the competition between fulfilling their certain and defined legal obligation under the option to purchase -- to transfer that land to the private citizen -- and the vague and undefined obligations that might accrue to the Crown in the postDelgamuukw era, the ministry was going to err on the side of caution and not fulfill its legal obligation. This was because of concerns about what damages might accrue or what obligations they may or may not have vis-à-vis the first nations.

In its dealings with the citizenry, the government says: "We are going to err on the side of caution, we are going to err on the side of preserving those undefined, uncertain potential aboriginal rights." But on a project that, let's face it, holds a certain political sex appeal for the government, there appears, from what the minister is saying, to be absolutely no process, absolutely no mechanism by which even the Premier or the minister responsible for transit says: "Well, hang on. It's post-Delgamuukw, and maybe we should abide by all of those things that we are asking private citizens and private corporations to abide by."

I don't take a lot of comfort from the minister standing in this chamber and saying: "It didn't come up." If it didn't come up, there's a real problem. I don't want to personalize the thing, but this is the minister responsible for the negotiation of treaties, for understanding life in the post-Delgamuukw era and for ensuring that the rest of government understands life in the post-Delgamuukw era. If the Premier is reluctant to recognize that fact, then I need to know from the minister what he's doing to remind the Premier that he cannot -- as none of us can -- shirk those responsibilities simply on the basis that it is politically convenient or advantageous to do so.

Hon. D. Lovick: Unfortunately, the member's question, while I appreciate it has validity, goes one step too far. I don't think it's a matter of political sex appeal versus the rights of some poor individual. Maybe it's, rather, something like utilitarian calculus. Maybe that's the common denominator. In other words, we're talking about a larger context in terms of more people who might be injuriously or beneficially affected, and that becomes the determination. The case that the member referred to in terms of the issuing of the permit -- the Ministry of Environment and that debate we had in the Legislature. . . . The member, I hope, will remember that ultimately the question was: "By whom do you want to be sued?" That was the predicament the Ministry of Environment found itself in. So let's not pretend that it's some easy calculus and that what you can do is say, "Right, we're going to stand up and defend the landowners' interest, and the heck with Delgamuukw," or the reverse of that. Those are tough decisions, and that's what Delgamuukw created for us. We're all working our way through that; there's no question.

To the other point that the member raises, in terms of my responsibility in terms of keeping the minister and my cabinet colleagues apprised of responsibilities, it's absolutely true. I spend a huge amount of time doing that. Indeed, I've made reference to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and I could name for the member a number of others with whom I've had similar conversations. We do that on a fairly regular basis. We have a deputy's committee that meets on a fairly regular basis to make sure that all parts of governments are mindful of their obligations. That leads me to the simple point I want to make -- namely, that obviously I will ensure that all of our commitments regarding consultation with first nations are ones we live up to. I don't believe that any of those commitments have been betrayed thus far. Based on what I know about the proposal and the concept of SkyTrain, I don't believe that any of those things are in question. That's the assumption the member is making, that ipso facto the SkyTrain proposal lives; therefore we have somehow infringed the rights of people. I don't think that logic is necessarily supportable or necessarily the fact.

[ Page 9662 ]

[9:15]

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Maybe. A claim for traditional territories. . . . I understand that the land was ultimately transferred. So do I understand, therefore, that the decision was made on the basis that the Crown would rather be sued by the first nation? I don't think so. I think the decision was made on the basis that there is an undefined potential claim that could lead to litigation or a claim for damages -- versus a certain legal right. I'll attempt to suggest to the minister why I think that's important.

Only moments ago he suggested that the strength of the government's commitment to the principle that private lands are not on the table was ironclad. With the greatest respect, that is not consistent with his subsequent statement that we are wrestling to weigh and balance undefined claims versus this very certain private interest in land -- because that's what a right to purchase is; it's just that.

The minister scoffs. Maybe he has a different notion. When private individuals have paid lease rates over a series of years -- paid money to the Crown, signed an agreement, worked. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Maybe I'm missing something here. We are talking about a right in land that two individuals, a husband and a wife, purchased from the Crown. That's a private interest in land. What the minister is saying -- and I think, quite frankly, he said it honestly and fairly. . . . But it is revealing that for him that represents a difficulty. What that suggests to me is that if that difficulty genuinely exists, then the government's commitment to the notion of protecting private interests in land isn't what I thought it was. He is apparently struggling, in the case where people have acquired a right to purchase. Maybe my notion of a private interest in land is different than his, but let's deal with that here.

Hon. D. Lovick: Let's not deal with it here, and I'll tell you why. The problem is that the example the member used was based on question period and based on the fact that the Minister of Environment, in the framework of question period, got beat up for -- what? -- four or five days on this subject. It seemed like a long time, frankly, that it went on.

The point I'm making is simply that in that difficult environment we're all trying to find our way through, she was constantly hectored and harangued about whether she would stand up for one side or the other. The point I was making, and I'm still making, is just that in that context she was in effect given a kind of Sophie's choice to choose who would in fact be suing. That was ultimately, in the most simplistic and clear way, the issue that was on the table when we were in the House during those points in question period.

I'm not trying for a moment, though, to give the member a detailed and thorough analysis of what private interest in land is or isn't. What I was trying to do is respond to the particular point he made, based on a particular bit of anecdotal evidence in the Legislature. The reason I say, "No, the minister is not anxious to answer that stuff," is because if indeed my anecdotal evidence and my illustration are suddenly going to be taken as the means of trying to generate a position that this minister and this government are taking on the nature of private property, well, that's a mug's game. I'm sorry, I'm not about to participate in that kind of game. I will answer the real questions. I will certainly, to the best of my ability, try and deal with the member's concerns, but I think that kind of debate, quite frankly, is ultimately circular and isn't going to get us anywhere.

M. de Jong: Well, I think that it is entirely legitimate for the opposition, to the extent it can, to try and test the extent of the government's commitment to a principle it has been touting for the last five years. It is easy to say that private property rights are not on the table. I think it is a legitimate function of this debate and what oppositions are charged with the responsibility for doing -- to test the strength of that commitment. If the minister is uncomfortable with my drawing on an example that arose in question period, I'm not wedded to that.

We are going to encounter, time and time again in this province, examples of competing claims with respect to Crown land. We are going to encounter grazing tenders; we are going to encounter options to purchase. These are not fanciful, manufactured examples; they are real. They exist. When I ask the minister -- and let's leave his colleague the Minister of Environment out of this, because it is a difficult setting within which to manufacture a response -- in the post-Delgamuukw era, what does he see as taking precedence. . . ? Confronted with a situation where an individual with a right to purchase or an option to purchase a piece of Crown land that is located within the traditional territory of a first nation which is also claiming that Crown land, what is the response of this minister? What is the response of this government as to whose claim takes priority?

We can discuss what flows from that. We can discuss the notion of the potential need for compensation that might flow from a decision to abide by the option to purchase, or the private interest in the land, and the need to compensate first nations post-fact. But I think it's legitimate in this post-Delgamuukw era to pose the question to the minister to test the extent of the government's commitment to the principle of protecting private property.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm conferring with my deputy here to just ask: can either of us think of any example yet where the rights of private property have not been upheld or maintained? And we can't. In every instance where private property and property rights, if you like, might have been adduced as in question, we have come down very clearly in terms of upholding the principle we have enunciated from the beginning -- namely, that private property is not on the table. I don't think that in the particular case we're talking about with

[ Page 9663 ]

M. de Jong: The point I want to make to the minister is that the delays that are accruing through the bureaucracy as a result of the uncertainty surrounding the Crown's obligations under Delgamuukw are occurring on a daily basis. I think that the concern from the perspective of the bureaucracy is not maliciously motivated. They don't know.

I guess the principle that I'm trying to get at here is that there are two options for government confronted by these situations. One is to act without delay -- to return to the simple example that I've been drawing on, the case of the option to purchase on Crown land -- on that legal obligation, recognizing that if, as a result of subsequent negotiations, what by that point will formerly have been Crown land was part of the traditional territory, part of the bank of land that should have gone to the first nations. . . . There is going to be a compensation issue. That's one way to deal with that, and there's a cost involved to the Crown.

The other way to deal with it -- if the minister wants examples, I can line up a parade of my colleagues who will bring examples -- is to delay and to say: "We can't give effect to that transfer of land because this is subject to a series of negotiations, and until we have resolved that point, we're not in a position to move." That is a very different way of proceeding and suggests to me that the commitment to the principle of protecting private interests and property is something less than what the government has been touting to this point at least.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member starts from the premise that delays lead to uncertainty and that this is apparently because of the government's inability or whatever to stake out its position clearly. For the member's information, there is no freeze. We have indeed given pretty clear directions to most of the so-called dirt ministry line people in terms of what the Crown's rights are. We have asserted the Crown's rights on numerous, numerous occasions. What we've also done with regard to the specific questions in terms of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Lands branch and leases and all that. . . . I'm advised that the ministry has put in extra resources to clear up the backlog.

Probably the backlog was -- I'm stretching my memory a little bit here, and the member may know this as well as I. . . . It seems to me that when the case came up in the House, it was debatable whether the delays were to be entirely laid at the feet of Delgamuukw or whether it was rather something to do with downsizing and the fact that the ministry simply didn't have the resources to do the job as diligently or as expeditiously as it might have. I think that perhaps -- and I say this tentatively -- Delgamuukw sort of got mixed into the other problem.

I stand by the point I made earlier, but I don't think there is much in the way of hard evidence to support the conclusion that the uncertainty over the Crown's right to manage the lands and to have control of the lands is causing delays. I don't think that's the issue; I think its rather a matter of perhaps some of the line ministries struggling a little bit with precisely what their duties are. We as government, as I say, have worked very hard to address that. Deputies have been meeting on a fairly regular basis to try and give clearer, more specific guidelines to district managers and others, so they can address those concerns. But we have not wavered in our commitment to saying that we categorically reject the notion that private property is indeed on the table.

I've also been advised that the revisions to the Forest Practices Code are indeed designed in part, at least, to accelerate the process of permitting. We have done similar things with the oil and gas industry to accelerate permitting there. So again, the conclusion to all of that is that it probably has more to do with the price one pays, if you will, for downsizing and for not providing as many resources to ministries as we would like as it has with the Delgamuukw issue, I suspect.

[9:30]

A couple of other. . . . I don't know if they're preliminary matters, hon. Chair, but I did want to canvass them. I had an opportunity, in preparing for these discussions and debates, to review an article that the minister submitted to the newspapers on June 11, just about a month ago. And we will touch on some of the other issues that he addresses in this fairly lengthy article -- lengthy by today's standards, I think, for a newspaper.

I was drawn by the comments that the minister made about the leader of the federal Reform Party, not so much addressing the issue and comments that the minister took exception to from Mr. Manning, but his own comments. He said that individual "had an opportunity to be a statesman and offer workable, constructive solutions to help. . .governments and first nations resolve land claims. . . ."

Well, I think those are laudable objectives and something that it is legitimate for the minister to expect of anyone engaging in these discussions and these debates around these issues. But I did want to confront the minister fairly early in these proceedings with an issue and remind him of an exchange that took place between himself and members of our caucus -- again in the other House and during question period, a forum that is unique to these parliamentary institutions. I think he and I understand the dynamics that are at work, but it's not often that I will become, even for a moment, genuinely angry.

I wanted to confront the minister with this. Several weeks ago, when we posed some questions to the minister about a self-government. . . . I believe it was the Westbank self-government agreement that we were talking about, although it could have been the Sechelt situation. I believe it was the

[ Page 9664 ]

But my point is this: my anger. . . . And we will get to these discussions in these estimates about how the government is attempting to proceed to move treaty negotiations along, the various meetings that have taken place and the manifestation of all that. But I need to tell the minister, quite candidly, that when the Leader of the Opposition wrote him a fairly lengthy letter and set out what we thought was a position that the minister would welcome. . . . The Leader of the Opposition said: "All right, you have heard us say that we believe the language that needs to be employed in these treaties -- it's 'cede, release and surrender'. . . . But we have obtained copies of some of the documentation, and we have seen what some of the discussions are. Quite frankly, although we wish we'd got the documents directly from you, if this is the direction you're headed in, we think that it provides an opportunity for us to lend a voice of support. We think the government is going in the right direction on this stuff."

Now, the minister knows better than I that it is not often that opposition publicly provides those words of support, least of all on this issue. It is not helpful, in my view, nor does it foster that spirit of cooperation that I think the minister is looking for -- his predecessor certainly was. . . . I think that the spirit the minister was speaking about when he addressed his hopes about how Mr. Manning might conduct himself. . . . When the opposition does that and is then confronted with a response like the one offered by the minister in the House, I can tell the minister that there is very little incentive for the opposition to try to participate in that way. I wish I had the. . . . Perhaps while the minister is responding, I'll find the quotation.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Chair, I'm going to restrain myself from laughing, frankly. I am willing to accept the sincerity of the member's point, but I want to remind him about a principle of historicity here. Yes, the reality is that he's putting two events together here which were in fact quite far apart in time. When the members opposite spoke to the leaked document, I was very gracious indeed. I said nothing about their conversion. The newspaper articles, you'll recall, talked about the Leader of the Opposition's flip-flop. I said nothing at the time. I went the next day, as a matter of fact, and spoke to the board of trade, and I praised the opposition for coming into what I referred to as the mainstream. Some weeks later, in the course of question period -- that rather hermetically sealed and interesting pressure cooker we all work in -- when the members opposite were being a little brutal, quite frankly, and a little pointed and a little insulting in their questions, I reminded them of one of their vulnerabilities. I think that if the member can find the reference in Hansard, he will discover that it's really a matter of giving back what one gets. To suggest that that was somehow gratuitously offered as an insult is, quite frankly, not the case.

As well, for the record, let me remind the member opposite that I too have been angry on occasion. I'm still angry. When I see the Leader of the Opposition, for example, responding to a question I attempted to take on notice and then thought, "Well, I will cooperate with the opposition and try to answer to the best of my ability about a matter that was, for all intents and purposes, federal," and then I discover the Leader of the Opposition going on the radio talk show tour, telling the world that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs doesn't know anything about this issue, that it's embarrassing, and that he's a disgrace. . . . When I discover the same Leader of the Opposition going on the Rafe Mair show and not telling the truth about what the Westbank agreement actually says, I get angry too.

So if the member opposite wants to trade mythologies about who's angry and who has a right to be angry, I submit that I have as many bits of evidence on my side as he might have on his. I suggest that we would all be better served, however, by not letting our egos get too involved in all of this and rather by simply carrying on doing the best job we can in trying to answer these important questions.

M. de Jong: I have just now found the reference and will relate it, perhaps at my peril, since I raised the issue in the first place. Referring to that line of questioning. . . . "These are the folks" -- I'm quoting for the minister -- "who came from their convention one day, saying that they would not retreat from cede, release and surrender, and two weeks later they had this miraculous transformation: 'We were wrong, and now we're going to be reasonable.' "

As I said earlier, both the minister and I understand the dynamics at play in question period. My point is this -- and I raised it earlier in these proceedings so that we could move on. I'm sure it is difficult at times, from the government side, to acknowledge that there is a genuine desire on the part of opposition members who have aggressively pressed the government over the past several years on issues relating to the settlement of aboriginal land claims. . . . It must be difficult to acknowledge that there is a genuine desire to see this matter resolved. Our ability to act on that desire could be. . . . Let's be candid: it shouldn't be influenced, but it probably is if, as we try to move with the government through these negotiations and respond. . . . We're not at the table; we don't hear about it as it happens. We're days, weeks, sometimes months behind the minister and the ministry in responding to changes that take place. Ninety percent of the time the minister is going to expect what he hears from the opposition, which is opposition and criticism. On those rare occasions when the opposition has run out of reasons to oppose and criticize and finds itself in the happy position of saying, "Hey, that's something that we think is worthy of support. . . ."

My last point on this will be that it is not helpful to have that turned around as somehow signalling some ill-conceived attempt to get on board, although I understand that that's what it must seem like at times. But we are serious about trying to find our way through the maze that is the post-Delgamuukw era and to provide helpful criticism as we work our way through this. At times it'll be very frustrating, and I'm sure that in the debate that we're going to have around the Nisga'a treaty -- if and when that document finally presents itself -- there will be lots of frustrating moments associated with that as well.

Anyway, I'm glad that we were able to raise that and deal with it early as a means of demonstrating our genuine desire to be constructive where we can and to lend ourselves as a positive voice.

[ Page 9665 ]

A Voice: Division.

[9:45]

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

The committee rose at 9:51 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada