[ Page 9847 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. In this House, I call Bill 26.

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

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak to the amendment to Bill 26 referring the subject matter to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. I support this motion.

We on this side of the House are opposed to Bill 26, and we will do everything in our power to delay or stop it. We on this side of the House have an obligation to the people of this province to stand up against this incompetent government. There is not one member on the other side of the House who has the courage to stand up to Ken Georgetti and say no to this bill and to say loud and clear that this bill is wrong and destructive for British Columbia. Do they have the courage? The answer to that lies with the members opposite, and we'll have to draw our own conclusions on that. I have drawn my own conclusions. I believe they are missing their courage. The members opposite should read the Wizard of Oz and find out how the lion found his courage. They may find the story interesting and informative.

Every one of the reasons we have given about this bill is a reason why this bill should now be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. This is also a good reason for the government to make use of the committees we have and for committees to do the job that they are supposed to do. A select standing committee would be able to go around the province and find out what the people really feel about this bill. The committee will have the information to make the right decision for this province.

Why are the NDP so afraid of being fair and treating people with fairness and equality? Do they really believe they have all the answers for everyone? I shake my head at the mere thought of it. This government has its own agenda. It's an agenda that is destructive to this province, an agenda that has brought British Columbia to her knees. I keep asking myself: why would anybody, especially the people elected to serve this province, want to bring British Columbia to her knees? I'm really trying to understand the members opposite, but their actions make it very difficult.

The NDP can't seem to find it in themselves to follow parliamentary procedure. They make their own rules and expect everyone to follow without question. The opposition does not have many tools to work with to fight government legislation, but it gives us a tremendous amount of hope when we catch the government ministers asleep at the switch or out to lunch or simply not doing their job. It gave us a tremendous amount of satisfaction when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson adjourned the House and dropped Bill 26 right under the noses of two ministers. That's where the government should have left the bill, and then they should have deposited the bill in file 13 for the rest of its days.

Another reason this bill should be referred to a select standing committee is because of the way this government has decided to ram it through the House. The NDP introduces the bill to the Legislature one afternoon, and the very next morning they call second reading. Usually a bill doesn't get called for second reading for at least a couple of weeks, to give everyone a chance to go over it.

The way this government does the business of this House is deplorable. They have no respect for this chamber, and that's really sad. There was no consultation with the business community, the ones that will be seriously impacted by this bill. The NDP just can't be bothered to do an impact study. An impact study would show the NDP what a negative impact this bill will have on the economy of this province and the message that it would send to investors.

The NDP are not concerned that businesses will leave the province or just completely go out of business. They are not concerned that workers will lose their jobs when these businesses leave the province go out of business. What is important to them and their intrepid leader is that this bill is big payback time for Ken Georgetti and big labour. It doesn't matter how much opposition is given to this bill. What does matter is that the real leader of the NDP has spoken, and what Ken wants, Ken's going to get, no matter who gets hurt along the way.

When you look at this bill, you ask yourself: what happened to free choice? What happened to secret ballots? What happened to equality among employers and employees? You only have to read what is in this bill to realize that it needs to be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology -- and, I would say, the sooner the better.

This government is in a financial mess. Our health care is near collapse; our unemployment is at an all-time high. Yet we have a government which can't seem to understand what is happening in this province. They continue their reckless behaviour without any thought for the people living in this province. The members opposite are either wearing blinders or else they just don't care about the people who are affected by this legislation. Maybe they pretend that the people that are hurting aren't real, because if they were real, this government might actually see some suffering. They might see the suffering that happens when you don't have a job, and you have hungry children to feed and a mortgage to pay. How much suffering do the people of this province have to go through before the NDP will take any action?

Referring this bill to a select standing committee will be a start. It will show that the NDP have actually started to pay heed to what is happening in this province.

The NDP got a bit of a shock last year when they introduced Bill 44. There was an enormous outcry from all over this province. The anger that was felt was not anticipated by the government, and they withdrew Bill 44. People are paying attention to the antics of this government, and it's time the government paid attention to the people.

Will this government allow a public debate on this bill? Will the government allow the public a chance to get an understanding of what's actually in this bill? The answer to both questions is no. The answer could be yes if they sent this bill to a select standing committee to find out what the impact would be.

If Bill 26 carries only a modest change, why is the Labour minister trying to rush it through the Legislature before the public gets a chance to look at it? What is he so afraid of? I'll

[ Page 9848 ]

Every time the members opposite get up to speak, they tell us that if you are not a union member, you don't have a real job. It's scary -- isn't it? -- if they really believe that. There are many union members in this province who are real people and who don't have jobs. They don't have jobs because their jobs in the forest industry were destroyed by this government. Their jobs were destroyed because businesses left this province in droves to places that welcomed them, such as Alberta, Washington and Oregon. These places actually said: "Come to our province; come to our state. We are open for business. We will invest your money here, and we'll even let you earn money on your investment. In return you will create jobs for us." I think that's the way it works: working together for a future all of us can enjoy.

[6:45]

This socialistic government has lost the confidence of the people of this province. The people of this province want an election, and they want this government out before they completely destroy and bankrupt this province. The government hasn't learned anything in the seven years they have been in government. There hasn't been any progress made since they became government. The economic growth of this province has gone from being number one in Canada to the bottom of the list. Is that something to be proud of? Our credit rating has gone down. Is that anything to be proud of? I can't think of one thing this government can be proud of. That must be tough on the members opposite.

Think about it: the less investment that comes into this province, the more money it's going to cost the taxpayer -- and we only have one taxpayer. If the government can't get anyone to invest in the province, where will the money they need for schools, health care and children come from? The taxpayers in this province are taxed to the hilt. They can't afford to pay more taxes and still manage to support their families and pay their mortgages.

The NDP think that gambling will generate enough money to pay their bills. Wait until the social bills start to come in -- and then who will pay those bills? Again, I have to mention Alberta, because the NDP should take a look at what is happening to gambling there. The NDP could learn something constructive for a change. Alberta is now suffering the consequences of their gambling policies. Once again it's the NDP government with blinders on.

An Hon. Member: Speak to the motion.

B. McKinnon: I am speaking to the motion. The members opposite, hon. Speaker, don't think I'm speaking to the motion. It's just a point on what their policies are doing to this province and why this bill should be sent to a select standing committee.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, members.

B. McKinnon: Hon. Speaker, if the minister opposite wants to speak, she can have her opportunity at any time. Right now it's my turn. I must have been hitting a button on these guys across the way, because they sure are reacting.

Once again it's an NDP government with blinders on. They haven't got the courage to stand up for this province. In a press release the Minister of Finance was quoted from a letter she wrote to her federal counterpart, and this is what she had to say: "Given the challenges facing the provincial economy, this is not the time to take a chance on introducing measures which could damage the investment climate." We agree with her. So why is the NDP continually doing things to erode investor confidence in this province? The NDP knows, and we know. The fact is that Bill 26 will do enormous damage to the investment climate in British Columbia.

Bill 26 is an investment-killing, job-killing, small-business-killing law designed to give a boost to unions that are desperately in need of new members. To prove it, the Premier went around the province holding economic summits. Everywhere he went he got the same message: stop wrecking the economy with your high taxes, red tape and anti-business labour laws. The Premier said that he heard what the people were saying. He said that he got the message and would change his ways.

So what happened after all the hype and all the promises of dramatic action to revive the confidence of the business community and the consumers of this province? The NDP came up with Bill 26. Keith Sashaw, who is the executive vice-president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., says that this is the worst possible thing that could happen to the housing industry at this time. Housing starts are down 40 percent in the lower mainland, and down 55 percent in Kelowna, and down 91 percent in Campbell River. We are losing an estimated 7,000 housing starts this year. That converts into 17,000 jobs. That's 17,000 jobs in the construction industry, and they are not here in this province now. We have lost thousands of jobs in the forest industry, we are losing thousands of jobs in the mining industry, and we are losing jobs in the fishing industry. When will it stop?

To introduce a bill like this when the construction industry is in free fall will do untold harm to this industry. Government cannot continue to impose regulation after regulation and tax after tax on the small business creators of this province. Bill 44 was described as a bill with modest changes, as just minor housekeeping in terms of labour legislation in British Columbia. The Minister of Labour is calling Bill 26 a bill with modest changes. The public isn't buying that spin anymore and neither are we. This government has lost all credibility with everyone. The motion that has been put forward for this government is an important one. It's important because it gives the members opposite another chance. It is another chance for the NDP to reconsider what they are putting forward with this Bill 26 and to reconsider their decision.

The Minister of Finance wrote to 90 separate business organizations across the province, asking them for their input on how to improve the business climate in British Columbia. On page 6 of this report, these 90 separate business organizations said: ". . .the streamlining initiative will not be credible unless the objectives of this initiative are applied to other current initiatives and appropriate changes made." It points out that the Labour Code amendments are in contradiction and in contravention of everything the government has said.

[ Page 9849 ]

This government spends a lot of time and money having these reports made. They seem to use them as dust collectors, because nobody seems to be taking any advice from these reports. If they were listening, they would not have rushed through Bill 14 -- a bill that adds more cost, more regulation and more red tape to already overburdened business owners.

The NDP have been warned on numerous occasions that even the thought of changing the Labour Code will send the wrong message around the world: that British Columbia is not open for business. Thousands and thousands of families and young people are looking for jobs, but the NDP have shown they just don't care whether they have a job or not. The only thing they are focused on at the moment is to make sure Bill 26 is rammed through to satisfy big labour, and that is really what this is all about.

Every time I read the newspaper, there seems to be a bad-news story for British Columbia, and today isn't any different. In Les Leyne's column, he mentions that the NDP are having one of the biggest recruiting efforts ever. They're looking for communications people to go out and spin what a good government they are -- on taxpayers' money, no less. This government has really sunk to the bottom with this one. They are so low in the polls now that they are floundering all over the place.

Michael Campbell had an excellent column on how lower taxes add up to higher government revenue. Maybe the NDP should hire him to be their Finance minister. It would sure help them a lot. Let me quote something from that column:

"Imagine someone in power in 1994 saying: 'I know we are the number one economy in the country, but I have a plan that could bring us to our knees. If we do it right, we could get to the bottom of the heap in terms of capital investment, job creation and economic growth. In fact, if we follow this strategy to the letter, we could be looking at a recession while the rest of the country is experiencing dramatic growth.' That would be crazy, and obviously no one had that goal, but that's where British Columbia's economy has ended up."

Experts from around the world are giving the Japanese Prime Minister advice to help him get his economy working again. The advice the experts are giving is to lower taxes so that the economy can get rolling again -- not a year from now, not two years from now, but right now. If you look across Canada at Ontario, their economy grew 4.5 percent last year. They added 219,000 new jobs and government revenues were 5 percent higher than forecast. Ontario just lowered their tax rate again to help boost their economy. Or we can once again look at Alberta. Their economy grew by 6.5 percent, and they have the lowest taxes in the country. The Alberta government experienced a surplus of more than $2 billion. Is there something there that this NDP government could learn from these provincial governments?

If this government would accept our amendment, that gesture would show that they are beginning to listen. It would also show that there is still hope for this province. With Bill 26, each MLA on that side of the House is saying to a worker in his or her constituency: "Don't mind me; I'm just taking away your rights. I know what's good for you; I know what kind of agreement you should be working under. Just trust me." To the business person in their constituency, they are saying: "I know how much of your profit should go to the worker. It doesn't matter if you can't afford it. I know best -- just trust me." That's what they're saying by ramming this bill through.

The majority of the businesses in this province understand that their employees are their most valuable asset. They know that if they are to be successful and make it in this very competitive world, it's their employees who are going to be the ones who help them to do it. They need each other to survive in this competitive world, and they need fair and equal labour laws to do it. The government talks about creating a climate where jobs will actually come back to British Columbia rather than leaving. Well, I say: "Do something. Get on with it." Give this bill to a select standing committee and let them find out whether British Columbia needs this bill. Do something right for British Columbia for a change. That's the message the NDP need to hear over and over again.

This bill means fewer jobs, less investment and fewer opportunities for the people of this province. Our economy is in a downward spiral, and once that downward spiral gains momentum, it's hard to stop. The province of Saskatchewan has an NDP government, and we don't see them floundering like British Columbia. While British Columbia is looking at a 1.3 percent growth in capital spending, Saskatchewan, with their NDP government, is looking at an 8.1 percent increase in capital spending. Saskatchewan doesn't put roadblocks in the way of business.

Look at us. We have the highest marginal income tax in North America. We have a 7 percent sales tax, while Alberta has zero. We have a corporate capital tax. We have a government running a $1.2-1.3 billion deficit which has no control over its budgets, which can't be trusted to keep agreements or its word. Can they not do the right thing and give this bill to a select standing committee, to find out the impact this bill will have on this province?

In 1997 we were the only province in Canada to lose jobs. We shouldn't be losing jobs. We are a province of many resources. We have a talented workforce. People used to move here in droves, but now that has reversed. Do you know what else happened in 1997? Mr. Speaker, 107 businesses moved from British Columbia to Alberta. Those businesses provided jobs for families in this province. These companies are thriving in Alberta, but for the workers in British Columbia, someone else has their job.

[7:00]

The Minister of Labour says that there isn't anything to worry about. Well, I'm desperately worried. I'm desperately worried for the families in this province. I'm desperately worried for the children in this province. When mom or dad doesn't have a job, guess who goes hungry and suffers. When a single mother is desperately trying to support herself and her children, guess who suffers. Well, it's not the members on the opposite side of the House. They're not going to suffer.

This government tried to get rid of volunteers in this province and made one big mess of things. When they found out they couldn't do what they wanted, did they say they were sorry to the people? Not very likely. We have a government that doesn't think they are accountable to anyone in this province. They told us themselves that they can do anything they want to do. Their standard answer is: "We have more votes than you do." Well, this bill should be removed from the

[ Page 9850 ]

We know that Bill 26 is just a small piece of the pie and that Ken Georgetti wants the whole pie. That's what greed does to someone. They have to be in complete control, and it's a shame the members opposite don't recognize that.

Bill 26 says that the ICI construction craft unions must bargain through a designated bargaining council. It also said that in Bill 44. The building trades bargaining council would only be mandated to bargain for craft bargaining units and ICI construction in Bill 26. In Bill 44 it would have allowed for separate trade union bargaining councils to be established for each of the seven designated subsectors of the industry, including residential construction. This applies to the ICI sector only.

There are other similarities, and for this government to say they are only minor changes makes me think of big-time spin-doctoring. That's all this is -- big-time spin-doctoring. This bill should be sent immediately to a select standing committee as soon as physically possible.

We must create a climate of stability in British Columbia. We must encourage investment to come to this province. We need investment to create jobs that are so desperately needed for our citizens. Take a look at the number of people unemployed. This year alone, 18,200 new people were added to the unemployment list. That's hard to imagine. You only have to visit the smaller communities outside of the lower mainland to get a picture of how badly British Columbians are suffering. What is it going to take to make this government understand that Ken Georgetti is not in charge of this province? He was not elected to serve the people of this province.

Do something right for a change and give this bill to a select standing committee to do an impact study. Give the province some hope again. If this government could give the people of British Columbia some hope again, it would be a wonderful gift. We have lost all sense of democracy with this NDP government. Let's begin to have a change. Let's put this bill to a select standing committee.

C. Hansen: The amendment that's before us is to refer Bill 26 to one of the select standing committees of the Legislature. This is now the third session of this Legislature since I was first elected, and I have been a member of this standing committee for the whole time, since shortly after I was sworn in as a member. And in those three sessions, this committee of the Legislature has not met once -- not once. It's the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. When you think about it, hon. Speaker, and if you look at the problems that are facing this province today, this is a committee that should probably be sitting 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Even then, it probably wouldn't come close to addressing the very serious economic problems that are facing this province today. This is a committee that is essential in order for us to start addressing the economic malaise that has hit our province.

When you start to look at all the other routes this government has taken to try to address the problem of the economy. . . . First of all, we wound up with a government in denial. I can remember that after the 1996 election, for about the first 12 months afterwards, they kept talking about how they'd created 40,000 jobs in the previous year, how everything was rosy. . . . And clearly the signs were there then that we were starting to go into a very serious economic crisis in this province, and they were totally oblivious to it. They ignored it; they ignored the warning signs constantly.

We see other strategies that were taken by this government during that time, when they started to realize that maybe government had to do something to address the problem of an economic downturn. But they clearly did not understand what had to be done. They clearly did not understand the role that government should take to put an economy back on its feet and start creating jobs again. What they did instead was start looking at job creation programs. You know, it almost harkens back to the 1960s or probably even before. You can go back to the 1930s, when Keynesian economics became popular. It was that government had this vital role to create jobs in our society, that as the economy started to go into a downturn, government spending somehow had to be cranked up in order to create jobs. History has clearly shown that that does not work. Some economists may argue that it worked in the 1930s or the late 1940s, but I think even that's debatable.

What is clear today is that that approach to job creation and to economic development does not work today in British Columbia. It doesn't work today in Canada, and quite frankly, it doesn't work anywhere in the world. That has been proven. What has happened is that this government today hasn't recognized that reality, and they're still living in this bygone era -- an era when we had a totally different economy, when life was much simpler. We didn't have the high-tech challenges that we have today, and we had a very different kind of workforce, which I will talk about later when we talk about the specific changes that are proposed in Bill 26.

What we have had in the last two years is a government that's tried to cobble together different programs to get this economy back on the rails. They started looking at the enormous crisis that we have in student unemployment in British Columbia today. Twenty percent of 15-to-24-year-olds in this province are unemployed. Those are the ones who are actually looking for work, not the discouraged ones who have gone out there to try to find that first job, that first career, and realized that the opportunities are just not there. That is a tragedy. That is something that will be part of the legacy of this government.

But you can see how they tried to address the problems as they started to figure out that maybe something is going wrong. They started to go after things like a jobs and timber accord, where they say they're going to create 40,000-some-odd new jobs. Instead, what we see is a decline of 12,000 jobs since the program was first announced. They go out and look at something like Power for Jobs. Here it is, a year since that program was announced, and the number of jobs that have been created under that program is zero. Well, I shouldn't say zero, because we've probably created some jobs in public relations houses and advertising agencies. This government has been great at putting communication strategies together and buying advertising in the daily newspapers and on television and radio. I'm sure that creates jobs, which are all paid for by the taxpayers. But there are no real jobs being created, because we don't have the fundamental, underlying basis in our economy for creating those kinds of jobs.

One of the merits of referring this piece of legislation to this particular select standing committee is that we can get that committee working. Bill 26 is going to be one more serious nail in the coffin of the B.C. economy. But over these last 50-some-odd hours of debate in second reading, we have urged this government to withdraw this legislation. That would be a good first step at getting the economy back on the rails -- just that announcement. They wonder what they can do to get our economy moving again. There is one very specific thing that they can do today which will help get our economy back on the rails. This government could call a press

[ Page 9851 ]

By taking this legislation and referring it to the committee, there will be one very big advantage, and that would be to get the committee activated. This is a committee to look at economic development, and clearly that is an area on which the government -- the 39 members of the government bench -- has failed to come up with any ideas. The committee, if it's activated under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke, who's the chair of this committee -- though the committee has never met -- could not do a worse job than this government is doing today. Anything that we do with this committee is better than what we have today. By getting this committee to look at Bill 26, we can start examining the impact that this bill is going to have on our economy. There are certainly a lot of facts that we on this side of the House have put forward to this chamber over these 50 hours of debate, facts that are indisputable in terms of the effects that this bill will have. But I'm the first one to admit that there are things that we don't know. We know it's negative, but we don't know to what degree. It's clear, from the response that we've had from the government side, that nobody there has any sense of the negative impacts that this legislation will have.

By pulling this committee together and starting to look at this bill specifically, there is at least going to be an opportunity for us to address some of those unknowns. That is one very good reason. If this committee were to look at this bill and dismiss it and say: "The committee has met, even done public hearings, received input from around the province, started looking at some of these unanswered questions and even done an economic impact study. . . ." Now, wouldn't that be a novel idea for this government -- to bring in a piece of legislation that they have actually done an economic impact study on to determine the negative effects it will have? Some of the people who have knowledge of economic impact in British Columbia have already spoken out on this legislation. Later in my remarks I will refer to some of that material, which has not been referred to previously in these debates.

This is a committee that could actually engage some experts in British Columbia to start looking at the effect this legislation will have on the construction industry. I know that some of my colleagues in their comments have talked about the impact it would have on residential construction. Some of those numbers are out there, and we have presented them from this side of the House. I know that some of the members opposite question whether or not those numbers are valid, and that's fair enough, but they're coming from some pretty good sources. They're coming from some people in this province who know what they're talking about. If they want to challenge some of this material we've put forward, then fine. Let's activate this committee, and let's charge it with the task of taking the numbers that have been presented by the Canadian Home Builders Association in terms of the impact this legislation will have on residential construction. In this committee we can start pulling those numbers apart. I'm quite sure, and I'm very confident, that when we do that and start examining some of those numbers carefully, we will confirm the impact that's there. I know the kind of research that has gone into developing that in the first place.

[7:15]

Let's start to examine this. Quite frankly, if the committee meets and does some good solid research backed up by some good economic facts and good data, and if the facts come out that there'll be no impact on the retail sector, I'll be the first one to stand up and say: "Okay, I was wrong in the second reading debate. I said there was going to be an impact on the retail sector in terms of commercial rents, and I was wrong." But I don't think that's what is going to happen.

What's going to happen when this committee sits down and starts the process of doing an economic impact study is that we're going to find that everything that's been said on this side of the House in terms of rising costs is in fact true. This Minister of Labour and the government members have said that it will have no impact on the residential sector, and we have pointed out that there will be an impact because you wind up driving up the costs generally in terms of the construction industry. You wind up imposing a very rigid form of jurisdictional construction on a sector that they say is just ICI; but it extends to residential when you have mixed-use construction -- or, at least, that's certainly one of the inferences.

I would like to hear the minister -- or any government member, for that matter -- stand up and say that they would absolutely ensure that this legislation cannot and will not have an impact on the residential sectors. We haven't heard that. We can only assume that part of the strategy is to take this definition of ICI and make sure it has far-reaching impact in terms of how to define it. Secondly -- and this is more important, I think, to those who are behind this legislation -- they want the tentacles. They want the tentacles that are going to reach out and, through the back door, do to the residential construction sector what Bill 44 last year was trying to do through the front door.

If we activated this committee, that's the kind of stuff that that could be looked at. Frankly, if the government had done a proper economic impact study before they tabled this legislation, referring it to a committee wouldn't have been necessary -- if this government had done its homework before it tabled it. When I say doing homework, I don't mean simply striking a committee of two people on a construction industry review panel and having them go out and hear the conflicting views of stakeholders. That's a pretty predictable process. When you ask for submissions from the building trades unions and from the various employer groups in British Columbia, it's a fairly predictable process. What's obvious is that this government already knew what it wanted out of that process. What they wanted was, basically, what we saw last year in Bill 44. They wanted it, either through the front door or through the back door. Bill 26 is getting it that through the back door.

I think the whole notion of referring this to a committee is one that has a lot of merit. I think it solves a dilemma that a lot of the government members may have. I'm sure that none of

[ Page 9852 ]

Hon. Speaker, I'm quite sure that's not going to happen, because once we started looking at those details, the answer would be: the Liberals were right, and the Liberals knew what they were talking about in second reading of Bill 26. But as I've said, this could just be the opportunity that the government needs, to send it to a committee so that we can start examining it. When they talk to their friends in the building trades unions, all they have to say is: "We're determined to prove that those Liberals are wrong. Therefore we're going to send this to committee and do the work in committee to prove that the Liberals are wrong." That's all they have to say to their building trades friends. That's a pretty acceptable reason -- and that's called saving face. People talk about saving face as a tradition that comes out of Japan, but it is something that is very Canadian as well. I can accept that. I will accept it if the government members want to save face on this. Here is their opportunity to do that, by sending it off to committee.

I want to turn to some of the information that was circulated to us when the legislation was first tabled. This is a press package that the minister put out on June 17, the fateful day when they tabled Bill 26 for first reading. On that day Bill 26 was introduced for first reading in this chamber at about 2:15 in the afternoon -- only to find that they would call it for second reading debate at 10 o'clock the very next morning. That was barely time for people to read this press package, never mind time for people to fully understand what's in the bill and the ramifications of that.

As I've pointed out at other stages of second reading debate, it's probably one of the very few times in this chamber that a piece of legislation as significant as Bill 26 has been called for debate in less than 24 hours. The other times that I can remember it happening are when you have things like an interim supply bill, which has about two paragraphs in it, or when you wind up with legislation of a very urgent nature, such as back-to-work legislation. You know, there have certainly been reasons in the history of this Legislature that legislation would come in and then be called very quickly for debate. Or the other side is that it's something that's very innocuous. Now we have another reason why that particular tactic was used in this chamber. It was used because this government was determined to ram this legislation through as fast as it could. This government was clear. . . .

Interjection.

C. Hansen: Actually, the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine said: "Yeah, after 65 days of debate." Well, that clearly wasn't the intent of the minister when they brought it in. It was the clear intention of the minister that they were going to call this for debate the very next day, and they were going to ram this thing through the Legislature as fast as possible.

I think it's a clear indication that this government is not proud of this legislation. If they were proud of this legislation, they would be letting it see the light of day before it proceeded through this chamber.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: The hon. member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine just referred to it as a housekeeping motion. This legislation is anything but housekeeping.

They talk about it as being modest legislation. I got the sense that they actually believe that. They actually believe that this is a minor little thing. Well, it's not a minor little thing, As we on this side have presented, this minor little bill will have some very serious ramifications for our economy. The other thing is that if this was a minor little piece of legislation, why is it so important to the NDP? Why is it so important that they get this thing rammed through? Why didn't they agree with us, for example, to hoist this bill for six months? Do you know why? If they had hoisted this for six months, they could take the legislation and parade it around this province with pride. They could say to the public throughout British Columbia: "This is Bill 26. We brought it in; we're proud of it. Do you know what everybody in British Columbia should do? Lobby the Liberals to vote for it, because it's such good legislation."

Well, it's obvious that they don't believe that. The reason it's obvious is because they call it for debate so quick, and now they're ramming it through. We had some procedural motions here that managed to delay this, so the public would at least have a chance to get a better sense of what is in it and what its ramifications are. Clearly that was not their plan. Now, here we are at a stage in this debate where they want this so badly -- they don't want the public to understand the legislation -- that they want to debate it until the wee hours of the morning in this chamber.

We have set sittings in this chamber. This chamber meets from 2 o'clock to 6 o'clock on Mondays and the same on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. It meets Tuesday and Thursday mornings from 10 o'clock to 12 noon, and it meets Friday mornings from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. When you think about the amount of work that everybody has to accomplish in terms of their constituency affairs and just explaining legislation like Bill 26, that's a pretty full week. But what this government has chosen to do instead is sit in this House into the evening -- here we are at 7:30 on a Thursday night. . . . Last night this House sat until 2:30 a.m. The night before it sat until 2:30 a.m. Why? It's because they are not proud of this legislation. If they were, they would be allowing it to see the light of day. They would be allowing for public debate to take place. If they were confident in this legislation, they would be certain that that public debate would come back in their favour. But that's not what is happening, because Bill 26 is bad legislation. It is going to have a bad effect on the B.C. economy, and it's the kind of legislation that should not proceed.

As I mentioned earlier, I want to talk about the communications package that they put out on June 17. There were some things that they titled a "fact sheet." This is actually on the Ministry of Labour web page that they put out: "Bill 26 -- Construction Industry Legislation." There are some things in

[ Page 9853 ]

It goes on to say: "No two construction projects [are] exactly alike." That's a very profound statement. Whoever wrote this obviously knew what they were talking about. What we have in Bill 26 is an inflexible process that is being applied to all workplaces that are unionized under the building trades unions, all craft union worksites in the entire province. It doesn't matter whether that workplace is in Smithers, Golden, Prince George, Kamloops, Campbell River or anywhere else in this province: this is the same master collective agreement that is going to be imposed on all those workplaces as a result of this legislation. It fails to recognize one of the key things about the construction industry which the Ministry of Labour itself sets out. That's that no two construction projects are exactly alike. Yet what they're doing is saying: "We've got one master collective agreement that will apply to all of those construction sites, regardless of what the differences are." Whether they're geographical differences in this province or differences in terms of the type of construction that's taking place, if it's in the ICI sector, it's all covered.

[7:30]

We can't build walls around this province and create our own little kingdom that's totally impervious to the rest of the world, because we're living in a global economy. We are living in an economy that has to be competitive with Alberta, with Washington State and with virtually every jurisdiction around the world. That's not to say that we have to set low standards, but we have to set flexible standards. What's key when you start talking about the workplace is that it's not up to government to come in and impose standards. If you have a workplace with a group of workers and an employer, it's not government's role to come in and tell them what's best for them.

If you've got a group of workers that want to form a union through a secret ballot vote -- which isn't allowed for under this government. . . . If they vote, under a democratic process, to form a union, then all power to them. This Legislature should pass legislation to protect those democratic rights of workers to form unions. What that democratic right to form a union means is not just a secret ballot; it also requires good information. I think our democracy -- democracy at any level, whether we're talking internationally, nationally, provincially, civically or whether we're talking about a workplace -- requires two things: a vote in secret and good information. I think we look at democracies around the world, and they may have a secret ballot vote, but they clearly don't have the information -- the free information -- that is necessary for democracy to thrive.

If we have a worksite, a construction worksite or any other worksite, where the majority of the workers cast a secret ballot after good information, and they want to join a union, all power to them. But those are rights that this NDP government took away from them in 1992. This government took away the right to a secret ballot. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time has expired.

C. Hansen: I'm the designated speaker on this motion.

Deputy Speaker: Oh. Thank you, member.

C. Hansen: In 1992 this NDP government brought in what is now known as the Labour Relations Code, and in the changes that were brought in at that time, they took away a worker's right to a secret ballot. This is a party that talks about standing up for workers' rights, and yet they took away one of the fundamental rights that any democratic organization should have.

To come back to the point that was being made here, to come back to this briefing note -- this fact sheet on the construction industry -- it talks about the construction industry being highly competitive and subject to constant change. Hon. Speaker, who is best to decide how to adapt to that change? It's not government; it's not the provincial government operating out of Victoria. The best forum for that change and that flexibility and adaptability to be decided in is the workplace. The best forum is with workers who can exercise their democratic rights in the workplace, through their union perhaps, if they wish to choose a union, or through an employee association or through just basic cooperation with management.

They can determine what is in the best interest of their own family, themselves personally and their company, because all of those things are linked. The best interest of the worker is not protected if the economic viability of the company is not protected. I don't think there is a worker in this province that wants to see their employer driven out of business. It's certain that workers want to maximize their wages. Certainly in some cases they talk about joining forces to form a union so that they can negotiate with their employer to get the maximum benefits they can in terms of wages, benefits and working conditions.

It's incumbent upon the employer to make sure that what is granted in terms of a negotiation is realistic, to allow the company to survive. Otherwise, that employer would not be doing the responsible thing in terms of the long-term health of that company. If the long-term health of the company isn't protected, it is the employees who pay the huge price for it. They pay because they lose their jobs. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether they have a union that can get them $30 or $40

[ Page 9854 ]

As I mentioned before, this fact sheet recognizes that need for change, but this legislation doesn't. This legislation, Bill 26, goes in exactly the opposite direction. This legislation starts to build in inflexibility; it builds in rigidity. It builds in a process by which companies will be driven out of business, not because of the economy and not because of a lack of ability to do the job, but because government imposes on them a collective agreement that they cannot afford. So whose side are these guys on? They are clearly not on the side of the workers. If they were, this kind of legislation would not be coming forward.

There was a brief summary of Bill 26 included in the same package. It is entitled "B.C.'s New Construction Labour Relations Legislation: Bill 26 in Brief." It's interesting -- some of the claims they make about Bill 26, which I would like to take issue with. There is a section which says: "Bill 26 will: [1] Apply mainly to the part of the construction industry called 'industrial, commercial and institutional.' ICI construction workers build sawmills, schools and hospitals, shopping malls and office buildings. They do not build condos or houses or roads."

This is where they're wrong. The companies that are working in the ICI sector don't just work in ICI. There are some cases, sure, of companies that specialize in just one type of construction, but mainly -- especially when you look at the non-union sector of construction in British Columbia -- these companies work in a broad range of industries. They may be building a shopping mall at the same time as they're working on a condominium development, or the shopping mall may well be the main floor of a residential building. What is clear is that this legislation, Bill 26, has. . . . Well, I talked about the tentacles earlier. Those are the tentacles with which they're looking to reach out and pull in some of these other sectors.

The second point that they make is: "Require that craft unions and their employers include a plan in their contracts to resolve jurisdictional disputes. . . ."

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. The member for Okanagan East rises on a matter.

J. Weisbeck: I don't believe there are enough members in this House.

Deputy Speaker: The Speaker observes that there are more government members, but I will call for a quorum.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

Deputy Speaker: The member can resume debate.

C. Hansen: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I was speaking about this summary of Bill 26, which was contained in the package that was released by the minister when the legislation was tabled on June 17. In here it talks about jurisdictional disputes. It says that this is one of the most common reasons for instability and delays in the construction industry. Here we have a piece of legislation in which we are entrenching a jurisdictional style of construction, a jurisdictional style of craft unionism. Yet right in the document that the minister released that day, they admit that this jurisdictional structure -- the jurisdictional disputes -- is one of the most common causes of instability and delays. I think it begs the question that if we are looking for more stability -- which is debatable in itself -- in the construction industry, the thing we should be doing is looking for models of trade unionism in the construction sector that move away from jurisdictional disputes. Instead, what we have in this legislation is. . . . We are entrenching the jurisdictional process. We're entrenching it in legislation; we're entrenching it in our Labour Code. You talk about building in instability. This is going to be the cause of it.

What we saw over the last two decades is a construction industry that was moving towards other styles of labour-management relations -- other than this narrow-focused, jurisdictional dispute. What I think would be very important for the committee to address is the issue of jurisdictional disputes. If you start looking at things like the Kelleher-Lanyon report, that report was clearly working from an assumption of status quo. They weren't looking at the challenges of ten or 20 years from now; they were looking at what we have today.

[7:45]

Instead of having narrow jurisdictions, where you've got one trade that can't do the work of another trade and you have to have all these different trades on a job site, you can have a wall-to-wall union that basically allows the workers on that union to do, first of all, what they're trained for -- which is, obviously, essential. You don't want to have somebody who is untrained doing the work of an electrician. At the same time, if the electrician needs to walk across the job site to pick up a couple of 2-by-4s that he's going to need, he can do that. If he has to hammer in a couple of new studs in order to mount an electrical box, he's able to do that, in the traditional industrial-style union or the wall-to-wall union.

This is the kind of instability that we have seen in the construction industry, which is a product of this craft-style unionism. As I mentioned before, the ministry's own document recognizes that the jurisdictional disputes -- the disputes that arise when one craft disputes the work that another craft is doing on a job site -- are: ". . .one of the most common reasons for instability and delays in the construction industry." If there were any reason why Bill 26 should not go ahead, it's right there. It's not going to do what the minister and this government claim it's supposed to do. They claim it's supposed to bring us stability. What it's doing is entrenching a form of unionism that the ministry's document says is one of the causes of instability.

It also goes on to say that it will. . . . Actually, I had better not skip points, because somebody may accuse me of skipping them deliberately. The third point that is in here is that it brings "all craft unions into one council and all craft union employers into one association to bargain in non-residential industrial, commercial and institutional construction." That's a point which I don't want to skip. I want to put it on the record that, in fact, it's here and I acknowledge it, but I want to

[ Page 9855 ]

On to the fourth point: ". . .support continued competition between union and non-union building contractors." I know that there are many cases where they've talked about Bill 26 still maintaining competition. Clearly it doesn't, because what it does is give a virtual monopoly to a building trades council, when it comes to the craft union construction in this so-called ICI sector. It's also giving a monopoly to an employers' group on the same basis. So this bill is not about competition; it is about the opposite. It's about reducing competition.

One of the fundamental forms of competition that a contractor in the construction industry uses is that they compete for a job based on all of the components that go into it -- all of the costs. What this legislation is saying is that all craft union contractors -- the ICI sector -- have to have the same terms and conditions in their contracts. They can't negotiate through a collective bargaining process what they think is in the best interests of the company and their workers. They get this thing imposed from on high -- imposed by the power of a statute of this Legislature.

This is reducing competition in a major way, particularly when you start looking at the impact that it will have on public construction in British Columbia. This is clearly going to have an upward cost impact on public construction. It will reduce the competition that's out there when it comes to competing on those projects. You know, this government has already taken some very significant steps towards driving up the cost of public construction. If you start looking at things like the HCL agreements and the fair-wage act. . . . Who is paying for that? It's the taxpayers who pay for that.

Why can't we allow companies to compete with each other to produce quality public construction in British Columbia for the best cost for the taxpayer? It's the taxpayers who are paying for those new schools. Why not allow the taxpayers to get the best value for their tax dollars? I'm not saying that they should go out to an open competition that allows incompetent firms to compete for those projects. But let it be an open competition. There could be qualifiers for that to make sure that companies that don't know how to build bridges don't build our bridges. What we do not need is a process through legislation and through government decree that says that every company in British Columbia has to pay very high wage rates.

When you start looking at the wage rates that are paid in the building trades, they are some of the highest wages paid in this province today. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with high wages. What I'm saying is: allow the workers to negotiate that with their employer, which allows the employer to survive. The way some of the employers who have been hamstrung by the non-affiliation clauses and by the contracts of the building trades unions survive is by doing public construction. So in essence we have the taxpayer being forced to pay a higher price for the construction of schools and hospitals, and these companies are certainly able to survive, because you've got a government-mandated process that is driving competition out of the process. So they can stay in business, because they have a client who's prepared to pay these exorbitant wages, and that's government.

The one who pays the price for that process is the taxpayer. If you start today looking at the critical shortage that we have of new school construction, if you start looking at the shortage of hospitals in this province, if you start looking at the decay in the road system that we have in the province. . . . We have a road system in this province that's desperately in need of reconstruction work. We are squandering the integrity of our road system, because it's not being maintained. If you start looking at the average age of our major highways in this province, it is getting older and older every year. All we're doing is delaying the day when significant, major work has to be done on those roads.

One of the problems we have today is that the government doesn't have enough money to do the work that is necessary on these capital projects. It should be incumbent upon a government to try to make sure that it gets the best possible value for every bit of public construction that's done in this province. We want to make sure that we build good schools, good hospitals, good bridges, good roads and all of the other capital needs in this province. But we also want to make sure that it is done for the most cost-effective price possible. That is not happening today, and the reason it is not happening today is because of the payoffs that this government has made over time to the building trades unions in this province.

This also goes on to talk about four things which, it says, Bill 26 is not about. First of all, it says that Bill 26 is not about bargaining in residential construction. I think this demonstrates one of the shortcomings that this government has in bringing this legislation in, because if they had done the cost-benefit work, if they had done the economic impact studies, they would know that this statement is false. They would know that Bill 26 is going to have a significant impact on bargaining and residential construction. Let me explain it for the members, because I'm sure that once they start to understand some of these facts, they may have a different perspective on this legislation. In residential construction, you have the same workers as are working in the ICI construction sector. As I mentioned earlier -- to use the example of the electrician -- the electrician will be working on a school project in the morning and he'll be working on a condominium project in the afternoon. If you wind up with the building trades coming into that particular worksite on that school project, which is. . . . You know, if you start to look at the organizing tools that the organizers have in the building trades unions, they have an awful lot of tools that this government has given them in order to sign up members on those worksites. Deny them a secret ballot; they're signed up.

A lot of those workers maintain their membership in building trades for reasons other than representation and collective bargaining. They maintain their membership because of pension plans or benefit plans that they may have had from previous job sites. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether it's the will and the wish of the majority of the workers on that worksite, including the electrician I just talked about, not to belong to a building trades union. As soon as they wind up with 55 percent membership -- 55 percent of the workers on that school construction site -- holding cards, that union has certification. As soon as that happens, the master collective agreement that is provided for under Bill 26 is imposed on them. It doesn't matter whether that's what they want, that's what they get. That's what this government is going to impose on them, whether they want it or not. It doesn't matter whether that electrician is working on a school in a remote part of British Columbia or working on a school in downtown Vancouver. The same master collective agreement is going to apply.

That extends Bill 26 to the construction sector, because once you have this master collective agreement imposed on

[ Page 9856 ]

Let's start looking at what is happening today. It's this whole issue of empty certifications. You know, we've heard government members talk about empty certifications. That's where you wind up with the building trades going into a site, and they get 55 percent of the membership cards and wind up with a certification. Then they wind up going in, starting a process of collective bargaining -- which is what we have provided for today under the Labour Relations Code. But what has been happening is that the building trades will come in and say to the employer: "This is our master agreement. Sign it." That's not collective bargaining, and that's not in the interests of the workers that have signed up for that union. What is in the interests of those workers is a process that will allow them to come up with a collective agreement that they want, that the workers on worksite want. It's not for the executive in the building trades to decide what's good for those workers, and it's definitely not right for government to decide what's good for them. Those workers can decide what's good for them. They got that right to join a union, so that they can, through collective bargaining, join together to negotiate an agreement.

What's happening today is that they wind up with empty certifications because the building trades unions are not prepared to sit down with an employer and negotiate a new contract -- a first contract -- that is realistic for that particular worksite and that particular contractor. There is total inflexibility. As a result, you wind up at the end of a construction project. . . . The union has been intransigent in trying to impose this master agreement that applies to everybody else in the province, and they've been unwilling to negotiate a specific agreement for those workers, so what happens is that the project is finished, the workforce is dispersed, and there was a certification but no collective agreement. That's what the empty certifications are.

Let's come back to the example I was talking about earlier, about the electrician. They wind up signing up 55 percent of the membership. They get the certification. Now, do you think that the building trades unions, given their past history, are going to walk into that particular employer and say: "Well, here is the master collective agreement that is imposed as a result of Bill 26. You're working in ICI construction; you're certified under a building trades union; here is the collective agreement. Oh, but by the way, it only applies to your ICI work. It doesn't apply to the contract you're doing down the road"?

[8:00]

When they say in this document that Bill 26 is not about bargaining in residential construction, that is false, and I am convinced that this government knew it was false. The reason that they brought it in, the reason that they're trying to put this argument forward, is. . . . They are trying to pretend that Bill 26 is this narrow little focused bill, when in fact it is what Bill 44 was about last year. But instead of bringing it in through the front door, they're bringing it in through the back door.

Point No. 2 on what Bill 26 is not about: "Organizing a union in construction or anywhere else." The government document to justify and explain Bill 26 says that Bill 26 is not about organizing a union in construction or anywhere else. What we have in Bill 26 is a gift to the trade union organizer. I'm sure that being a trade union organizer is a difficult task: to go out to workers and convince them that they should join a union, sign up for union dues and be a part of what could lead to strikes and everything else. It could lead to a process whereby they may be out of work from time to time. I'm sure that that is a tough job for a union organizer, to try to make that kind of a sales pitch. You know, I've worked with people who are professional sales reps, and I'm sure that's what the union organizer is: someone that has to sell the benefits of a union. But what Bill 26 is is a gift on a platter. This is something that they can take when they're out trying to sell the benefits of the union. They can take this master collective agreement that is imposed by statute, by Bill 26, and they can shop it around.

It's not a case of that organizer going out and saying: "Well, sign up. We'll negotiate for you. We're going to get the best deal possible. We think we might be able to increase wage rates here, and we're going to get better health and welfare benefits for you. We're negotiating hard for them." They don't have to make that sales pitch anymore. What they have to do is walk in and say: "This is the master collective agreement." They can say: "You know that electrician who is working down the road on that other school project? You know how much he's getting? He's getting $35 or $40 an hour" -- or whatever it is. They can say: "Here it is in the master collective agreement. You know what? Just go read the Labour Relations Code as amended by Bill 26, and it says right there in the government statute that you too can get this master collective agreement."

Hon. Speaker, now we have a document that says that Bill 26 is not about organizing a union in the construction sector. That's clearly false; it's everything about it. Quite frankly, I do not believe that this was part of the accident. I know that there's a fair amount of naïvety on the government side when it comes to the impact that this will have on the economy. But I don't believe for one minute that the Minister of Labour or the government was naïve about the effect that this would have on the work of the union organizer in the building trades sector. They recognized that this was a gift, and this is part of the reason why, I think, they're so desperate to move ahead with this particular legislation and to get it enacted.

It also says as point No. 3 that Bill 26 is not about employers or unions outside construction. Again, the facts are clearly the opposite. What this will do is drive up the cost of construction. This will impact on every small business that is

[ Page 9857 ]

That's the direct impact that this will have, but I think the indirect impact -- as we've talked about -- is the cost it's going to have on our economy overall. It is an economy that desperately needs some lifeblood put back into it, but instead, Bill 26 is sucking that last little bit of lifeblood out. That affects every company in this province and every British Columbian when you start having that kind of impact on the economy. For them to say that it has no effect outside of the construction industry is simply wrong.

The fourth point that it talks about is that Bill 26 is not about non-union versus union worksites. They would like to pretend that this is all about just tying up a nice neat little package for the craft unions and ICI. But, as I talked about earlier in terms of it being an organizing tool, this is a great organizing tool for the buildings trades unions to go after the non-union worksites. I think it's clear that it has those kinds of ramifications.

These are all points that I think they were very much aware of when they brought in this legislation. Through these kinds of information pieces, they would like to convince us otherwise, but I'm afraid it didn't work. The spin didn't work.

The very next page on this web site talks about what's in Bill 26. There was one in particular that jumped out at me, and it's talking about project collective agreements. This is an interesting one, because in this legislation it allows for all the craft workers who are working within the ICI sector to have this master collective agreement. It's interesting that the government has given itself an out when it comes to major-project agreements. We've seen major-project agreements in this province, like the Vancouver Island Highway construction, where they set it up as a special project agreement that resulted in significant increased costs to the taxpayer. Basically it was a gift to the buildings trades unions. It's not the NDP who bought the gift. You know who bought the gift? The taxpayers of British Columbia bought that gift. Nevertheless, it was a gift, and it was presented on a platter. That was a major-project agreement.

Hon. Speaker, that is an agreement that basically superimposes a new collective agreement over and above the collective agreement that may be in place for the other jobs that those particular trades work on from time to time. But it's interesting, because in Bill 26 the minister is giving himself the power to designate what is or is not a major project. So he can basically bypass everything that's in here if they want to make a separate agreement that's different from this master collective agreement that's going to be imposed by Bill 26.

Start thinking about some of the possibilities for that. We've got, say, the construction of a trade and convention centre in this province. You could bypass everything that's in here, and you could set up a special project agreement just for building the trade and convention centre or for the Lions Gate Bridge reconstruction. We've already seen it with the HOV lanes, where they've imposed this HCL model.

In this legislation the minister is being given the power, if this legislation passes, to designate what is or is not a major project. If I can just read the explanation in here about this major-project collective agreement, it says: "Negotiation of project collective agreements will be included in the B.C. Labour Relations Code, and the Minister of Labour will have the authority to approve project collective agreements that take precedence over any other collective agreements in place at the time."

That sort of explains what it's about. But the next paragraph says why. Why are they doing this? Why are they bringing in this provision? This is the interesting part, so I hope the members are paying attention. It says: "Project collective agreements allow certainty and stability for the life of major projects and the flexibility to address issues like local and equity hiring." Here we have, in this legislation. . . . We're building in inflexibility. We're building in this master collective agreement, with all of the inflexibility that comes along with that. We're building that into all the ICI construction that's done by the craft sector.

The minister is giving himself the opportunity to opt out of that. He gets to opt out of it. Why? Because of flexibility. Well, if it's good enough for the Minister of Labour to have that flexibility, to be able to access that flexibility, why isn't it good enough for the rest of our economy? Why can't all of our major construction in this province -- all of our construction, period -- have the kind of flexibility that's needed for workers and management to sort out what's in their best interests? Why are we building in inflexibility? The minister, for his own personal use, grabs this little bit of power that allows him to build flexibility back in again. It simply is irrational, but I think it speaks to what's behind this legislation.

One of the things included in this package that came out on June 17 to justify this particular legislation was a commentary on. . . . This is actually a study that was done by a Prof. Joseph Rose. This is a professor of industrial relations at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. What obviously happened -- and I'm making some assumptions here -- was that after the Kelleher-Lanyon report was released, this government knew that they had a sales pitch to do. They had to sell this legislation to the public, because it was obviously going to be a difficult sale. Because of the experience after Bill 44, they knew that they were going to have a fight on their hands when it came to bringing in this kind of legislation. So they obviously went out looking for somebody to help build up their information base on all of the good things about what they were doing. They had to find fans wherever they could. They had to find somebody with some credibility, who would basically be able to pretend that they were an objective third party and say: "Yes, what you're doing is a good thing."

I have to question why we had to go to Ontario to find somebody to do an analysis of something that is so fundamental to the British Columbia economy. We wound up going to Ontario and clearly to somebody that was handpicked by government -- I'm assuming that, because they had a pretty good sense of what this particular professor would deliver them. They probably had a pretty good sense of where this professor's ideological views sat. I'm sure they weren't treading on thin ice when they were going out to try to find this academic to give them a review.

Earlier today, I pulled some of Professor Rose's writings on some of the other things he's done. At a quick glance -- I haven't had a chance to read them yet -- there's some interesting material there, and I'm quite looking forward to going through that to get a better understanding of where Professor Rose comes from in some of his other writings. What the government chose to do was to go out and commission a

[ Page 9858 ]

[8:15]

I find it interesting to compare the things that were taken and the things that weren't taken. This is what was quoted on page 1 of that particular report: "The recommendations for legislative change are sound and reflect a recognition of the unique features of construction labour relations in B.C." Now, I find that interesting. One of the things that we have heard is that we're adapting this because it's been done in other provinces. Yet they talk about the unique nature. . . .

The Attorney General may wish to make an introduction, and I will temporarily defer to him.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want to thank the hon. member for recognizing that I needed to make an introduction.

This is a very special introduction. I'm really delighted to be able to make the introduction. We have in the House with us the Minister of Justice from South Africa, Dullah Omar. I would like the House to please make him welcome. Accompanying the minister, we have in the gallery a chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission, Dr. Barney Pityana. As well, we have other people here: Judge Wally Oppal from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Fatima Ameen from Ottawa, Rick Craig from the Law Courts Education Society and Chris Meyers from the South African consulate, I understand. Last -- but not the least, because I work for her -- is my deputy minister, Deputy Attorney General Maureen Maloney.

This is a very special privilege to be able to do this for Minister Dullah Omar and the others, because we in British Columbia have had a very special connection with South Africa. Just some days ago, we paid tribute to our former Speaker, Emery Barnes, who was instrumental in having South African wines successfully boycotted in British Columbia. When he was the Speaker, he was able to celebrate the liberation of South Africa and the reintroduction of South African wines into this great province of ours. From that great country come the minister and his companions, and I would like the House to please make them welcome once again.

C. Hansen: I'm certainly very honoured to have these distinguished guests in the chamber for my remarks, and I appreciate the time that the minister took to introduce them.

Hon. Speaker, I was talking about a document that was prepared by Dr. Joseph Rose. It is a critique of the Kelleher-Lanyon report, a critique of the draft legislation that had been put forward at that time -- which, much to our surprise, became the legislation that is now Bill 26, with very few changes. That was clearly something that I don't think was expected by very many people. They certainly expected that a very different bill would come forward, rather than the one that was in the draft legislation. In fact, they felt that there would probably be some watering-down of it, but what we saw instead was the full force of what had been put forward in that report. As I was mentioning earlier, this government obviously went to great lengths to find a professor who would do a critique of it, and then they pull these quotes out of his critique, rather than presenting the whole report. To give credit, they did put the full report on their web site, but in the press package and the initial communications package, they just pulled out certain quotes to highlight them.

The quote that I mentioned earlier was one that said: "The recommendations for legislative change are sound and reflect a recognition of the unique features of construction labour relations in B.C." That's something that I've never heard the Minister of Labour admit, because the Minister of Labour has been talking so much about how we have to do these things because they do them in other provinces. Yet here we have an admission that the construction industry is so unique.

Let me quote from a part that was not in the excerpted part. It said: ". . .the panel chose to distinguish B.C. from Ontario and Alberta. . .where it was persuaded that practice within the province dictated a different approach." I think that's the key. In the construction industry in B.C. we do have something that is unique, and we do need a B.C. approach. We don't need the approach that Ontario has or Alberta has. We have a Minister of Labour who says that they have this in those provinces. Well, they don't. They have gone to other provinces and cherry-picked certain features that serve their particular purposes or serve the purposes of the building trades unions. They haven't said: "Let's adopt the Alberta Labour Relations Code." Quite frankly, I would be very surprised if any member in this House stood up and said that -- or the Ontario labour code, for that matter. Instead, what they did is that they went and cherry-picked just the things they liked, not the balance. You know, in the comments that I made on Tuesday, when we were talking about the need to hoist this motion, I talked about some of the history of labour relations in British Columbia and the essential need that any change we have to the Labour Relations Code be balanced. There have to be equal and offsetting powers for both labour and management if our labour relation system is to thrive and survive in this province.

Rather than going to other provinces and picking the things that would give balance, they went and picked just the things they liked, just the things that the building trades unions in this province liked. They brought those in and incorporated them, and now we have them before us as Bill 26. Here we've got the learned professor, who this government went out and contracted to give them the critique they wanted, and he emphasized that. He pointed out that there were distinguishing features from province to province which dictated a different approach. Yet they didn't choose to quote that in the communications package that they circulated.

Let me pick out another quote that they chose not to include. It says: "Successful and enduring labour law reform requires the input of both sides to the collective bargaining process. . . ." This is the balance that I talked about: it needs

[ Page 9859 ]

Hon. Speaker, here we have this professor who is talking about that need for balance. We need to have a process that allows input from both sides and that allows for a balanced package to be formulated. Well, we did have a process that in theory should have been balanced, that had the opportunity for both sides to make input. So that part of it we got right. We had the public hearings -- or the panel did. They received submissions, but what is clear from the action that this government has taken in bringing forward Bill 26 is that they only listened to one side.

Maybe they did read the submissions from both sides, but this Minister of Labour chose to bring in a piece of legislation that only reflects the solutions that were devised by one side of the equation. It only reflects the solutions that were devised by the building trades unions. It doesn't reflect the solutions that were devised by the wall-to-wall sector; it doesn't include the solutions that were devised by the non-union sector; it doesn't include the solutions that were devised by representatives of employer groups around British Columbia. That's what would have been balanced input. That would have resulted in this balanced package that Professor Rose talks about. But instead, while we had the process to do that, we had all of the appearance that this government was trying to consult. What we now know in reading Bill 26 is that they only listened to one side.

Let me go on to show you what they chose to quote. They didn't quote that section, interestingly. But what they did quote was: ". . .government, through a process of meaningful consultation, coupled with careful analysis, must weigh the various alternatives and to the extent warranted by economic considerations and labour relations norms, enact reforms that are responsive to the issues raised." That is what should have happened, but that's not what happened.

The other thing they quoted in this document that they circulated was, in Professor Rose's words: "I believe that the appointment of the two eminent former chairs of the B.C. Labour Relations Board and the review process undertaken satisfies these requirements." Clearly, hon. Speaker, they do satisfy that requirement of the consultative process. But the next stage of that process is that government has a responsibility, the Minister of Labour has a responsibility, to make sure that each side, or the many sides, are listened to fairly. Bill 26 should have come in as a balanced package, not as legislation that favours only the trade union inputs.

Let me continue with another quote that, interestingly, was not in the package. This is talking about the accreditation system in British Columbia. It says: ". . .it is also different from most other schemes in Canada, because it permits multi-trade accreditation -- most other schemes, including Alberta and Ontario, are limited to a single trade." Well, excuse me, but what's interesting is that we had a government that said that what is being proposed in Bill 26 is what happens in other provinces. They specifically said: "It's what we have in Alberta and Ontario."

They talk about how we don't have a distinctive section for the construction industry in the Labour Code of British Columbia. One of the reasons for that is that we have a distinctive section that no other jurisdiction in Canada has for multi-trade accreditation. We have a process in our Labour Relations Code today to set up multi-employer bargaining. But you know what? It's set up as a process; it's enabling. It's not something that government's going to come in and enforce. It is a voluntary process. We've seen it work; it works in this province. Now it's being changed, because they're going to build in inflexibility.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

They address the issue of specialized legislation here. This one is quite interesting because of the quote they chose to use. They actually pulled out a portion of a sentence that they didn't include. The sentence, as Professor Rose had written it, reads: "Considering the uniqueness of the construction industry. . .this recommendation makes sense and is long overdue." This is the idea of a special portion of the Labour Code for construction. What's interesting is that they left out the part of the sentence that reads: ". . .that most labour codes are based on the industrial model." So what we have is labour codes all over this country that are based on an industrial model. What we've got in British Columbia is a government that's saying, "Bring in specialized legislation, to impose something else," and yet they actually deleted that section from their quote.

The next section they go on to is "Access To Collective Bargaining." Again, they have left out a very key part of the sentence. The sentence that Professor Rose wrote was: ". . .I strongly support the recommendation with respect to the ratification of voluntary-recognition collective agreements and that these agreements be filed with the board." Actually, I apologize. That is not the sentence that they deleted from; that is the sentence. What I found interesting is that they acknowledge in this that there is a need for ratification of voluntary recognition.

[8:30]

Well, one of things that was pointed out is that they can then get through to a collective agreement without the workers ever having a vote as to whether they do or do not want that particular union. So in Bill 26 they are bringing in that provision to force a secret ballot vote. Now, isn't that interesting? The secret ballot vote is important when it comes to voluntary recognition, to ensure that workers are represented, but it's not good enough for other workers. That's the hypocrisy, I think, in the direction that this government is going in. In fact, Professor Rose, had they continued with that quote and quoted his very next sentence. . . . It reflects that. He says: "This recommendation offers further support and protection for employee free choice." The concern raised in the report -- namely, that voluntary recognition is sometimes contrary to the true wishes of the employees -- is found outside the construction industry as well.

Here we have the government's handpicked academic professor talking about the importance of employee free choice and the fact that an imposed collective agreement can be contrary to the employees' true wishes. It begs the question: why does that same principle not apply to all certifica

[ Page 9860 ]

It goes on to say: "The recommendation requiring evidence of current membership support for certification makes good sense, given the nature of the industry." This is an interesting one, because in the Kelleher-Lanyon report they not only put forward draft legislation but they also put forward a provision that required that a union, when it seeks certification, has to get current indication of membership support. In fact, in the document, Kelleher and Lanyon actually put forward a form that they recommend be signed. They never intended it to be incorporated in the legislation, so I should not be surprised that that particular process is not in Bill 26. But what I find very interesting is that the provision for current membership support -- this evidence of current membership support -- does not appear anywhere. In their media kit, in the minister's speech that he gave when he introduced second reading, he talked about how they were incorporating the recommendations of Kelleher and Lanyon. Then they conveniently forget this one provision that talks about requiring current membership support.

Then we have this report from Professor Rose. He says that this particular recommendation "makes good sense, given the nature of the industry." But you know what? When they put out their little summary of Professor Rose's report, they omitted it. I think it begs the question: is this government planning to ignore that particular recommendation? That is a point that is going to be a matter of considerable debate before this process of Bill 26 is resolved.

I think it's incumbent upon this government to stand up and say to all of those who are following this process that they are accepting Kelleher and Lanyon's recommendation when it comes to requiring evidence of current membership support. I want to hear that from the minister. Quite frankly, I know that the minister has not yet spoken on this particular motion to refer this bill to committee, but that gives him a perfect opportunity. He doesn't have to wait until the end of second reading debate for his summary comments. He can come into this chamber at the point when I sit down, which is going to be in about half an hour, and he can stand up and follow me and answer a couple of very specific questions that have not been answered.

First, is this minister going to assure us -- is he going to put in Hansard, on the record -- that this government will implement this recommendation to require evidence of current membership? That's number one. Secondly, in the Kelleher and Lanyon report, they set out a number of principles that are required for the renegotiation of the constitutions of the building trades unions, of the bargaining council. Also, there's appendix A in the report that sets out the principles respecting the trade union bargaining council constitution. Appendix B sets out the principles respecting the CLRA constitution and bylaws.

One of the things that Kelleher and Lanyon recommended was that both these organizations be given a very narrow time frame, after the passage of Bill 26, to revise their constitutions in accordance with those principles that they set out. Fair enough; it's reflected in the legislation. In the legislation, it actually gives a time frame within which they have to revise the constitutions. What is not in there is any requirement that they revise their constitutions according to the principles that Kelleher and Lanyon set out. That is very important.

Quite frankly, I say to the Minister of Labour that if he can stand up in this chamber after I sit down and assure this House on the record, in Hansard, that those recommendations of Kelleher and Lanyon will be adhered to -- that the principles set out in the report are the principles that must be adhered to when those organizations redraft their constitutions. . . . The provision in the legislation is that the Labour Relations Board has to approve these revised constitutions. If they can't come to a revised process, then it goes to the board to sort out those differences.

Hon. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent on the Minister of Labour to stand in this House and say that he will instruct the Labour Relations Board to only approve constitutions that reflect those principles that are set out in appendices A and B. As I mentioned earlier this thing about the evidence of current membership, if the minister comes in and gives that assurance to this House after I finish my remarks, that will save us a lot of time when it comes to further debate. I'm still not going to vote for the legislation, but I think he could effectively answer a lot of the questions and a lot of the doubt that's out there today.

One of the other areas that I think the minister should address -- and he has the opportunity to do now; we don't have to wait until we get to committee stage on this bill -- is the definition of ICI, the definition of industrial, commercial and institutional construction. Hon. Speaker, there are people all over this province who are extremely anxious about what the definition of ICI construction is. I know for a fact that there are construction projects today in this province that are not proceeding because this legislation is coming down. What those construction projects are waiting for is a definition of ICI.

We have made the point that this legislation is going to do great damage to the economy of British Columbia. But the Minister of Labour can come into this House tonight, once I've finished my remarks, and he can stand up in this House and give us a very concise definition of ICI on the record, in Hansard -- something that will stand up, which he will personally be accountable for.

If he comes in and gives a very narrow definition of ICI, which reflects the comments that were made by other members in this House, and says: "Oh, this legislation is about this very narrow little section of construction. . . ." If the Minister of Labour is going to come into this House, stand up and give a very narrow, concise definition of ICI, that alone -- his words in Hansard -- will allow construction projects in this province, which are now being held up, to go ahead. There are projects that cannot get financing, because nobody knows what this definition means. It's not reflected in the legislation. One very small thing that this minister can do to mitigate in a very small way the excessive damage that Bill 26 is doing. . . . The very small thing that he can do tonight to make this province a better place is that he can come in and answer those three questions in very specific terms, in ways that will stand up. His words in Hansard will be words that he will be prepared to adhere to in the long term.

I have digressed somewhat from what was in Professor Rose's report, but I did want to deal with that issue of the evidence of current membership, which Professor Rose felt was a good recommendation. Frankly, we don't see it anywhere here. We have no reason to believe from anything that's been written or said that this Minister of Labour is prepared to implement that recommendation.

It's interesting how they've edited this section. It says, in Professor Rose's words: "I have some difficulty with the rec-

[ Page 9861 ]

When we talk about comparing to other provinces, there is no other province in Canada that has legislation that says that a bargaining council, whether it be on the employer side or the employee side, is going to be this particular association.

I gather from the body language across the chamber that the Minister of Small Business would like to make an introduction. If that is the case, I will defer to him temporarily.

Hon. I. Waddell: Thank you. I just seek leave. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, when you rise in your place, then I can recognize you. You have to ask for leave. I recognize the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

Hon. I. Waddell: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I know he has many things to say on this bill, and I hope he'll forgive me if I do. I'd like the House to welcome a former minister in this House, former Deputy Premier and minister of many things, who is now heading the B.C. Child Foundation and is promoting a campaign of "Smile B.C." -- a woman who never quits promoting and working for the public service and for the people of British Columbia. I'm really proud to ask the House to welcome the Hon. Grace McCarthy and her husband Ray.

G. Abbott: I hope the House will indulge me in also welcoming Mrs. and Mr. McCarthy on behalf of the opposition side. I had the pleasure back in 1976 of working as a legislative intern here and much admired the work and energy of Mrs. McCarthy. We would certainly like to join with the government in welcoming her back as well.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena continues his remarks.

C. Hansen: I had to stand up to resume my place in debate, but I would like to say that a standing ovation is certainly warranted. I'm honoured that the McCarthys are here to join us this evening.

[8:45]

What we see in other provinces is the ability of employers to choose who their bargaining representative should be when they're setting up these types of councils, and you also have the provision where the unions have the ability to select their councils. This is interesting, because if you go back to last year's infamous Bill 44, it allowed for that. Bill 44 allowed for a process whereby the majority of unions representing the majority of workers -- if I remember the language -- got to select the bargaining council that they wanted to have bargain on their behalf. Likewise, Bill 44 provided for the employers to select their bargaining council.

What we have in Bill 26 is not that. What we have is a government that has come in to say that the bargaining council shall be the Building Trades Council and the bargaining council for the employers shall be the CLRA, the Construction Labour Relations Association. I've got no gripe with either of those organizations. I know of companies that used to belong to the CLRA that do not ever want to belong again. I know of entire industry sectors that have gone off to form their own bargaining councils that are now being forced back into the CLRA against their will -- involuntarily. I think that's what is key. Is it the role of this Legislature to impose a bargaining council on a group of employers? Or should those employers be given the power to select the agent that they want to have? That's what happens in other provinces.

There's a process in other provinces that if the majority of the unions lose faith in their bargaining council, they can set up a new bargaining council through a majority vote. Yes, in some provinces there is an involuntary nature because once there is a majority vote, they are all forced into that bargaining council. But what's important is that they have that vote, and they have that right to select their council. It's the same in other provinces on the employer side. If a majority of employers decide that they want to change their bargaining council -- they want a different association -- the majority can set up that separate council. But that's not what this legislation does. This legislation says that we are going to entrench in statute a permanent obligation of those employers to belong to the Construction Labour Relations Association and a permanent obligation of the unions to negotiate through their bargaining council. I think that's wrong. I think there should be a provision in this legislation that allows those groups of unions or employers to select the bargaining council that they have majority support for.

I think you've got to look at it from the point of view of what encourages those particular bargaining councils to continue to be responsive to the needs of their membership. One of the things that exists today is that members in those councils will walk away from the table if they're not satisfied. We've seen that in the building trades. We've seen members that used to be members of the Building Trades Council leave that bargaining council. And now what we say is that they're going to be forced back in there.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: The member asks what this has to do with the amendment. Clearly, if we send this off to the committee, the committee can start looking at some of these alternatives, and I think we can come back with some very definite

[ Page 9862 ]

On the employer side, as well, we have seen, over the past decades, companies that used to belong to the CLRA that have left. I have no doubt that that has put pressure on the CLRA to ensure that the way they run their affairs reflects the interests of the majority of their members. I'm guessing somewhat, because I don't know the internal workings of either of these organizations, but I have no doubt that they are forced to look at how they structure their affairs so that they don't lose members. And yet what we have here today is that through statute we are imposing these organizations on the unions and on the employers. That's wrong, and that's something that we will have more to say about when we get into committee stage.

I just want to move down a bit further on Professor Rose's. . . . Again, this is still under the subject of access to collective bargaining and, if I can quote, it says. . . . I'm quoting from Professor Rose's study, which is not reflected in the excerpts that were circulated by the minister. This says: ". . .what happens if the parties are unable to agree on the accommodations? Is this to be resolved by the board or by interest arbitration?" What they chose to quote in the document that was circulated was this quote from that particular paragraph: "For example, the Ontario approach. . . . " They've dropped the words "is different in that it" because they want to pretend that this is stuff that every other province has; they don't want to acknowledge the fact that in fact that's wrong -- other provinces are very different in many ways. But they chose to quote: "For example, the Ontario approach. . .stipulates that a newly certified or voluntarily recognized bargaining agent will be bound by the appropriate provincial collective agreement in the ICI sector." We're talking about a sentence where they have actually chosen to delete a bunch of words to basically reinforce the message that they're trying to get across, that they're trying to spin.

Professor Rose also goes on to talk about the raiding period. Just for the benefit of those who don't know, the raiding period is written into collective agreements that say, typically, that in the seventh or eighth month of an agreement that particular worksite is open to raid from another union. In other words, it is one union that is trying to sign up the membership of that particular worksite and to get the workers there to agree to be represented by a different union. Professor Rose says: "This recommendation has merit in that it gives the board the opportunity to objectively assess union membership strength and employee preferences for union representation."

What is in Bill 26 that Professor Rose is talking about is switching the months that the raid can take place from the seventh or eighth month of whatever the duration of the contract is. . . . Because contracts could be signed any one month of the year, the seventh or eighth month can be any particular month of the year. But what this legislation does is say that it doesn't matter what the workers and the employers have negotiated in their collective agreement -- that that doesn't matter anymore, that what they're going to impose through legislation is a requirement that it be the months of July and August, regardless. Their reason for that is that that is time of year when worksites have the maximum number of employees.

Think about that. Why is it that they would want to be able to raid a worksite in the months that have the most temporary, part-time workers, workers who just come in for a short period of time? Wouldn't it be in the interests of the workers to allow those who have the long-term attachment to the employer to decide what their union representation would be? Like, I'm not saying that it should be at a time when there are no employees on the worksite. I know that's the counterargument that's put forward, that often employers will try to design this raid period so that it happens at a time when there's virtually nobody working -- the months of January or February, let's say. But to go to the other extreme, to say that it should be July and August, means that you have a whole bunch of workers who have no particular loyalty to the union that is there already trying to serve the workers. These workers have no particular loyalty to the long-term stability of that particular company or that worksite. So these are the ones that are going to get the decision on the raid.

Think about what the implications of this might be -- the implications for summer employment for students, for example. How many students today rely every summer on getting a job on the construction sites in July and August? That is the time when a lot of construction sites hire new people. The workers that come for those months are interested in work for a period of time. They're interested in the work for that two-month period. These are not the workers who are relying on 12-months-of-the-year employment. They aren't the workers who are relying on their jobs for their future relationship with that particular employer. But they are the workers who have the most to lose.

Why don't we come up with a process by referring it to the committee? These are things that we could examine. We could examine whether or not there is a time of the year that we can best serve the interests of the workers who rely on that workplace for their long-term security. Isn't that what collective bargaining is all about? Isn't that what belonging to a union is all about? It allows you to negotiate collectively for that long-term security for your family, allowing you to negotiate the best wages and benefits possible that you can get from that particular employer. Why is it in the interest of those long-term employees who rely on that as a career to have a bunch of temporary workers in July and August decide on what union should represent them? I think, again, that's something that we will be talking about.

Professor Rose also talks about the wall-to-wall unions -- the industrial-style unions that we have operating in the construction sector. Again they've chosen one particular quote, which is curious. This is the quote that they chose to put in their communications document: ". . . .there is merit in continuing to recognize the legitimacy of these unions." To a lot of people involved in the building trades. . . . I know the significance of that sentence. I know the significance of Bill 26. There are a lot of people in the building trades unions who would dearly love to get rid of the wall-to-wall unions. They fundamentally disagree with that style of unionism. What we've seen through rulings of the Labour Relations Board is the LRB upholding these unions as bona fide unions, and they are there to serve the interests of their members. So when they pull out this one sentence, that sentence in itself has importance, because they're recognizing their legitimacy.

Let's look at the sentences that they did not quote. This is the opening sentence in this section: "The extent of representation by non-building trades unions in construction is a distinctive feature of B.C. construction labour relations." The extent of the success of wall-to-wall unions in this province to recruit members is unlike any other province in Canada. I know that we see in Alberta that the wall-to-wall unions have been successful to a certain extent. But B.C. is unique. B.C. is not the same as other provinces.

[ Page 9863 ]

[9:00]

The last sentence in this paragraph that Professor Rose wrote was also not singled out in their communications document. That is the sentence that says: "Surely, workers performing construction work should be afforded the freedom to choose their bargaining agents." That's in this document by Professor Rose, their handpicked academic. That is not what we see in Bill 26. That's not what we see as a result of the changes that they made to the Labour Code in 1992. What we see is this government denying secret ballots. Now we see that in spite of the wishes of workers in their workplaces, they are having master collective agreements imposed on them.

Professor Rose also talks about jurisdictional disputes. The quote that they chose to use was: "Given the craft structure of construction labour relations, the tendency is for jurisdictional disputes to be a pernicious source of conflict and the success of the JAP" -- the jurisdictional assignment plan -- "the recommendation. . .is an excellent one." What I found interesting in this was their admission that the jurisdictional process is a "pernicious source of conflict." I'm probably not the best one to define what pernicious means, but I know the Minister of Labour would like to incorporate that into his remarks. Again, we have legislation that is not going to try to find a new system and recognize that there are other forms of trade unions that don't have these pernicious sources of conflict. There are other forms of trade union that are out there protecting the interests of workers. Instead, we have a government that's going to come in with this recognition, this entrenchment of these jurisdictional craft divisions.

If government were to work with the construction sector, the craft structure, to allow them to modernize and find a way to eliminate these rigid lines between crafts, we wouldn't need the jurisdictional dispute process. They don't need a jurisdictional assignment plan in the wall-to-wall unions. They don't need that process, because they don't have jurisdictional disputes. What we've got in Bill 26 -- instead of allowing that industry to adapt and to modernize -- is that they are entrenching the jurisdictional process into our Labour Code.

They go on to talk about BCBCBTU bargaining -- the building trades bargaining council. What they have chosen to quote is: "The recommendations for reforming the bargaining council in light of current problems have merit." That's all they chose to quote in this communications package that they circulated -- that one little sentence. These are the great words of Professor Rose. But listen to the very next sentence. Professor Rose goes on to say: "With one caveat, I support the recommended principles set out in appendix A. . . ." This is the appendix A that I talked about earlier, which was the principles by which the bargaining council had to revise its constitution. But we don't see that. Again I find it curious that when they take Professor Rose's report, they pull out just the little pieces that they like to use; this particular sentence is notable by its absence.

I know the members opposite like to think at times that we read too many things into it, that we see things that aren't there. But here we have one of the recommendations of Kelleher-Lanyon that has some merit to it -- that they revise constitutions according to those principles -- and yet we find that when they excerpt Professor Rose's report, they conveniently ignore that one sentence. If they had just included that one sentence and if they had endorsed it. . . . If the Minister of Labour had stood up and said, "Don't worry, I will ensure that the principles set out in appendix A and appendix B are adhered to by the Labour Relations Board," then that would alleviate some of the suspicion and some of the apprehension that's out there. It certainly wouldn't alleviate all of it, obviously.

When we talk about CLRA bargaining, again what was quoted was this one little sentence. It says: "The recommendations with respect to CLRA are supported." But what they didn't include. . . . I appreciate that my time is just about up, so I'll try to wrap this up very quickly. When they talk about contract administration fees -- that term is in our legislation, Bill 26 -- it is a requirement that these companies being forced into the CLRA, whether they want to or not, must pay contract administration fees. But Professor Rose said: ". . .I found the reference to 'contract administration fees'. . .somewhat ambiguous." And he said: "The reference to contract administration fees. . . ." He presumes that these are fees for services related to collective bargaining, and if so, that is what these fees should be called. Here we've got some direct criticism in Professor Rose's report. We've got criticism of the legislation that's before us, and they chose just to conveniently ignore that.

I know there are quite a few other areas in here that I would have liked to have addressed. But I certainly urge members opposite to get a complete copy of Professor Rose's report. It is on the Ministry of Labour web site. What's interesting is what they chose to ignore from Professor Rose's report, rather than what they chose to include in their communications.

What we've been talking about is a motion to refer Bill 26 to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. When you start to look at some of the unanswered questions that are there, when you start to look at the need for the economic impact study, when you start to look at the questions that Professor Rose has raised. . . . I think that members should support this. We can address some of those questions, and only when they're satisfied should we proceed with this legislation.

J. Wilson: I welcome this opportunity to speak to this amendment on Bill 26 that would refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. It was only a short time ago that we had a bill, Bill 44, brought to this House; it was in the last session of this House. It came in in an orderly fashion, like most bills come into this House. When the bill was distributed around the province to various groups that had an interest in it, the outcry was so great that this government was forced to withdraw that bill. Since that time, this government has put some of their spin doctors to work, and they came up with another bill, Bill 26. It's a watered-down version of Bill 44. It's done in such a way that it would appear rather innocuous; it's not really a problem. However, what it does is allow this

[ Page 9864 ]

However, when you look at the record this government has had over the past few years, it's not hard to see where they could have a real heyday with this bill. They could put in any amendments to it at any time that they feel it's necessary.

When Bill 26 came to the House, it was put in for second reading the very next day. It's rather unusual, don't you think? Instead of allowing the various groups that have an interest in this labour bill to peruse it and come up with recommendations, to go over it and see where it needed changes and to recommend changes, they weren't allowed that luxury. This bill came to the House immediately. Why? Well, it would appear that the government really doesn't want to listen to anyone out there who does have a concern. They would like to get it over and done with, and they would sooner debate the bill all night long, in the wee hours of the morning, when people don't have the opportunity to listen to the debate. Most people have a job to go to -- at least they used to have a job to go to. There are still a few that have a job to go to, and. . . .

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I assume I have the floor. Thank you. The way the debate has been carried on doesn't even allow people to listen to it at an orderly hour in the early evening or through the day. It's all an effort to get it over and done with and buried before interest groups can come and petition the government to try and effect changes to this bill. If that isn't a rather disgusting action on the part of this government, I really don't know how else you would describe it. It's terrible. In this session we have really got to get down to doing the business of the people. We've had a lot of confusion, a lot of chaos and a lot of bills that need to be dealt with, but they're not being dealt with. We're standing here every night -- 2 o'clock in the morning, 1 o'clock in the morning -- debating a bill that is going to be devastating to the economy of British Columbia.

This province has suffered immensely at the hands of the NDP government. We have gone from first place to last place in economic development, job creation and prosperity. I'd like to run through a few points I have jotted down, and I would like to point out the importance of creating an economic climate in this province that is going to nurture investment and bring it back to this province. We can go through all the resource sectors of our economy, and the picture is the same in each one. If we look at the forest industry in British Columbia, in the last year alone we have lost 13,000 direct jobs. Now let's equate that to indirect jobs. That means we have lost another 26,000 jobs related indirectly to the forest industry. That's a total of 39,000 jobs lost. Why? All because of the actions of the government. They brought in a Forest Practices Code that was something that wouldn't work. It was impossible for it to work. They realized that, and now they're going to correct it. They've cut the pile of paper in half, but it's still so high you can't see over it.

[9:15]

Let's look at the mining industry and what this government has done with the mining industry in this province since they took office in 1991. When they took office, there were 20,000 jobs in the mining industry in British Columbia. Today we're looking at 9,000 jobs. That is a loss of 11,000 jobs in the mining industry. They have pretty well levelled it to the ground.

Let's look at another sector of our economy here, and that's the construction industry. Construction starts have been decreasing year after year. If we want to equate that to lost jobs, by the end of this year it will equate to 48,000 jobs lost in this province because of the economic climate created here. That's a travesty in itself, but it's only a small portion of the jobs we've lost in this province.

Road construction used to be something that we could. . . . It was a government-supported job, no doubt, but at least we had long-term benefits from it. Today the road construction industry is dead. There's nothing happening.

Let's look at agriculture. The agriculture industry is still alive in this province. However, in the food-processing portion of that, we have lost several thousand jobs in the last two or three years because of the economic policies of this government. We're still producing, but we can't process a lot of the produce that is produced in this province. It has to go out of province to be processed. With that go jobs, jobs that should be right here at home.

The same thing applies to the fishing industry. We have had many people forced to give up fishing as a result. Those are direct jobs. We have indirect jobs in packing plants and processing facilities. The employment there has been reduced dramatically. Again, a few thousand jobs lost out of our economy.

Let's look at the companies in the last three years that have packed up and got out of B.C. -- left. They were able to leave -- over 300. With them, each one took a number of jobs. You add them all up, and you get a few thousand jobs -- tens of thousands of jobs gone from British Columbia. They won't come back; they will not be back. They are gone for good.

Over $5 billion worth of companies and investment has left this province in this way. Some of it has gone to Alberta -- probably 60 percent -- and 40 percent has gone south. When we look at all of the new investment created in this province and the number of major companies that have moved here and set up in the last few years, you could probably count them on one hand. We look at small business. They are being continually put out of business -- bankruptcies. . . . Just the cost of doing business has become so horrendous that a lot of people have just closed their doors and said: "We've had enough of this. We can't take any more. We're leaving. We're quitting."

When a lot of these companies left, they didn't just take free enterprise jobs or entrepreneurial jobs; they took union jobs with them. Good jobs that people in this province depended on are gone. Where was the government in support

[ Page 9865 ]

The government has been blaming a lot of things on the dilemma they find themselves in, and mostly it's the Asian flu. Just today the Toronto-Dominion Bank came out with a release -- an economic forecast on the future of this province. It covers the next three years. It says that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year and for the next two years after that. That is a pretty devastating statement. What's it going to do to this province? It's going to drive our credit rating down, it's going to drive jobs out of this province, it's going to drive investments out of this province, and it's going to drive employment out of this province. It is the tip of the iceberg -- the beginning of a depression in the province. It's not funny. It's hard to believe.

I have a chart here which gives me the real gross domestic product percentage change in each province in Canada. If we take an average of the provinces in Canada, it is 3.3 percent for 1998. Let's look at Newfoundland, a province that has been a have-not province for as long as I can remember. They had a cod industry. The thing was decimated -- it's gone. They have had a little bit of activity in the oil industry, yes. They have some pulp mills operating in Labrador and in Newfoundland. They have a little bit of mining -- a few iron and nickel mines operating in Labrador. They are all being pressured by the downturn in the pulp and iron ore markets. However, they are managing to stay afloat and operate. Would you believe it? Newfoundland has got a 5 percent increase in GDP for this year. That is amazing. They have topped all of the other provinces in Canada.

Then we go to Prince Edward Island. You could put it in the southern part of Vancouver Island -- it's really a small province in Canada -- and they have a GDP increase of 2.3 percent. What have they got for industry there? Really very little. They have some agriculture, and other than that, they have a little bit of inshore fishing, and very little in forestry -- so small it isn't even worth mentioning. They do have some tourist industry, like most provinces in Canada; they pretty well all have the same amount of tourist industry.

Then we move across the strait to Nova Scotia. They have a 3 percent increase in GDP, and they also have a balanced budget. Nova Scotia has seen some really tough times in the last few years. They have a bit of a forest industry there. Their fishing has really been decimated. Some of the inshore fishing still exists -- lobster, scallop and that type of thing, some herring and mackerel; but the cod industry is gone. Mining for coal and other metals used to be an important part of the economy of that province at one time. Most of those are gone today too, but yet they still manage to produce.

If we move on to New Brunswick, it's the same story again: a 2.5 percent increase in GDP, in a province that has some forest industry, a little bit of fishing, a very minimal amount of agriculture and a little tourism. They don't have a lot to work with. They've got a balanced budget too.

Then we come to Ontario, which just went through probably the worst time in their history in the last few years under an NDP government. They finally turfed that government out, and look at what's happened. Their GDP increase this year will be 4.5 percent. It's amazing what will happen when you get rid of an NDP government. Ontario also has some wealth. They've got a lot of agriculture, a lot of natural resources -- forestry, minerals, hydroelectric -- and tourism is big there. They are a wealthy province, and under the right hands they are showing a prosperity that was unimaginable in that province four years ago.

Then we come west. We get to Manitoba: 3.7 percent. Now what's Manitoba got? It's got a little bit of mining and just a small amount of forestry; it's got quite a bit of agriculture, which is pretty stable; and some tourism. But 3.7 percent?

Now we go to Saskatchewan: a 3.4 percent increase. Now there's an NDP government, but they can't really be an NDP government. There's something wrong with the economic picture here. They must have a little bit of conservative or some other influence there. At least they're fiscally accountable; that's probably what it is. They realize that you have to earn that dollar before you spend it.

Then we go to Alberta, which has a 4.1 percent increase in GDP -- the third-highest in Canada. Alberta is fairly well off. They've got some gas and oil, and they've got some forestry, but it's limited compared to the province of British Columbia. They have some tourism, and they have a good solid agricultural base.

And then we come to the province of British Columbia. Do you know what the GDP change is in the province of British Columbia? It is zero percent for this year. No growth whatsoever -- none.

[9:30]

But what's happened here? We're not going anywhere; we're going backwards and people are leaving the province. Why? Well, there's only one explanation, and that is the government of the day and the economic policies that they have forced on the people that want to come here and invest and create jobs. It's pretty bad when you look at what's happened because of that. We have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in this province in the last three years because of the economic policies imposed by this government. The job loss is in the hundreds of thousands.

What do we see when we look around this province today? We see a health care system that's in trouble. Their waiting lists continue to grow; we have more bed closures all the time -- unless, of course, you're a patient of the WCB, where the minister has seen to it that we can end-run the health care system and create a two-tier system here. That's good for those clients, but it's not good for the rest of the people in this province.

[ Page 9866 ]

Crime is going up all the time. People don't have jobs -- there's no work. There's lots of unemployment. The government, in their desperation, has decided: "Well, we'll expand our gambling programs. Maybe we can get some money there" -- they just went at it full bore. They didn't realize, I guess. . . . Well, maybe they did realize that they were in direct contravention of the Criminal Code when they did that, but they want that money and they're desperate; they're going to get it. Now we've got another problem. They had to back off a little there, and now they're so busy working around to get gambling going in this province so they can get that revenue coming into general revenue, get it into their coffers. They've got friends to create jobs for here.

They don't even have time to renew the licences for half of the charities that exist in the province. They're too busy. What are we going to do if we haven't got charitable organizations out there raising money to look after all of the things that the government's incapable of looking after? Now they can't get a licence to operate a charity, and if they do get one, the money goes into the government and then maybe they get a little back. If they go on bended knee and beg for it, they might get some money back. It's pretty sad; it really is, when you think about it.

Look at our highways. Coming from the north, highways always are an interest of mine, I guess because I drive on some of them that are not always the best. This year we put out something like $66 million for highway construction and improvement. Isn't that fantastic? From the Fraser Valley all the way up 97, until you get to the Alaska border -- 2,200 kilometres. If they were to build a new highway with that $66 million, they could build 22 kilometres of highway. Wouldn't that be something? It's 1 percent of the total in that one road. You add in the rest of the highways in the province, and it's a fraction of 1 percent that they're going to construct this year. It's nothing but a joke. Over half of our roads in this province, especially in the interior, have reached the point -- they have aged to the point -- where they're going to have to be rebuilt. You can't maintain them; you can't do anything except rebuild them. Will this happen under this government? Not likely. They're the ones that are responsible for allowing the system to just disintegrate in front of their eyes -- no maintenance for the last few years.

Unfortunately, this government remains relatively deaf as to what to do. They've been told a hundred times; they've been told a thousand times; they've been told by every group in the province what needs to be done: cut some red tape, get rid of some regulations, address the tax situation in this province immediately. Corporate capital tax, marginal tax rates -- get them down, reduce them. It's necessary if you want to keep people here and keep businesses from leaving this province.

The other thing is labour laws. The inflexibility of labour laws in this province chases investment away every day. Every single day, either a company moves out or it looks at B.C. and says: "No, we're not going there. The climate is not conducive to us going and spending money in the province of British Columbia." This is the reason that this bill should be moved into a standing committee: so that they could get input from everyone in this province with regard to what changes it needs, and whether it needs to be there. They can address this bill. We don't want to see this bill run through in the dead of night when people are not able to participate.

I see that I've run out of time -- unfortunately, because I had a few more things to cover. But I'll try to do that on another day. I thank you for the opportunity.

P. Nettleton: Here we are again, discussing Bill 26 generally and also the motion before us, which deals with putting this forward to committee. When I look across the way, I ask myself -- given that it's our view, and certainly it's my view, that the legislation before us, Bill 26, dealing with the amendments to the Labour Code, is destructive in terms of its effect or potential effect on the economy: are government members across the way intent, by design, on destroying the economy of this province?

I don't think that's the case. I don't think that the government members are intent, by design, on pushing forward this type of legislation, which will lead to the kinds of effects that we anticipate and that we are pointing to. Rather, I think that many of them are sincere in their belief that it's the right thing to do in terms of creating a fair system for workers in a union environment. There's also, I suppose, some consideration given to their allegiances and alliances with organized labour. There's no question that that's a factor.

Despite what might be sincerity, it's our position that it's quite possible -- it's been shown in the past, over time -- that one can hold a belief very sincerely which later proves to be false. I think back to the experience of Columbus. Columbus set out to sail at one point in time, to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the world was not flat. People, of course, believed very sincerely and held the belief that the world was flat. It was later shown not to be flat. It seems to me that, as I say, while many of the government members are sincere, while many of them hold to the belief that legislation of this sort is progressive and will lead to a more fair and equitable system for workers, the reality is quite different.

We in opposition have attempted to point to the effect of this government's policies in a number of sectors, including the forest sector -- which I'll get to later in some of my comments. We've attempted to point to the effect of policies on the economy generally and on workers who are employed in the forest sector and other sectors of the economy. One thing is clear: you can have the best intentions in the world, but if you're implementing, if you're promoting, if you're legislating policies which are destructive and which are moving our economy in the wrong direction, then in fact the effects will be very severe and very bad over the long term.

The current government has, in fact, been in government for some time, since 1991. We're now in 1998. They've had the opportunity to push forward with their legislative agenda and with a number of policies in key areas. I'm thinking particularly of the resource sector, representing as I do the riding of Prince George-Omineca. Certainly throughout the north and that whole region we've seen the effects of this government's policies on the forest sector. We have here with us our Forests critic, who has worked very diligently and effectively. I know that he hears daily from people who are employed in the forest sector. He hears daily from people who are hurting, who have lost their jobs, who have lost their livelihood and who have lost any prospect of re-employment in the forest sector. I know it's had an effect on him.

For any of us who really care about the people we represent and the direction that this government is taking us, it's

[ Page 9867 ]

[9:45]

In terms of the motion before us, in terms of putting this forward to committee, I think that committee is the logical next step, given that we have a government that is, as I say, incapable of governing in an honest and open fashion. It has lost touch. It has lost touch with ordinary British Columbians who are hurting, who feel the effects of the policies of the current government. It's incompetent in managing our economy, as demonstrated by where we are in relation to other provinces. This is a government that came in when we were number one in terms of our performance in relation to other provinces in our country. I don't think it's any secret that we're now in the number ten spot -- from number one to number ten. This is, in our view, a government that is incapable, incompetent and uncaring. I don't think there's any question that our performance in relation to other provinces bears that out.

This is a government that is uncaring. It's uncaring as investment and jobs disappear. Thousands of jobs disappear. Thousands of British Columbians are forced to flee the province on an almost monthly basis. They are forced to flee to neighbouring provinces and beyond, looking in hope of securing employment, securing a future for their families and for themselves. This is a government, as I say. . . . Themes that come to mind in critiquing this government and its performance are: it's incapable, it's incompetent and it's uncaring. I think that message is getting out. I think the message has got out to British Columbians that this is a government that has lost touch. It no longer has any sense of the effects of its policies on ordinary British Columbians.

I think it's important in a discussion of this sort to talk about the facts, and if I may I would like to point to some of the facts in relation to the legislation before us, Bill 26. Bill 26 is designed to give a boost to the old craft-style unions that are desperate for new members. It imposes a one-size-fits-all contract on an industry that needs the opposite. These Labour Code changes will kill investment and jobs in B.C. and hurt small businesses across the province. So for members opposite to say -- or for anyone to say, for that matter -- that this legislation impacts only the construction industry is simply not accurate. It's simply not the case. It impacts small business, it impacts retail, it impacts other sectors of the economy. It certainly impacts the investment climate. As I suggested earlier, it signals to investors or people who are currently doing business in British Columbia or considering reinvesting in it that this province is no longer open for business. It is rather hostile to investors, and to this government, profit is a dirty word. That simply is a reality. That is a fact which I would like to point out, hon. Speaker. -- the fact that Bill 26 is a law, or will presumably soon become a law, that is not good for the construction industry, small business and other sectors of the economy.

I recall getting a phone call recently from a gentleman, a constituent from Prince George. I was here in Victoria, and his call was not political in nature, in that he had not been a particularly political person. I don't know how he voted. I didn't ask, and I didn't really care. His query, though, told me a lot about where he was at and the effects of this government's policies on his industry. In his case, he owned a small mining company, and he described to me how it was that he had moved to this province many years ago, when the province was open for business and was friendly to mining interests. His position was that his children had grown up -- I think some of them are now either in university or nearing university age and looking at what they would be doing in terms of career and where they would be locating. He discussed in some detail the impact of the downturn of the economy on him, his family, his children and his business. He asked me: "Is there any point in staying in British Columbia? Is there any hope, not only for me, not only for my industry?" -- which, in his case, was the mining industry. "Is there any hope for my family? Should we stay in British Columbia? Is there any hope for us?" His inquiry certainly had an impact on me, because it again brought home the fact that people out there are impacted by the downturn in the economy.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

People have felt the effects of this government's policies in the resource sector, in forestry and mining in particular, which is where most of the folks up in the northern region of the province either work directly or are employed indirectly. I asked myself, in discussing with him his prospects, not only for himself but for his business and his family, you know, what I could say to this man to offer him some assurance that in fact there is hope, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. I was able, at least, to assure him that we as opposition members are certainly sensitive and sympathetic to the issues with which he was grappling, and that we are prepared, once we form government at some point in the future, to move very quickly to alleviate the suffering and hardship in his industry and with people who find themselves in the position he had found himself. I'm hoping that it was at least of some comfort to him.

My point is this: this gentleman, his family and his employees should not be in the position that they are now in. We live in a province that has been blessed with resources beyond belief, beyond description, stretching from the lower mainland to the Atlin in the northwest tip of this province. There's no reason why we cannot have a vibrant, thriving, healthy resource sector -- be it mining or forestry -- done in a

[ Page 9868 ]

Back to the facts that I would like to outline. Bill 26 is the thin edge of the wedge, in that the true intention here is to bring back Bill 44 one step at a time. It's our position that this is just the beginning. In the forest sector we have seen the incremental movement in terms of government's policies that have moved forward in such a way as to effectively almost destroy the forest sector -- certainly destroy any potential for reinvestment in the forest sector.

Recently, I ran into. . . . I'm digressing here, and I hope you will allow me to do just that. In any event, I ran into a gentleman -- this was some months ago now -- who had been involved in working for a large company that built pulp mills throughout the world. He'd just come back from Malaysia, and he'd been employed in Malaysia for a number of months, I believe it was, supervising the construction of a pulp mill. I asked him: "Why is it that you're not working here in British Columbia? Why is it that there's no work for you and people with your qualifications here?" He made the comment that there never will be another mill built in this province, certainly not as long as the present party is in power.

That seems to be the reality: in fact, there is no opportunity for people who have the kinds of skills that this gentleman has, or for others -- entry-level workers, people who want to move from high school or university into the forest sector. Increasingly, those opportunities are disappearing. Certainly it is not much of a comfort to those who are presently working in the forest sector or who hope to work in it at some point to see this government moving, as it is, towards legislation of this sort in the construction industry. As I suggested earlier, it signals to investors and to British Columbians generally that this government doesn't understand; it is incapable, incompetent and uncaring. Maybe if I say it enough times the members opposite will make note of that and will reflect on where it is they're going in terms of their legislative agenda. Certainly that is our hope.

Bill 26 also has the effect of allowing unions to organize the residential sector through the back door. For members opposite to take the position that it has no impact on the residential sector, that it stops at the industrial and commercial sector, is simply not being honest or forthright. Perhaps that sort of response is consistent with much of what we've heard from the other side. Quite frankly, hon. Speaker, there's been a lack of openness and a lack of honesty, and that's unsettling. Again, that does nothing to lead to the kind of confidence that we need to establish here if we are to attract investment and reinvestment and also to build some sense of confidence within young people that they may have a future here within our province.

It's really quite a frightening thought when you consider that many of the best and brightest from our colleges, universities and high schools have moved from our province, are considering moving from it or are unemployed. It appears at the moment as though there is very little to build upon. If our best and our brightest and our smartest young people are moving, it doesn't bode well for the future of our province. It doesn't bode well, in terms of investment and jobs and growth, and it also doesn't bode well for the province, in terms of our future and our hope. That's not good news.

[10:00]

As well, I have a letter from a gentleman, whom I know rather well, who owns a large construction company. This gentleman has been in the construction industry for some time. He outlines how his construction company, BID Construction, is a northern British Columbian company employing 250 to 300 people in the forest sector. The majority of the employees are, interestingly enough, unionized. They're IWA employees, for the most part. He points to how their sales have been between $25 million and $30 million since 1981. Over the last year -- and in the foreseeable future -- sales have dropped to approximately $10 million. He says that as far as his construction company. . . . Now listen to this: the only work that they can find to even bid on is in the four provinces east of the Rockies and the Yukon. This is a company that is bidding for jobs for its unionized employees -- not here in the northern regions of our province or in any part of our province, for that matter, but rather in neighbouring provinces and in the Yukon, of all things.

"We are now working," he goes on to say, "in Alberta and the Yukon, and everything looks great there economically." So the prospects in those provinces and territories, east of us and north of us. . . . Everything looks great; everything is working rather well. He goes on to say that the problem in British Columbia seems to hinge on a very poor forest policy that is forcing forest companies to keep their wallets closed. He has in italics: "if, in fact, there is any money left at all." We know that forest companies have been losing record amounts of money over the course of the past number of years at a rate that is not sustainable, certainly, in the long term, nor is it sustainable in the short term.

It goes on to say: "The real reason I am writing this letter, though" -- and again we're back to Bill 26 and I brought that to his attention -- "is that to compound an already difficult situation, our elected government" -- that's you on the opposite side of this chamber, members opposite -- "seems to want to make things worse with labour laws." In his words: "In the current economic climate this is asinine, as the investment-business climate is already bad enough." Finally, he says: "Let's get some investor confidence back in the people who have already invested for years in this province."

This is from a man who has invested his time, his money and his energies in this province. This is a man who does business. I know him well. He does business in other provinces. He does business overseas. He's a man of considerable influence. As important as all that is, I don't expect the members opposite to be particularly sympathetic in terms of his financial well-being or prospects for profitability in terms of his company's performance. But I would expect that there would be some concern for the unionized employees who work for this gentleman, and for their families. I can tell you that were it not for the case that he was bidding on jobs outside of our province -- Alberta, the Yukon and beyond -- there would be no employment for those families, and there would be no opportunity for the unionized workers that work for this gentleman. That's a very real concern. The only reason that he stays in our province -- that is, he maintains his head office in the north, and he himself resides in our province -- is because of ties that go back many, many years. At some point, though, for a gentleman like this and others, their patience

[ Page 9869 ]

It's our position that Bill 26 is going to do to the construction industry what this government has done to the forest and mining industries -- namely, drive it into the ground and out of the province. That's our position. That has been our experience in the mining and forest sectors, with very little in sight in terms of relief.

Our experience in the north, where we're tied as closely as we are to the forest and mining industries. . . . Delegates at the recent 1998 convention of the Northern Forest Products Association heard some bleak news, in terms of the performance of the forest sector, about the short-term future of the B.C. forest industry. Delegates were told that in the last two years, the forest industry had lost $640 million. Industry analysts told delegates that the current economic situation in British Columbia is driving investors to look elsewhere and that companies are not making enough money to reinvest in equipment and technology.

I should tell you that this really brings to mind another call that I received from a gentleman who is working in the business of supplying equipment to people who work in the forest industry. He talked about his rather vast work area, which was for the most part bare, and the impact that it had not only on him but on his employees and his industry. Again, I think it's directly attributable to the policies of this government that has been in power for some time -- since 1991. The fruits of those policies are now beginning to take effect on people like that.

There are other companies working within the forest sector that have been affected by the downturn in the economy. The 1997 Price Waterhouse B.C. forest industry report shows losses for the second year in a row. The lumber, pulp and paper and plywood sectors' net losses for operations totalled $192 million in 1997. That's a loss; that's not a profit. Companies working in the forest sector these days are talking in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars by way of loss, not profit.

With that, I look forward to continuing on at some point in the future.

T. Nebbeling: I also would like to rise to speak to the amendment to refer Bill 26 to committee. The reason I'd like to speak to this amendment is based on the fact that I truly believe that this bill needs a lot of time for reflection. A lot of time is needed for analyzing what impact this bill will have on, for example, the job situation in British Columbia. I do not believe that much thought has been given to this bill and its impact on the job situation -- which it deserves and needs.

I'm also concerned that without that referral to committee for a substantial in-depth review of what the impact will be on the whole business environment in British Columbia and what the negative impact by this bill on the business climate in this province will once again do to our whole economic well-being. . . . That is the second reason why I strongly support the amendment to refer the bill. Before we go any further with this bill, I would also really like to see that we as a Legislature look at what the social impacts of this bill will be -- on communities and on family life. I'm saying this not because of suspicion but because we in this Legislature over the last number of years have passed numerous pieces of legislation where none of these elements was truly analyzed. They have turned out to be very detrimental to the success of the economy in British Columbia and to the quality of life for British Columbians.

Considering that the economic state of our province is such that the world, which traditionally has looked at British Columbia as an area where investment was justified and where investors felt that they could get a fair return on their investment. . . . Because of the bills that have been introduced in this House in the last six years, that security of return on an investment has pretty well gone. If this bill -- Bill 26 -- goes through as it stands today, I fear that the moneys that are now being put on hold when it comes to development projects throughout British Columbia, in order to see where this bill is going to go, will not be released to contribute to the economic well-being of this province for a long, long time.

We have heard from a number of our members speaking to this bill. I think most members already have examples in their own ridings where construction projects have been put on hold. Yesterday when I spoke to the hoist amendment. . . . Again, I saw the hoist amendment as a tool to get that time for reflection. Unfortunately, the government side was not willing to support the hoist amendment, so as a consequence, I feel that we lost the opportunity that we had to actually realize what Bill 26 is going to do in this province. I see the second amendment coming forward -- referring this to committee -- as not only an opportunity for me to once again support the move towards finding that space, that period of time, to deal with all the potential consequences of Bill 26 but also an opportunity to speak to what I believe justifies my position in support of this amendment.

In the past, as I've said before, we have passed bills that were vigorously defended by the government as being only a very positive contribution towards the economic sector where these bills would apply. The one that comes to mind most strongly, of course, is the Forest Practices Code. When the Forest Practices Code was introduced, on this side of the House there were a large number of concerns expressed by these members about why this bill should be taken very slowly to its completion. At the time the Forest Practices Code was introduced, the members already recognized that there were a large number of pitfalls in that bill that could reverse the intentions for which the Forest Practices Code was created: to be not only a benefit to our environment, but also a benefit to the developing of forest companies and forest-dependent communities.

At the time of the introduction of that bill, members on this side recognized that there were elements that would do the opposite, that would add tremendous costs to the application for permits and would keep people out of the forest longer due to the enormous length of the reviews that were to take place before licences could be issued. And, of course, since the bill was introduced. . . . The government did put in some amendments at the time of the introduction. To me, the presentation of the bill clearly stated and reflected that it was created in haste. It needed immediately, on the day of introduction, 82 amendments, I believe. So it showed that that bill was not thought through before it came to the Legislature.

[10:15]

[ Page 9870 ]

In spite of all the signals that started to come to the government from throughout British Columbia, talking about the extremely negative impact of that bill, the government, through the Ministry of Forests, vigorously defended the Forest Practices Code not only as one of the best in the world, not only as one of the toughest in the world, but also as one of the most effective in the world. All the noise of the opposition, reflecting the fear and the concerns from so many forest-dependent communities that began to feel the negative impact of that code, was basically belittled. We were scaremongers on this side. We were not considered to be able to properly analyze what this Forest Practices Code was doing in a very positive way for British Columbia, for the forest and for the forest workers.

That debate went on for almost three years. Only this year did we see the government, after many studies -- that I believe were unnecessary, because the facts were clearly available. . . . We didn't have to spend $700,000 for KPMG to tell us that the time it took to get a licence had gone from six months to up to two years, which meant that cutblocks were often dormant for a year and a half. Forest workers could not go in to the cutblocks, all because of the delay of the issuing of licences. That was a direct consequence of that Forest Practices Code legislation. Every time this was brought to the attention of the government through the Minister of Forests, it was, as I said before, belittled. So to see a $700,000 study coming to the conclusion that indeed the length of the process had deterred a number of operators from actually going ahead, had cost the operators a tremendous amount of money and had started to create the beginning of layoffs in a number of smaller communities throughout British Columbia that depended on the industry. . . .

This year we saw the government -- maybe because they had their backs against the wall because they knew they could no longer defend that Forest Practices Code -- starting to look at some of the changes that had to be made to eliminate the lengthy processing of licence applications. They started to look at some of the requirements and at the fairness of some of these requirements, and we had a bill introduced with, I think, 127 sections reflecting 127 amendments to the Forest Practices Code. It certainly has made a difference. I believe it has made a difference for the forest companies. Unfortunately, that difference comes at a time that is a little bit too late. Had we been able two years ago, after a year of the Forest Practices Code implementation, to say. . . . Had we been able, then to analyze the impact, as it was clearly becoming clear. . . .

J. Sawicki: Point of order. I have been listening intently to the hon. member for ten minutes, and I've learned a great deal about the Forest Practices Code, but I haven't really heard anything about the amendment motion we have before us. Hon. Speaker, I hope that you can remind the member that we are debating the amendment motion, not the Forest Practices Code.

Deputy Speaker: I think all members should take that matter seriously. The member continues.

T. Nebbeling: Had the member opposite who raised the point of order. . . . I'm not going to debate her point, but had she listened to my introduction, the member would have understood that I am extremely concerned about the haste with which this bill has been going through the system to final adoption. I am concerned that the components that make up Bill 26 have not had the proper review or proper consultation, and because of the lack of review and consultation, I fear that we are going to pass a bill in this House that can be as detrimental to the well-being, to the economy and to the workers of this province as the Forest Practices Code has indeed turned out to be -- a very negative piece of legislation that has killed tens of thousands of jobs, opportunities and incentive for investment in this province.

I am speaking in detail on the Forest Practices Code because it is an example. If we do not refer Bill 26 to committee to see done all that we didn't do for the Forest Practices Code, then a year from now we're going to be debating this bill again. We're going to be debating the negative elements that this bill contains, and we're going to be debating the negative consequences that this bill will undoubtedly create in British Columbia. So I'm going to speak very much on examples of legislation that did not get proper scrutiny, proper analysis or proper impact studies on what the consequences have been. I feel that my justification for standing up and speaking for this bill being referred to committee is based on that fear of practices of the past when it comes to bills. So I think I'm very justified to emphasize and expose what that bill has done. My support for the motion to put Bill 26 in front of a committee for a comprehensive analysis is justified by my explanation of my fears, which are founded on the other pieces of legislation.

The Forest Practices Code eventually was recognized by the government as a detriment and a cause of thousands of layoffs in the forest industry in this province. It was recognized as being the main cause of companies not being able to invest new money in equipment, in other pieces of the infrastructure needed to make the company not only more productive but also more efficient. We cannot afford to see that happen again.

When I talk about this bill and its consequences, I'm not talking about just the action of the government. I'm talking about the impact that the action of the government has on the people living and working in this province. I'm talking about the people who, because of negative impacts that bills such as Bill 26 can create, cannot afford to live in this province any longer.

Hon. Speaker, you know the numbers as well. In the first quarter of 1998, 16,000 people left this province -- 16,000 people who could not find the justification or the opportunity to stay in the towns where they grew up; 16,000 people who could not find an opportunity for meaningful employment that would allow them to sustain themselves in the community and stay with their family and support their family; 16,000 people who could not see a future for their children in this province. It's all because legislation has been passed in this House in the last six or seven years without proper consideration for economic impact, for social impact, for jobs-lost impact and for investment climate impact. It's because of the lack of that that we see 16,000 people leaving this province.

I hope that by giving considerably more time to Bill 26 to indeed analyze what the potential pitfalls are so we can avoid

[ Page 9871 ]

So I'm not going to be supportive of any bill that does not clearly have up front its consequences in place, so that when we make the final decision, we know what we decide on. That is the reason that once again I say to you that I speak to this amendment to go into a committee with this bill with some compassion. I have seen far too much hardship developed in this province over the last six or seven years because of legislation and policies that this government has introduced.

Yesterday I talked briefly about Squamish -- a forest-dependent community that has seen a large amount of very serious undermining over the last three or four years. When I talked about a mill that got closed last week, that laid off 150 people. . . . That mill was closed because the economic climate is such today that the company cannot afford to take on that mill and say: "Okay, let's change the dimensions. Let's look for new markets, and let's start cutting for these new markets." That's the state of this province today. We cannot afford to have Bill 26 add to that hardship in that same company and in that same community of Squamish or in the same community of Pemberton. Today construction projects are cancelled. So I focus very much on what this government has done in the past, and the consequences of these past decisions is something that I think is totally in order, and I will continue to do so.

After all, I believe that the government is committed. . . . If I look at the throne speech and the budget speech, I believe that this government is committed on paper -- not in action, but on paper -- to creating a better environment for business in British Columbia, so that foreign investment will once again have trust in coming into this province to invest, thereby creating jobs. I believe that the government is committed, on paper, to creating jobs in the small and medium-sized business sector. Although the government may not necessarily recognize the small and medium-sized business sector as the real economic engine of this province, they recognize that 150,000 small and medium-sized businesses can have a major impact on what's going to happen in this province economy-wise and job creation-wise. In the past it was in a sense laughed off by the government side whenever we talked about the value of small and medium-sized businesses. It was irrelevant. It really didn't do much. I think that for the first time this year, however, the government recognized on paper that that sector is indeed very important.

[10:30]

Unfortunately, having talked to a lot of people in that sector who have looked at this bill -- as far as they can, of course. . . . What they have gotten out of this bill so far is just more fear, more undermining of that whole business environment. Instead of looking at the piece of legislation that could create maybe some sense of trust in the future and create 150,000 jobs by having 150,000 small and medium-sized businesses hiring one person more, what we get now is businesses saying: "If this goes on, I will have to lay people off. I may have to lay one person off rather than hire one person, because if the construction job doesn't go on at the end of my street and the construction worker doesn't get a wage, then that construction worker cannot come to my small business" -- be it a grocery store, a tire store, a gas station or a bookstore. "They won't have the funds to do that."

The erosion of funds in the hands of British Columbians has been a very serious problem in the last couple of years. A wrong Bill 26 will just exacerbate that problem. So therefore when I speak about the need for a proper review of the economic impact and I talk about a proper review of the social impact, again I have the people of this province in mind. This is not a political statement; this is purely driven by the concern that at the end of the day, British Columbians have to swallow a raw deal, a raw deal that is going to create more uncertainty.

When the TD Bank made their financial predictions for British Columbia for the next couple of years and they concluded that British Columbia was going to have zero percent productivity growth, I don't think they even had the consequences of this bill in mind. That was not part of the deliberation. But the state of this province as it is today is of such a nature, it is so negative, that even without this bill's implementation and consequences, the state of the province according to the chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank is zero productivity growth; zero for 1999; zero for the year 2000. So we're not going to see any turnaround in the economic well-being of this province. We're not going to see any turnaround in job development in this province, because this government is stubbornly continuing on the road to self-destruction, throwing in the wind all the indicators that say: "You're on the wrong road." That is what we are talking about. I don't want to wait till the year 2001 to see a turnaround. It will also be the year that this side of the House will be in power, so maybe that's what the TD Bank had in mind.

Mr. Speaker, when you question my reasons for supporting this amendment to go into committee and give it needed time and analysis, they're based on these principles that I talked about, because these are my fears. I have to look at other projects that the government is involved with which we have to question as well. Right now we are constantly inundated by the communication media in this province -- be it TV, newspapers, magazines or radio -- about all the great things we are doing in this province to create jobs, to create opportunities. They talk about the Premier on his trips to faraway areas off into the horizon. He goes off to China. Nobody knew that he was going to China, but he went to China and surprised us all. When he came back after ten days, we said: "Well, Mr. Premier, it's great that you were in China. You could have let us know, but anyhow, what did you do?" The Premier said: "I was there to create opportunities for British Columbians."

Why wouldn't he have taken a trade delegation with him? Normally, when you go to foreign countries and faraway areas, you bring with you a team of experts who know what they're talking about so that indeed you can create some potential opportunities. The Premier came back with nothing. He said: "Well, when APEC is happening, then the Chinese Premier will be here, and he will sign commitments to British Columbians." Well, APEC passed and nothing was signed.

We're going through a lot of moves to tell British Columbians that we are doing well: we have good jobs; we are rejuvenating the economy; we are rejuvenating opportunities.

[ Page 9872 ]

A. Sanders: It's always nice to be here at twenty to 11. It's one of my favourite places to be, and I don't ever want to miss another evening here this summer. This is just the best time of my life, I must say.

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment put forward by my colleague to send Bill 26 to a committee. I would like to cover three subjects in my thesis to support speaking in favour of this particular amendment. I'd like to talk specifically about committees; I'd like to talk about why Bill 26 itself should go to a committee, and I'd like to talk about the residential sector and why the residential sector would support the amendment to take Bill 26 to committee.

Any of the individuals who have watched this House this summer. . . . Certainly from the feedback I get from those people who live in my community when I do discuss the Legislature with them, then consider that there are three words that probably do a lot to describe what goes on here. . . . Those words are: a sense of dysfunction, a sense of abuse and a sense of chaos. These are the words that often characterize the present management style in British Columbia and certainly characterize the management style in the Legislative Assembly, in which we all take part. The recent and resultant malfunction that we see in this House is a disservice to all of us. If we have a democratic government, it is here to serve the people; it is not here to serve itself. All that this House is doing this particular session, from the government side, is serving itself, its self-interests and the interests of those that support its self-interests.

In past discussions in this House this session, I've talked about the pressing need for some kind of legislative calendar with fixed sittings. Last week I outlined how this calendar would go far to make the government more accountable. The restoration of the select standing committees would be the second building block that would formulate the start of an accountability matrix that would make this government, from which I sit opposite, a much more functional entity for the duration of the time that we are plagued with them in British Columbia. The idea of utilizing select standing committees would democratize the Legislative Assembly to a degree that it has not been democratized for the last seven years. What using the select standing committees would do would be to restore order and reduce the government's abuse of power.

Although many people do not know it -- and certainly many people who watch the legislative proceedings don't know or haven't ever heard of it, because they've never actually been functional in the time that they've been old enough to understand parliament and watch the proceedings -- British Columbia's Legislature does, in fact, have 14 select standing committees. At this time, only four of those have been active. One of them has been very active and very successful. The others have been active to more or less degrees or for more or less durations. At the commencement of each legislative session, each MLA is assigned to at least one committee. I personally am assigned to two, which gives me great pleasure. Being assigned at the commencement of the session, however, is really about as far as it goes.

These committees were originally designed so that any issue that the whole House wished to research, evaluate, do a study upon or do some kind of economic impact analysis upon. . . . The legislative select standing committee could in fact be the place where these issues were referred. Appropriate actions could be taken by that committee to ascertain, through a very thorough canvassing process, whether or not the suggested activity -- brought from this House as a whole and given to the committee -- should be brought to the Legislative Assembly for further debate, ratification, discussion or rejection. Any of those options were certainly within the realm of what the Legislative Assembly could do with the information that came from a select standing committee deliberations.

This would allow us to discuss issues of critical importance to all British Columbians at all times of the year, not just during the period of time when the House sits. This would allow us to take issues -- such as Bill 26, which we have before us with respect to the amendment brought forward -- into a committee that could meet not just when this legislative sitting is curtailed but further on. That committee could meet to discuss the aspects of the bill and look at the merits and the areas that are most definitely not clear from the discussions on that side and this side of the House and bring back constructive criticisms and suggestions that this House could then vote upon in a realistic way and procure a bill that was good for all of us in B.C.

[10:45]

We have four active committees at this time: Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; the Public Accounts Committee -- I think there isn't a member of this House who would not say that it does very, very good work; we're all pleased and very proud of the work they do on our behalf -- the Aboriginal Affairs Committee; and Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, which met in 1998 for a very short period of time. The results that they would bring forward, as we've seen in the dissertations from the Aboriginal Affairs Committee and certainly from the Public Accounts Committee, are well researched, done within an accountability framework and matrix and are often above -- goodness gracious! -- what we often see as the partisan rancour and ideology that seems to be the template for almost

[ Page 9873 ]

Unfortunately, the NDP government refuses to use select standing committees, because it would force the Premier, who sits across from me, to abdicate total control of the business of the House. It's very unsettling for many of us to recognize that all of the critical decisions made in this province in the last seven years have been totally politically motivated. None have been done by sending them to select standing committees, which might actually dilute and infiltrate that power of the Premier with unusual constructs of logic and reason -- things that we seldom see infiltrating the decisions of the Premier, who sits on the other side of the House.

Imagine if we had a House that had select standing committees that had the opportunity on a daily, weekly and monthly basis to infiltrate that tight sort of construct that formulates what this Premier considers intellect and logic. Imagine if we brought into that tight little ball something that has something to do with logic, reason and maybe even the ideas of British Columbians. Can you imagine that in this House: having something that the Premier brings forth diluted by logic, reason and the possible decisions of British Columbians other than the one gentleman who sits across the House from me and really rules the roost?

When I look at bringing Bill 26 into a select standing committee, there is no other possibility that makes more sense to me at all. I personally sit on the Education, Culture and Multiculturalism Committee. I also sit on Women's Equality. You know what? Of those two committees that I sit on, perhaps the one closer to my heart at this particular time and venue is the Education Committee, as I am dealing on a daily basis with education issues and certainly because I have children in elementary school. From that point of view -- from the real-life perspective, something that many on this side of the House often forget when we're here -- I deal with education on a first-hand-consumer basis as a parent of several children in elementary school.

When I look at what the Education, Culture and Multiculturalism Committee could do. . . . Our group could have done an economic impact assessment, for example, of the new teachers' agreement. It could have looked at each and every problem in the agreement-in-committee so that it didn't have to be done here in the summer when everyone's on holiday and at a time when the teachers' agreement has already run out. We no longer have an agreement with the teachers in British Columbia -- the 44,000 people who teach our kids. At this point as I stand in this House, we do not have an agreement with them. We have pending legislation. It's crummy legislation; it's pending; it's there. But we don't have anything in place for when those teachers and kids go back to school in September.

The Education Committee could have dealt with many issues, from portables all the way to the cancelling of music programs. We're now left in the circumstance where only four districts offer music programs at the elementary level -- something that many people don't know in British Columbia. Here's another example of what we could have done if we had active select standing committees. I, as well as the other nine MLAs, could have had some input into these problems. Most of them sit on this side of the House, the majority of them. But those nine MLAs who've been drawn into the Education Committee and those nine MLAs who are drawn into the committee that might have to, as the member from Richmond suggested, deal with Bill 26. . . . Those individuals could have actually sat down with the material and come up with a sensible, logical, useful, workable solution to Bill 26 and the teachers agreement. But you know what, hon. Speaker? We'll never get that opportunity in this House. Do you know the last time the Education Committee met? It was in 1991.

Hon. D. Lovick: What else happened that year? It was a very good year.

A. Sanders: The Labour Minister said it was a very good year. I guess it was a very good year because that was the year that I decided to get involved in politics. I decided to get involved because this government got elected, and I thought that was the worst thing that could ever happen in British Columbia. Therefore it was a good year, because I felt that finally, as a citizen, I had to get off my comfortable seat and get into politics to get rid of a government like this. And I can hardly wait for it to come to pass.

Let's look at the idea of sending Bill 26 to a committee. . . .

Interjections.

A. Sanders: When I can hear myself speak, I'll continue on.

Deputy Speaker: The member has the floor. Continue, please.

A. Sanders: Let's look at the other committees and when they've met to see whether or not this amendment has any possibility of passing. The very largest parts of our entire provincial spending is on health and social services. The last time this committee met -- the last time that any decision on health and social services was made by any member on this side of the House -- was in 1993.

Women's Equality -- no meetings for seven years, since 1991, on women's issues. Despite the fact that half the women in this House sit on this half of the House, they haven't had one say on any issue of women's equality. We know that no one on that side of the House is doing anything for women in terms of women's issues, and nothing's been done for women in the last seven years.

Justice -- 1991 was the last time we had a meeting of the Justice Committee. And we know what kind of justice issues have gone on, even within the caucus on the other side of the House, over the last seven years. We could have dealt with a lot of the issues that have been of concern in the Justice Committee.

Environment and Tourism. There are pretty important issues in the Okanagan Valley and certainly important issues for ecotourism, the new catchphrase for British Columbia. It last met in 1991. Finance -- that black hole where the NDP drop all of our dollars. The last time we had a select standing committee meeting was in 1991. Agriculture and Fisheries, 1991. Transportation, Municipal Affairs and Housing. Here's a good one. The last time the select standing committee met in this House was 1986. Crown Corporations, 1996; Economic Development, 1986.

If we look to other provinces and their use of select standing committees, we can look to a good NDP govern-

[ Page 9874 ]

British Columbia is poorly served by this power-hungry government. Only half of the entire House has been involved in any realistic way in public policy development and decisions since 1991. Even the Socreds involved people in public policy decisions when they were on the other side of the House, but not this group of social equalizers. They don't bother with those unnecessary, annoying issues where they might get another point of view. The Premier's abuse of the select standing committees is just another example of the dysfunction, abuse and chaos that the hon. member who is now Premier has brought as the style to which B.C. has become accustomed. It's an unconscionable way to rule a province. It's something that most people do not know when they look at British Columbia. They don't recognize that the rest of the House doesn't get any say in looking at how the committee structure could work and what kind of good work they could do. I think it's about high time for them to recognize that this is a government that is so into itself that it doesn't delegate any power or say to the other half of the House from which the parties that formulate opposition are derived.

As I said, I'd like to cover three issues: firstly, to do a critical analysis of committees -- why we should use committees and why we don't use committees; secondly, to look at why Bill 26 specifically should go to committee; and thirdly, I'll look at the residential sector with respect to why this amendment is so important and why the use of select standing committees would solve some very real concerns within the residential sector in terms of Bill 26.

For those who don't keep up on this kind of thing, we're looking at a construction industry in British Columbia of about 127,000. The modest minister who's brought in this modest legislation would say that it really doesn't matter because it only applies to around 11,000 individuals of the 26,000 working in the ICI sector. The importance of that sector is that the ICI sector is not precisely defined. When we look at the current building trades and look at residential and commercial construction, there have been some grey areas that have been very concerning. The integration between the residential sector and the ICI -- which the minister says will not occur and won't be a problem -- is one of the areas that really needs to go to a committee and be looked at further.

There are four things that Bill 26 does not do. These are the things that should go to the select standing committee for further review. The first is the statement that the bargaining that would occur in the residential construction area will not be affected by Bill 26. This is something that a select standing committee could look at. The minister says that this is absolutely true, that the residential construction area has nothing to worry about, that this is only going to affect the construction that occurs in the ICI sector. There are many who disagree with him and many who disagree vociferously and vehemently. This particular topic would be one of the first things that we would refer to the select standing committee charged with looking at Bill 26. That committee would be able to look at and ascertain whether, in fact, Bill 26 will increase residential construction. It will look as to whether Bill 26 will work into the residential area when an employer has employees who work in both residential and ICI construction. It will look at whether the master ICI agreement imposed by government would also be imposed in the residential sector when the employer has contracts working in both sectors simultaneously -- if not in the same building. It would also look at whether there would be an imposition of the ICI agreement on bargaining for residential construction also occurring on, perhaps, both jobs.

[11:00]

The third thing that we would ask the committee to look at is whether or not the bill is about an employer or a union outside of the ICI sector. This would be something where the committee, over the next several months, having done the research and impact analysis studies, could come back to the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly and give information. That would give us the opportunity for them to do the work and for us to reap the benefit as a Legislative Assembly to decide whether or not people in commercial spaces, in retail or in mixed spaces or people who are doing projects -- hospitals and schools in addition to residential construction -- would be affected by this bill. This would provide the opportunity to see if the taxpayer is going to suffer considerably from the impact of Bill 26 being brought in when they go to build a house in a neighbourhood -- something this minister says will not be affected by Bill 26 and something the pundits on the other side of the fence from the minister say most definitely will happen.

The other thing that the committee could look at is whether or not there is a difference between union and non-union worksites and whether there are greater organizational tools to go after the non-union worksites based on Bill 26. This is something that the minister says is not the case, but if we had the opportunity for a select standing committee to review Bill 26, they could come to their own educated, intelligent decision based on all of the facts, above and beyond partisan politics, with a mix of members from all sides of the House. When this House reconvened to look at Bill 26 under the constructs of people from the select standing committee, they could give us the information that we do not have and that the minister says is not available. The information is not available, because the minister has not done the studies.

In my area one of the groups of people most concerned about Bill 26 is part of the construction industry, and this is the homebuilders. The homebuilders in the Okanagan-Vernon area are very concerned about Bill 26. I've received many letters from them stating significant concern about the lack of an impact analysis of Bill 26 on their particular sector of the economy. We're at a time in Vernon when residential construction is one of the cornerstones of how people earn a living in my area. We have people who are retired as one of our largest populations. Retired people often come from around the province, from areas of higher housing values, and they come to the Vernon area to build brand-new homes. When they come to build brand-new homes. . . . Instead of purchasing a home, as many senior citizens in other parts of

[ Page 9875 ]

I'd like to read some excerpts from a letter of June 21, 1998, from Ray Wynsouw, who is the president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of Kelowna. I have a similar letter from the homebuilders in Vernon, but I'll just read excerpts from this letter, because I think it does provide a very clear picture of what we see in Vernon. Mr. Wynsouw says:

"Sectoral Bargaining Is Not the Answer." This letter to the editor is in fact written to the Premier. "It has often been said in the business community that a 'great leader is only as good as the people around him.' This obvious statement of success has most certainly not circulated around parliament. . . .

"Our industry is the economic engine that drives this once-great province. However, I feel that we are in the shipbuilding industry making boats out of papier mâché, drifting aimlessly in shark-infested water. Now, with the proposed Labour Code changes, you're introducing a school of piranhas into the already-volatile ocean. When are you going to go back to earth and realize the 'fantastic' job you have done with the economy of this province and come to the conclusion that our industry is not broken?

"You were elected to provide economic stimulus to our province, not to rule or dictate how or what we have to do to regulate our industry. Sectoral bargaining is not the answer to the few minor problems we have with our industry; it will only increase the size of the piranha and reduce the fleet. We as an association have done a tremendous job creating certification and educational programs and have worked on solutions to the problem we face today. Do not regulate us with your labour friends who elected you, but instead give us the power necessary to regulate and enforce an industry we understand.

"In conclusion, take a good look out your window toward the ocean and see if some of my colleagues are still floating. If they are, release the fishermen to catch these sharks and piranhas. After all, our fishermen could use the badly-needed work."

A. Sanders: I look forward to having this amendment passed and to speaking further on Bill 26.

D. Symons: I too wish to rise and speak to the motion to refer the bill to a committee. You know, there are 75 members of this legislative chamber -- 75 people elected to represent the ridings from which they come. Really, the way this government behaves, there were 39 people elected, and the others don't count. When you look at the election campaign that we had, roughly 39 percent of the public out there voted for the NDP -- of those that voted. That means 61 percent did not vote for the NDP. In a sense, those who are in the opposition benches are representing those who did not support the NDP.

They do not have a mandate to make major changes to labour legislation or, for that matter, to any legislation in this province without at least consulting with the public. One way of doing this is to use. . . .

Interjections.

D. Symons: In spite of the kibitzing from the opposite benches there. . . . If we want to involve the public in some way so that they can have some input into this legislative chamber and so the opposition -- who were as much elected as the members of the government side -- can at least have opportunity to put some input into legislation, of all the bills we're dealing with this particular session, this is certainly one bill that should go to a legislative committee.

It was almost two weeks ago that I asked a question in this House dealing with this bill: "Why this bill now?" In spite of all the talk back and forth -- it's the only way they talk in this House; they don't get up and speak to their bill, or at least very few of them do -- they have not yet answered that question. They bring a bill here, and I ask a very simple question: "Why this bill now?"

With the economy sagging and some analysts predicting a recession, one must really ask: "Will this legislation be a positive or a negative incentive for capital investment and economic growth in British Columbia?" I think we have to look very carefully at that question, because that's the nub: "Are we dealing with a bill that is going to be a positive or a negative incentive on capital investment and economic growth and, following from that, on job creation in British Columbia?" If the answer to that question were positive, I would be standing here today supporting this bill. But no government member has really even attempted to argue that Bill 26 will be good for the economy. I haven't heard that from any of the members. The very few of them who got up to support their own bill have not addressed that particular issue: will this bill be good for the economy of British Columbia? Will this bill create jobs in British Columbia? Will this bill bring investment to British Columbia? Those questions have not been answered by this government. I think they're the most important questions that we should be asking. If the answer to those questions is negative. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: The Labour Minister says that it's a dumb question, that it's dumb to argue whether this bill will affect the economy of the province in a positive or negative way. He doesn't get it. He doesn't understand that what the government should be doing is looking after the economy of this province. But they don't understand that at all, and obviously the Minister of Labour of this province, who's brought before this House a bill that is going to hurt jobs in the province. . . . That's the Minister of Labour? We have a real problem if that's how the Minister of Labour feels.

To get back to my text here, if the effect of this bill will be negative, one would have to ask: "Why in the world would any sane and responsible government introduce such legislation, especially at this time?" We also have to ask: "Has the government done any studies to show how changing the Labour Code could affect the investment climate?" That question was asked of them, and we find that the answer is no, the government hasn't done any studies. The press asked that soon after they introduced the bill, and the answer from the minister was: "No, we didn't do that."

The expert advisers who put the bill together, Stephen Kelleher and Stan Lanyon, told the politicians that it was up to them to gauge whether the economy would absorb any changes. When they say "absorb any changes," there's the obvious inference that it's going to affect it in a negative way, in favour of the unions. They said in their report: "The recommendations are not based on the state of the economy at any particular point in time. Whether they [are to be] introduced and the timing of their introduction are ultimately questions for the government to decide."

[ Page 9876 ]

[11:15]

Interjections.

D. Symons: And I notice that the Minister of Labour is even agreeing with me at this point that this is well argued, and I must say that I appreciate his support for my position. I'm obviously moved by his support, in that I know that when it comes to the vote to refer this to a committee, he will obviously vote in favour of it if he is so moved by my arguments. I'm very happy of that.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Getting back to the Premier's comments, I really have to ask whether, if the government feels that the people's right to join or not join a union is not there in the province, this is the way to handle it. We have a Labour Relations Board, and people can apply for certification. You sign union cards. If you can take away the necessity for a secret ballot. . . . That's been taken away. All you have to do is sign up 55 percent of the people in a given business who want to join a union, and it's done. We don't have this situation in the province where people do not have the right to join a union. If they so wish, they can.

We have almost the reverse in this province, where people are required to form a union if they want to work. We have something called HCL, Highway Constructors Ltd., which is basically a union hiring hall for the construction of the Island highway and has now been imposed on other highway construction around the province. If you want to work on highway construction in this province, you must end up joining the union. That's not the right to join a union; that is now the compulsion to join a union. That's what this government has done. That's how much they've tipped the labour laws in the province.

In 1996 labour relations mediators Stephen Kelleher and Vince Ready wrote a report on the construction industry. These men are not B.C. Liberals by any stretch of the imagination. They're not seen to be pro-business in any way. Yet the conclusion they came up with was that sectoral bargaining should not be imposed on the construction industry or any other industry. Their exact words were: "One size does not fit all. In fact, the industry is moving in the opposite direction. Increasingly, contractors and unions are making contractual arrangements on a project-by-project basis." That was a direct quote.

Earlier this year another non-partisan committee reviewed the NDP's proposed changes to the Labour Code and said again that there should be no sectorial bargaining. Here again is a direct quote:

Hon. D. Lovick: It's sectoral bargaining.

D. Symons: Sectoral. I beg your pardon, hon. minister. "A sectoral bargaining model as envisioned in Bill 44" -- that's last year's NDP bill -- "does not provide solutions to the problems facing the industry." The government sort of says this is needed by the industry. But you know, people who are non-partisan have come out and said no, that is not the solution that's needed by the industry.

So one has to ask: what problem is the NDP government trying to fix? What so-called problem is the government trying to fix with a special sectoral bargaining section for construction? The problem is a political one. The legislation is not motivated by good public policy, but rather by insider politics between the Premier and his closest trade union allies in the building trades.

So anyway, the commercial and industrial sectors of the B.C. construction industry have thrived for years without any special legislation. If it's not broken, what is the government trying to fix? The building trade unions and the companies who certify them want special treatment. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, I will assure the minister that I write the speeches I give in this House, but I like to write them down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

D. Symons: I'm quite willing to wait till they behave themselves, hon. Speaker. We seem to be having a repetition of last night.

On the one hand, supporting this bill we have the Premier's close friend and supporter Mr. Ken Georgetti, head of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and as far I can determine, the only employer supporter we have is the CLRA, representing the union companies. Why are they supporting the legislation? It's basically self-interest on their part.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Ah, the one group of employers that already have a trade union movement there -- who are, so to speak, basically stuck with them, from their viewpoint -- is going to have to somehow deal with it, because they have a problem: they're not getting all the construction work. Either they want to unionize all the rest to put them in the same basket -- and that's their thought -- or the other option they were giving the government and asking the government for. . . . They refused to give it to them, so they get this bill instead. The other one the CLRA asked for was: "Let's have double-breasting. Allow us as a company to operate a union company and a non-union company." You know what this government said about that: "There's no way we'll allow that."

Now, the union members, mind you, can go to work at a non-union job if they don't happen to have one with a union employer. They can go elsewhere, but the employer can't do the same. Basically, for the CLRA, that's the only choice they had. Either you unionize them all, or you allow us to operate

[ Page 9877 ]

I think I've answered my own question as to why now. It has nothing to do with bettering the economy, nothing to do with creating jobs, nothing to do with fairness, but everything to do with doing a big favour for the union bosses.

The question was referral of Bill 26 to a committee. Why? Well, I think one thing is it would give those who were not consulted -- and I've talked to people in other industries who are involved with construction and things relating to construction who say they weren't consulted on this -- the opportunity to express their opinions, because they feel they are going to be affected by it. In spite of the assurances the minister gives, that's not the case.

Let's give the government time. If we go to a committee, it will also give government time to do the economic impact study I referred to earlier. Finally, it would give the government the chance to live up to at least one of the Premier's unkept promises. The unkept promise I'll refer to, if the minister doesn't mind me reading from the throne speech, is the one where the new Premier, on June 25, 1996, said, under the heading "New Role for MLAs": "The priorities I've outlined involve many challenges. British Columbians have sent a clear message that they expect the people they elect to work together to find solutions." How are they going to work together? Next page: "My government has listened" -- I find that hard to believe -- "and it intends to introduce a range of reforms to increase the involvement of every member of this Legislature and ensure they have a strong and effective voice on behalf of their constituents." Boy oh boy, was he laying it on thick.

"There will also be a new Crown corporations committee of the Legislature modelled on the Public Accounts Committee and chaired by a member of the opposition." Hon. Speaker, I'm a member of that committee; I've been named and I'm a member of it. How many times have we met since it's been formed? Well, you may remember the previous speaker from Vernon raising the number of legislative committees we have here and telling how many times they've met. I don't know if she mentioned this one. We haven't met yet, and I think that says something about the Premier's promises. He's even making this new Crown corporation. Besides the new one he brought in, we have a pile of other ones. I'm on another House committee, and it deals with transportation issues. How often have they met in the seven years that I've been in this Legislature? They've had eight opportunities to have meetings over those seven years, and we haven't met yet. So now would be one opportunity for the government to say, "We made a promise to use those legislative committees; let's refer Bill 26 to them," so that at least one of his promises can be kept.

Going back to the government's promises in their throne speech of '96, he said:

"These are only two of many measures that will enhance the effectiveness and influence of all members. British Columbians understand there are genuine differences of policy and philosophy between members of this Legislature." We're hearing those tonight, hon. Speaker. "But they also expect them to work together for the common good of this province, and my government is committed to helping to make that happen."

The government made some other comments, too, in that throne speech. He says: "You each have. . . ."

Interjections.

D. Symons: Obviously the member for Nanaimo has never heard of negative numbers, because that's what we're dealing with here: less than the sum of zero.

"You each have" -- in the throne speech again -- "the unique privilege of serving in the parliament that will set the direction for our province into the next century. . . ." In the last two years we've seen some direction they're setting for the next century. He goes on to say: ". . .that direction will be different from the one being pursued in much of the rest of Canada." Well, my goodness! If we're different from the rest of Canada, we're in trouble, because in the rest of Canada the economies are improving -- not so in British Columbia.

H. Giesbrecht: You should take this speech on the road.

D. Symons: The members want me to take the Speech from the Throne. . . . It's been put out publicly as the throne speech of this government. Their first throne speech after they were elected in 1996 says: ". . .a government committed as well to creating and protecting jobs." We're seeing jobs down. A government committed to "making our neighbourhoods safer." Do you feel any safer in the streets today? People in Victoria don't; people in Vancouver don't; people around this province don't. A government "ensuring a healthy environment for future generations." Well, we're leading on that. A government that's committed to "continuing the work of reducing government debt." Reducing government debt? This government? Have they been doing that in the last two years? I think the debt went up by another $1.25 billion this year. At least, that's the debt they're admitting to, but they talked about a government. . . .

Interjections.

D. Symons: I'm reading from the government's own document. It says here in black and white: ". . .continuing the work of reducing government debt." The government's now concerned that they're not doing that. It's their words, their promise -- not mine. They say: "These are the priorities of B.C.'s middle class working families, and they are working well for British Columbia." Well, they sure stopped working soon after these words were said. "Our province is leading Canada, with the country's best job creation record" -- that sure fell apart quickly, didn't it? -- "the strongest economy" -- that's gone too; we're the bottom of the heap now -- "the highest credit rating" -- whoops, we slipped on that one -- "the lowest debt" -- we might be lower, but we're going up and the others are going down -- "and the highest environmental rating," and we're managing to hold onto that by the skin of our teeth.

Interjections.

D. Symons: We will be if we go a little further down.

Hon. Speaker, listen to these next words: "It will be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row." I find it hard to actually read that one, but that's what they said. Can you believe that? "The second balanced budget." When they said those words, they knew it wasn't true, but they went ahead and said it anyway. They'd gone through an election with that promise, got re-elected on a promise that they knew wasn't true, but they put it in this throne speech as well as the one they did a few months earlier. Then they said: "Jobs will be up." They've gone down. "The debt will be down." It's gone up. Virtually everything they said has not come to fruition, and here we are. We're dealing with Bill 26, which is only going to compound the problem.

[ Page 9878 ]

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, members there don't understand that what I'm saying has to do with the motion -- it has to do with the fact that the economy of B.C. is in difficulty. Jobs are down; the debt is up. We have to get around that. We have to find some way of dealing with that issue, and this bill is not going to help it. We need to refer it to committee so we can discuss the issues and find out what we can bring before this House that will help the economy and job creation. This bill doesn't do it.

[11:30]

An Hon. Member: What's sectoral bargaining? Tell us.

D. Symons: Sectoral bargaining? It was in the bill last year. The minister wants to know what it means. It basically means that where you have a group of unions, there will be one agent bargaining for that group of unions, and you'll have a group of employers that employ those employees that belong to unions, and there will be one bargaining unit set up for that group of employers. They will choose, among the employers, people to work on the bargaining. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: No? I've got it all wrong? Well, I'm sure that the minister will explain when he gets to his feet and talks. He'll have his opportunity. We just have to read the beginning of the bill to discover what they mean by it. The minister, if he's not familiar with it, can read his own bill.

The Premier, however, indicated when he was asked about last year's Bill 44 -- which the government eventually had common sense enough to remove from the order paper. . . . But they reintroduced it in a truncated version this year. The Premier was asked: "Well, how about the things in Bill 44?" He basically indicated to the press that he hadn't given up on those portions that are no longer before the House, especially those that would help the unions get control of the contract-for-services sector, like security, food services and janitorial services. Notice: "help the unions get control of." Those things he'd like very much to see, he was telling the press at that time. He still felt there was a huge, gaping problem of contractual services, rights of workers and so forth. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: It's not a sin, but it does show the intent of the government. I think the problem here is that what they're trying to do is bring in legislation that will, more or less, enable unions to get control of various sectors without effectively giving the workers the opportunity of negotiating with their own employer. If you're a union organizer, you can hold up -- and the minister likes to make fun of it -- a contract and put it before a group of people and say: "Hey, all you do is sign this union card. All you do is sign this. . . ."

The Speaker: I beg your pardon. I recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I don't think we have a quorum at the moment.

The Speaker: That would seem to be the case.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it would seem that we have a quorum.

D. Symons: It's delightful to have a larger audience.

Hon. Speaker, if I can continue, this is only the beginning. Bill 44 will come back in bits and pieces. Each piece is innocuous, as the government claims that this particular bill is. Nevertheless, they'll achieve the same results, bit by bit, that were planned in Bill 44. A former NDP Attorney General said -- and this is before they formed government in 1991 -- that the aim of the NDP was to have 90 percent of the workforce unionized. Indeed, this is just one small step in that direction.

There are a lot of other people who share concerns. I think the big thing with this bill is the perception of the investment community and the people who can create jobs in this province. Peter Schultze, who runs a small construction business in Victoria, fears that his employees will unionize and that he will be forced to pay the same labour costs -- now, the government feels that's fair, but listen -- for small renovations as for industrial projects, because he does both. That's going to be reflected in the price for renovations for Mrs. Jones and for others, and I don't think Mrs. Jones and the other people who want small renovations to their places are going to be able to afford the industrial price he will now have to charge for all jobs they're working on. So he says it's not possible to pay employees 30 percent more for one job than it is for another when the same skills are involved. That's just one person who has some concerns about how this particular bill will be affecting him.

There is little doubt that the Labour Code changes presented in the legislation are bad for business, jobs and the economy of British Columbia. Any labour law amendments that favour unions and entrench archaic labour practices are going to be 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. I think therein is really the nub of the question that we must deal with.

I'd like to just quote a few people so that at least the hon. government members will know that it's not just me speaking. Indeed, I believe the thoughts that I have been expressing when we talk about investor confidence in this province and the perception of that are important. Here are some people who have said various things about it.

"British Columbia finds itself in troubled waters. Government policies have exacerbated B.C.'s decline in fortunes. Excessive taxation and an overburdensome regulatory regime have severely damaged business prospects. Business confidence has deteriorated sharply and has led to a concomitant sagging in business investment." That's a quote from the Investment Dealers Association of Canada's "Economic and Fiscal Outlook" for British Columbia from February of this year.

Jerry Lampert, president of the Business Council of B.C., said in their press release in April of this year:

[ Page 9879 ]

"British Columbia's disappointing investment performance points to fundamental problems in the province's economic and business climate. For the most part, these problems cannot be blamed on the current downturn in Asia" -- which is what this government would care to think. "Instead, they reflect the impact of government fiscal, tax, regulatory and labour policies, coupled with insufficient efforts to diversify British Columbia's economy."

"It is in British Columbia where things are the worst. . .government policies which investors see as favouring organized labour, combined with high tax rates and seemingly inept management of the province, have led investors to shut off the flow of new funds. Growth this year should be negative and, while there appears to be a change of heart by the government" -- you see that's not true; this was written before the bill came in -- "investors, because of a profound lack of credibility in the government, have adopted a wait-and-see-attitude."

A quote from the Wall Street Journal of June of this year: ". . .business people and others blame the government. The local business climate is 'a complete and utter disaster,' says Richard Groome, president of the brokerage firm Groome Capital Advisory Inc." He has moved his firm to Montreal and he adds: "Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws, I think its actions are window dressing."

Interjection.

D. Symons: I beg your pardon, hon. Speaker: I see my time has run out. I had quite a number of other quotes I would like to have made, but I would encourage the government to think twice about the bill and to go with us and refer it to committee.

The Speaker: I recognize now the hon. member for Okanagan East.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, a member has the floor.

J. Weisbeck: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to Bill 26. The amendment was moved by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. The amendment reads "that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology." I guess there's no doubt that referring this bill to a select standing committee would be a very efficient way of dealing with this very controversial bill and, I think, a very efficient way of getting some public input -- something that has obviously been lacking.

The government has had a number of committees that have been formed. There are about 15 select standing committees. Only four of those committees have actually met or are meeting currently.

Aboriginal Affairs is one of the more effective ones. It spent a great number of weeks travelling around this province, hearing the views of British Columbians about their concerns about the current treaty negotiations. I know that a number of people sat on that committee and thought it was a very worthwhile exercise.

The second committee -- Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations -- has never sat. I think the member for Okanagan-Vernon spoke about the various committees and when they'd met. It was very obvious that a number of them haven't met for a number of years. When you consider some of the issues that are out there right now, some of the concerns, it would certainly have been helpful to have been able to run some of these ideas through these committees. For example, another committee -- Education, Culture and Multiculturalism. . . . It would be a very opportune time at this point in time to deal with some of the very controversial issues that are out there.

Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology, of course. . . . This committee has been around, and what we're suggesting is that this committee now meet and deal with this particular issue, to give some more time to the public for some input.

Environment and Tourism hasn't met for quite a while. Finance and Government Services; Health and Social Services. . . . There's another issue here: our health services in this province are in disarray. We've tried a number of directions that have not worked. Here's an opportunity to vent some of these issues through a committee -- hopefully, a non-partisan committee, where both sides could have input and pick out the best ideas and come up with a solution.

Agriculture and Fisheries. . . . Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has met; Transportation, Municipal Affairs and Housing has not met; Women's Equality has not met.

Public Accounts. I have the good fortune to sit on that particular committee; I was just recently appointed to it. I find it's a very effective committee. Not only have I learned a great deal about how government works and how this province works, but I think that we've had some very good input from all members of that committee and have come up with some great solutions. Probably the most interesting one at this point in time, I think, on that particular committee -- which I find extremely interesting -- is the millennium problem, the year 2000 problem that we were all concerned about, and the impact that's going to have on this province if it isn't resolved. I think it's interesting to note that we are well on our way to being compliant -- at a huge cost, unfortunately. The latest estimate is that it's going to cost us $73 million to become compliant by the year 2000.

Another committee -- Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills -- is now meeting. I think we've spoken often about some of the reform that should happen in this House. I think that it would be very worthwhile, certainly, to come up with some sort of a parliamentary calendar.

Crown Corporations hasn't met for a great deal of time, nor has Legislative Initiatives met for quite a while. So you can see that what we're proposing here with this amendment certainly would have a great deal of merit.

[11:45]

An Hon. Member : Tell us: what is sectoral bargaining?

J. Weisbeck: That's a good question.

The amendments also provide for the automatic imposition of a master collective agreement on contractors newly

[ Page 9880 ]

Bill 26 was introduced on June 17. It's been exactly three weeks that the public has had access to the contents of this bill, and I've found that the response has been profound. It has especially shown the public concern for the impact of this legislation, and it further supports the need for more consultation. We attempted, with the amendment to hoist Bill 26 for six months, to have the time to do impact studies and to attempt to convince this government that it is having a negative effect on our economy. So referring this bill to a select standing committee would really be an extension of what has already been done. It would give this government more time to rethink this bill, to get more public input, and to give British Columbians an opportunity to respond and feel that they are a part of the government's decisions.

I'm especially supportive of this amendment referring this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. As the critic for science and technology, I'm very aware of the impact that any changes to the Labour Code would have on our economy. This sector, as you all know, is one of the fastest-growing sectors in our economy. It is a sector that is not reaching its full potential because of the economic climate of British Columbia.

Even though we brag about growing at 22 percent, we really are losing the race when you start comparing us to some of our neighbouring states. If you look at Washington, for example. . . . The total revenue in Washington for the high-tech industry is $41.8 billion, as compared to British Columbia, which is about $5.1 billion. Oregon is about $16 billion. We've had 22 percent growth, but Oregon has had 59 percent growth. Washington is around that same sort of number. They are basically reaching a level where they can maintain themselves. We in British Columbia have a long way to go to catch up. We're basically losing the race.

The high-tech industry requires highly skilled and trained individuals. This often means that going out of province to find people and resources is a requirement. There are a number of factors that individuals look for when we try to lure them here, and I think we all know that British Columbia is a wonderful place to live. We've got the climate, the amenities and the attractions. In fact, we're obviously considered one of the most desirable places in Canada to live, but the deterrents for most of these people are high taxes, overburdening government policies and economic uncertainty.

I received a letter from Ken Laloge. Mr. Laloge is a CA in Kelowna, and he makes a number of valid points. It certainly shows me that Bill 26 could use some more consultation by a committee. I just want to quote a couple of parts of this letter, because I think it's very applicable: ". . .efforts by our firm over the last year include promotions with a plastics manufacturer in Ohio, promotion with a fabricator in Washington State, promotion with a Japanese food distributor and promotion with an aircraft parts manufacturer based in Europe. . . ."

He says that we have several hurdles trying to attract these enterprises into our province. First is the top marginal tax rate, which for individuals means that these companies have trouble transferring senior management and technical staff to our province. We all know that the second phase of high-tech industries is the promotion stage and that the promotion stage requires some very skilled people. These are the people that are having difficulty moving to this province because of this tax regime.

Secondly, the cumulative effects of provincial deficits directly affects these decisions. If we start looking at our debt and the way this province is run, obviously people have a very difficult time trying to invest their hard-earned dollars in a province that's doing so poorly.

Thirdly, the reintroduction of the Labour Code changes proposed in Bill 26 is negative. They refer to the cost of the construction of a new plant, and the impact of their labour arrangements is important. So he concludes: "None of the proposals which we have attempted to promote expansion into British Columbia have resulted in jobs here, despite the other advantages of B.C. and a high level of interest initially raised by the prospective clients."

The Technology Industries Association has expressed its concerns. In their report card they talk about the role of government, and how it should create a climate and a framework where industry can flourish. It should display interest and leadership, it should be able to communicate with the public and it should encourage inward investment. They said:

"It means working with other governments to encourage the free flow of trade and ideas. Of equal importance, it should avoid doing things that inhibit the industry, classic examples in B.C. [are]. . .aspects of the labour standards act and maintaining a high-tax regime.

"The TIA further believes that government should avoid short-term interventionist activities, including artificial job programs or special taxpayer-support of initiatives that tend to distort the marketplace."

I was elected in 1996 to represent the people of Okanagan East here in the Legislature. Prior to that election, I took a poll in my riding, and it was very apparent that one of the biggest concerns of my constituents was jobs in this province. They, like everybody else, obviously were concerned about having enough money to pay their bills and about the young people in Okanagan East -- that they would have a future in the Okanagan. In the past so many of our young people have had to move out of the valley to find jobs elsewhere. They need investment in the valley, so that the economy will flourish.

This piece of legislation does the very thing that my constituents have feared: it drives investment out of B.C. My constituents want to be involved in this decision-making, and I think that could be accomplished by the implementation of a select standing committee to hear their concerns. NDP policy has made B.C. a province that businesses do not want to invest in, and the result has been a further loss of jobs and further uncertainty in British Columbia. This piece of legislation only make things worse.

I went to a breakfast meeting a couple of weeks ago and spoke to a gentleman there who was of German origin. He spoke about foreign investment. He spoke about the devaluation of the German currency as they move into the Eurodollars. I understand that right now there's a number of very nervous investors sitting in Germany with their German marks, looking to find a place for their mark -- billions of dollars. They've always felt Canada, and particularly British Columbia, to be a very investment-friendly province and country -- especially British Columbia, where we have a large

[ Page 9881 ]

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 -- last place in economic development -- and we are perceived as having the most hostile investment climate in Canada. We really have become the laughingstock of Canada.

This piece of legislation begs the question: why? At the height of all the concerns expressed by British Columbians, why would this government go ahead with Bill 26? Did they not receive enough letters from British Columbians, enough phone calls, enough concerns to make them understand how much British Columbians do not want this piece of legislation? I know that the Premier has received these letters, because I've got copies of them. I have received a number of letters, and these letters are showing the value, the number of jobs that are affected by this bill. For example, one business has $200,000 invested in this province and has 12 jobs -- this is Grate Trak Systems.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. No one can hear.

J. Weisbeck: This particular gentleman has $2 million invested in this province, with 15 jobs. . . . This gentleman has created six jobs. . .which doesn't really give a value. . . .

I received a letter from Brian Tostenson Construction. He expresses a concern about what's happening in Kelowna with his construction company, and he talks about 50 percent of his business being in a commercial sector as well. This is interesting, because there's a great number of mixed developments occurring, particularly in the city of Kelowna. Developers find that they can do commercial as well as residential development, and it works very well. He believes, too, that removal of the certification vote has already unbalanced the Labour Code. This is having a huge impact on his workers -- having to move out of the province -- and on their families. He's saying that to move. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order.

J. Weisbeck: He's asking that this government please pull this bill, because it's having a huge affect on his family and all the families of his workers.

The spillover of this affect has had a huge impact on the cost of residential housing. It affects the people who are the most vulnerable in the housing market, the first-time buyers. The first-time buyers are not the only ones affected; all levels of buyers are affected by the prices of homes. Certainly I have found that, speaking to some people at MacDonald Dettwiler, it affects their employability. The major problem they have in attracting employees to their companies is one of housing affordability. They attempt to hire individuals from all across North America, and they invite them into the most expensive housing markets in the country. So this obviously has a huge impact on the growth of this emerging industry as companies have a more difficult time attracting the person they need to grow their business.

There's been a concern expressed that members opposite have not got up and supported Bill 26. I'm not surprised. How could they support this bill? The members opposite represent the same population as all of us in this House, so how in good conscience could they defend this bill? This bill is bad legislation. This bill is bad for job creation. This bill is bad for the economy.

It was a sad day for all British Columbians three weeks ago when Bill 26 was introduced. It was a sad day, as the situation in this province got steadily worse and worse. Our greatest fears were realized today when the Toronto-Dominion Bank said that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year as well. This report confirms what people have been saying for months: B.C. is in a recession due to the economic mismanagement of this government. The TD Bank is forecasting zero percent growth this year, 0.5 percent growth next year and 1.5 percent in the year 2000. This is the worst forecast for any Canadian province. In addition, B.C. is the only province forecast to lose jobs in 1998.

[12:00]

I received a letter from the president of Kelowna Flightcraft. It was copied to me; it was sent to the Premier. I would just like to quote a number of things from that letter:

"Introduction of mandatory sectoral bargaining into B.C.'s private sector is simply not fair to small business. I understand that this measure is only being taken in the construction industry, but I am concerned that this legislation is precedent-setting. It is my understanding that organized labour wants to expand this type of bargaining to affect all industries throughout the province."

But we've heard that story before. The Premier never seems to follow any advice. We saw a meeting between Jack Munro and Jimmy Pattison. Jack Munro is well-respected on both sides of this House. He said that this is bad legislation: "Don't touch the Labour Code." And Jimmy Pattison as well -- we all know what a successful entrepreneur he is. I was excited when these two gentleman got together, that they

[ Page 9882 ]

The NDP never want to take responsibility for the economic climate in British Columbia, and we've heard all the excuses. In the forest industry, the weather is blamed for creating a downturn in revenues. The NDP has accused the opposition of saying the sky is falling. I'm sure that the Minister of Agriculture would have a great excuse as well -- something like: "I couldn't hear the motion because my stomach was growling." Well, the better explanation has got to be that the bottom is dropping out, and the NDP take full responsibility for a made-in-B.C. recession.

There was an interesting article by Jim Beattie in the Vancouver Sun on July 8. The articles states that the Minister of Labour said "the government's majority will eventually force the bill through in any case." Let's ram this legislation through. Let's not consult with the public; let's just ram it through. Let's not take it to the select standing committee; let's just push it on through. Don't consult the public. The minister goes on to say: "The minority must have its say, but ultimately the majority will have its way." Well, the NDP may have a slim majority in this House, but representing 39 percent of the population -- and probably a lot less since the last poll -- doesn't give them a mandate to go against the wishes of British Columbians, particularly when only 19 percent of the public supported this bill in a recent poll.

How can potential investors have any confidence in government when we have a Premier who is wandering around like a loose cannon, picking fights with everyone -- not constructively, but rather his only motive being to create photo ops and improve his rating in the polls? What is the Premier telling investors when he supports blockades and then offers taxpayers' dollars for the defence to make its point, losing hundreds of jobs in the tourist industry?

Employment is created by creating better goods at competitive prices. We need a political environment that has a strategic plan to run a successful economy.

In conclusion, I support this amendment. I think it should be taken to committee. It would give an opportunity for the people of this province to have some input into this terrible piece of legislation.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, it's midnight -- 12:07, the witching hour -- so we should be able to have an enjoyable time this evening. It's interesting that they talk about the easy life of an MLA. I started out at 4:30 this morning and have been going until midnight -- that's only 20 hours, so I've got a couple more hours before going around the clock. If you give me the opportunity, I'll be able to stretch it out that long.

It was interesting to speak tonight on this amendment that the discussion of the labour bill should be referred to a committee of the Legislature. Unlike some of our other members who were elected in '96 -- who have not had an opportunity to sit on a committee that actually did its work in the Legislature -- having been elected in '91 under the premiership of Mr. Harcourt, who promised that there would be committee work. . . . There actually was committee work during those years. But then we had an election, and we had a new Premier. Since we've come under the present Premier, we haven't had the committees functioning as they did before. That's unfortunate, because there are a number of issues that need to be dealt with -- not only the labour bill issue, but other issues.

It's very relevant tonight, when we're talking about the concerns of labour, that I bring before the House and report on a little bit of the meeting I was at last night. It had to do with the project that comes under the House Leader and Minister of Finance -- under B.C. Transit -- and that's the proposal for a rapid bus going down Granville Street from Richmond to downtown Vancouver. It was very interesting that of the 400 people who were there last evening -- a packed hall -- 104 people signed up to speak before the evening started, and another 30 people signed up during the evening. So there are two more nights of hearings after the one that went all last evening.

It was interesting for the residents who live in that area and the business persons who work in that area to ask, basically: "How is it that B.C. Transit has not done their homework in putting forth this transit system?" In December and January, when they first began to talk to the members of the community, they brought forth a plan that they said would provide efficient and effective bus service from Richmond to downtown Vancouver. But when they were asked about the sociological, environmental and economic studies, of course these studies didn't exist. Nobody has done these studies. They admitted in those first meetings that the studies had not been done and that they would go back and review the process.

I have a map of the changes that they wanted to make that took away the parking on Granville Street for the businesses, both in the north and the south ends, and provided for extra lanes, new stoplights and speed controls through the lights. As we went over the process, there was some concern that these were persons who might not understand the process. But in the middle of the presentation last night one of the bus drivers spoke, saying that he was there in three capacities: (1) he lived on Granville Street, at 16th and Granville; (2) he represented the people of the tower in which he lived; and (3) he was a spareboard bus driver who drove on Granville Street every day of the week. So he knew exactly what was taking place. The brief summary of the presentation that he made is that the system that was being proposed would not work.

This is the system which is the revised system, not the one that they presented initially in January, which was the bare-bones system that would make it effective to spend the money -- some $78,000 -- to put this bus through. When they brought the revised process, which was supposed to be even better and less damaging to the community, this bus driver -- who knew what he was talking about, because he drives the buses there every day -- said simply that it would not work.

Interjection.

V. Anderson: If you're a spare, you can be there every day, depending on how many hours you drive and on which day. The buses run every day of the week. In fact, there are 1,100 buses that go down that street every day, plus the 50,000-some cars, the airport buses and the taxis to the airport. This is just the beginning, as they make preparation. That's the kind of thing that should have gone to a committee of the Legislature. That's the kind of project that, had it gone to a committee of the Legislature, could have had environmental studies and the kind of homework done that people of all backgrounds could have been a part of.

It is interesting that this project, which runs down this highway -- which is supposed to be a residential and business street, and not a highway. . . . It's interesting that when Premier Harcourt was a young lawyer in Vancouver, one of the ways that he gained the favour and attention of the

[ Page 9883 ]

Interestingly enough, while the Granville people are saying, "Please, no more buses," the people on Cambie are saying with a large petition: "Please, may we have some buses so that we can have some transportation in our area?" So what I'm saying is. . . .

Interjections.

V. Anderson: Yes, I'm moving it along.

What I'm pointing out is the necessity for us to have the committee functioning. What we want is to take this labour bill to the committee. If it's taken to the committee, the homework can be done, the people can be interviewed, and the research can be undertaken -- not only here in the lower mainland but also right across the province.

I had the opportunity to sit on the First Citizens Fund Advisory Committee, a project that was referred to the Aboriginal Affairs Committee of the Legislature, in which both members of the government and of the Legislature met. We travelled the province. We heard what people said, pro and con, and we were able to bring back a report to the Legislature. It got the approval of the Legislature and became part of the policy which they are still undertaking, even as they discuss this today with the Minister of Labour, who's also the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. That's an indication that I've experienced in this Legislature, under the previous Premier, which proved that the committees would work. That's why I'm even more convinced that this needs to be referred to the committee.

[12:15]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, that discussion had to do with the Industrial Relations Reform Act, a forerunner of the actual bill that we're discussing tonight. That was on April 9, 1987. Also, on June 22, 1987, this same minister -- she is now a minister, of course, but then was in the opposition -- got up to speak and said:

"I'm pleased to rise on our second hoist motion. When I thought of what I was going to say on my hoist, it got a little frustrating; we've said it over and over, and we don't seem to get any response from members on the other side. It's very disheartening to put your best into something, to bring up arguments all the time and see the same blank looks on the other side, when you know that they're not paying any attention and they really don't care."

It's interesting that we should be debating this labour bill, because the remarks I quoted had to do with the Industrial Relations Reform Act, which the then opposition was very unhappy about. It was the infamous Bill 19. At that time I was just getting involved in politics and was part of the protest against Bill 19. In fact, it was partly Bill 19 that got me actively involved and led me to be part of the Legislature. I was not favouring Bill 19. I was arguing against it with the members of the NDP at that time.

Interjection.

V. Anderson: How did I end up over here? I ended up here because I want a party that will do what they say they'll do, not one that says it but doesn't follow through.

A couple more comments that were made in that industrial relations discussion in 1987 should be very familiar to some other members of this Legislature this evening:

"I'm surprised that the speakers from the other side have indeed discovered the truth of the old adage about brevity being the soul of wit. I fear, however, that it is simply because none of them feels confident to go on at great length in speaking against our amendment because perhaps after some sober reflection they recognize they are indeed on the wrong side intellectually, morally and economically."

V. Anderson: Of course, that is the present Minister of Labour, who does recognize his words.

An Hon. Member: Nobody else would use words like that.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

V. Anderson: You're right. It's strange when you put a mirror up in front of a person and they see what they have said, but they're no longer listening to it or seriously taking account of it once they have changed their seat. In 1987, in a comparable discussion on the Industrial Relations Reform Act, the very minister whom we're trying to persuade that this bill needs to go to a committee said exactly about that act what we're saying about this act. There was consternation in the community about that act, and there's consternation in the community about this act. It was on April 8, the next day. . . . Apparently he didn't get his message across. So the same speaker, the Minister of Labour, who, of course, was an opposition critic at that time presumably. . . .

Interjections.

V. Anderson: Yes, I'm delighted. He would like to hear his own words:

"We would like to work on the assumption that while, to be sure, it is government's right and job to govern, the government by definition, also consists of an opposition -- an opposition that ought to be consulted, and yes, perish the thought, even listened to sometimes. However, what has happened in this

[ Page 9884 ]

legislature thus far is that there has not been any evidence in fact, in substance, that this government is indeed prepared to do that listening."

Interjections.

V. Anderson: Yes, we should quote one more, because if we won't listen to the Minister for Children and Families and we won't listen to the Minister of Labour, perhaps we will have to go to a higher authority. I'm not sure how high an authority I should call on at this particular time. Let me quote. This is April 14, 1987, on the industrial relations bill:

"Clearly, I think, saner heads should prevail, and that we should take some time -- maybe not six months; the motion to hoist was defeated -- to put it to a parliamentary committee, to take it around the province, to debate it, to look at the ramifications."

Hon. D. Lovick: He knew that this debate would occur today, by God! He knew it.

V. Anderson: He knew, yes.

I affirm the reality of his voice and of his quote. So that there is no misunderstanding, I'll repeat it -- from the Premier of the province, on April 14, 1987, discussing the Industrial Relations Act, the forerunner to the present labour bill:

"Clearly, I think, saner heads should prevail, and that we should take some time -- maybe not six months; the motion to hoist was defeated -- to put it to a parliamentary committee, to take it around the province, to debate it, to look at the ramifications."

Perhaps there might be one more. . . . Coming back to the Children and Families minister, I quote again:

"I am amazed that the government is opposing this hoist amendment. One of the things that I heard from my constituents when I was first elected was that maybe there was going to be a change in the government, maybe we would see some cooperation, and maybe the Premier really meant what he was saying when he was talking about having some consultation, about being an open government available to the people."

I would remind those who are listening at this time of night -- and it's like an open-line show: you need to remind them periodically what we're talking about, because they come in partway through the discussion -- that we are talking about the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. We have been in second reading of this bill. As opposition, we voted against it on first reading; we voted against it in the hoist motion; we'll vote against it in this motion to refer. We've given every opportunity to the government to hear the rationale for sending it back for further study so that the community can support it.

What we're talking about is the construction industry. So that those who are listening out there can see the ramifications of the implication of this bill, I would remind them of the definition of the construction industry. We have some wisdom in the media listening as well tonight. I quote from the act:

" 'construction industry' means 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 but does not include those employers and employees engaged in

(a) delivering supplies and materials to a construction project, or

(b) routine maintenance work."

[12:30]

V. Anderson: My colleague says that's a pretty big list. When we wonder about the particular timing and rush of this government to bring the bill in one day and to start to debate it the next, it just seems strange. Would the rush have anything to do with the development of a new SkyTrain? That's going to be one of the most major construction undertakings in our period of office.

Hon. D. Lovick: What's the connection?

V. Anderson: Is that not a railway? Bridges, tunnels, dams, pipelines, canals, water and gas mains -- all of those -- and railways. That's the connection. The Minister of Labour wants to know what the connection is. The construction industry is all of these. The implications of this bill could be easily extended by this government to all of those areas, because within the act -- if it is ever passed -- there is permission for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations. And it can creep up into other works. It's wide-open. It's very easy for this government to extend it. So when we think of the major construction of SkyTrain, with all of these things put there, you begin to wonder why it's being rushed through at the present time. I think it's very interesting.

When we go back to the question of referring this back to a committee, there's a couple of pieces of correspondence that I'd like to highlight. One of these was written on October 5, 1992, just after this government had come into power. Let me quote:

"We are a mid-sized company operating out of Richmond, B.C. We ardently believe in harmony between management and staff. We believe that B.C. is on the verge of becoming a highly specialized manufacturer of fine finished products -- biomedicals, electronics and related concerns which require a skilled and educated labour force.

"We believe that we must think globally and not just [of] beautiful B.C. We believe that in order for B.C. to stay prosperous and beautiful, we must attract labour-intensive and environmentally friendly industries, not discourage them. We believe that a more restrictive [industrial relations act] in B.C. will stifle any advances which we have accomplished to date.

"Therefore we urge you to consider all of the above when dealing with the proposed change to the [industrial relations act]."

[ Page 9885 ]

Hon. Speaker, we need to be reminded that the housebuilding industry is going down very drastically in B.C. at this present moment. One of the commentators on our present situation in B.C. said that maybe Clark, the Premier, the former union organizer, feels the need to define himself this summer. Maybe he's desperate for something to take the heat off this government for its inept economic performance.

In May of this year, housing starts were 42 percent lower than the same month last year. This government prides itself on educational development, and it's interesting to note in the B.C. stats that B.C.'s full-time college enrolment rate is 7 percent. The national average was 10 percent. Our educational rate of full-time students is three points below the national average. It's also important to note that department store sales in British Columbia are 5 percent lower in May this year than they were last year. In order that we don't go further down, we must refer this to a committee for further study.

B. Penner: Let me dispense with any suspense and indicate to all those present and those joining us tonight live on television that I stand to support the amendment to refer Bill 26 to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology.

I'm one of the relatively new members of this House, and it wasn't that long ago that I heard this government claim that they were going to consult all MLAs on a regular basis on the functioning of government in British Columbia. Most British Columbians would expect that their elected representative, regardless of political affiliation, would have some say in what goes on in the Legislature.

Let me refer, if I may, briefly to the very first Speech from the Throne that I had an opportunity to listen to as an elected member of this Legislative Assembly. On page 17 of that Speech from the Throne, following the May 1996 provincial election, under the headline "A New Role for MLAs," this government said:

"The priorities I've outlined involve many challenges. British Columbians have sent a clear message that they expect the people they elect to work together to find solutions. My government has listened, and it intends to introduce a range of reforms to increase the involvement of every member of this Legislature and ensure that they have a strong and effective voice on behalf of their constituents.

"British Columbians understand that there are genuine differences of policy and philosophy between members of this Legislature. But they also expect them to work together for the common good of this province, and my government is committed to helping make that happen."

I agree with my colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara, who said that periodically it's important to remind people who may be watching what it is that we're debating here. Primarily we're discussing an amendment that would cause Bill 26 to be referred to an all-party committee for closer scrutiny. Such a committee would have the authority to call witnesses and ask experts what they think the impact of this bill would be on British Columbia.

In my view, Bill 26 is bad for business and bad for the economy of British Columbia. This bill 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 with their individual employer. It favours a one-size-fits-all solution in an industry which has become competitive by moving beyond sectoral bargaining. This law will turn back the clock and decrease the efficiencies gained by wall-to-wall unions.

In my view, Bill 26 is deliberately and dangerously ambiguous. If any residential construction project -- let's say a few townhouses or condominiums -- has a commercial component such as small restaurants, corner stores or offices on the ground level -- that project will fall under the master 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 will simply be introduced in stages, 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 to determine if that is in fact the case.

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. The provincial unemployment rate is hovering near 10 percent. That's virtually double the rate in Alberta and Washington State. Under the NDP, we have gone from having the fastest-growing economy in Canada to being dead-last.

In assessing whether or not this government will live up to its promise to actively involve MLAs in the business of government, as they outlined in the Speech from the Throne just over two years ago, I think we should assess whether they've lived up to other promises contained in that Speech from the Throne. Here's what the government had to say about provincial finances on page 5 of the Speech from the Throne: "People in B.C. are proud to live in a province with the lowest per capita debt in the country." That was then; this is now. "But they are still concerned about the level of debt held by the provincial government. My government is listening and acting on that concern. It will continue to work hard to reduce our province's debt."

Further on in that speech: "Working together, B.C. has made impressive fiscal progress. The budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two years, and includes a reduction in overall debt." That was what they said, and in fact that's what they campaigned on: two balanced budgets. But when the books were closed and the

[ Page 9886 ]

Referring to the budget documents tabled this year by the government, we find that for the 1995-96 fiscal year, at a time when the government was campaigning on a balanced budget, the debt of the province increased by $1.7 billion. The 1996-97 budget resulted in an increase in provincial debt of $500 million. So two promised balanced budgets resulted in a total increase in the provincial debt of $2.2 billion. That's a big whopper; that's a $2.2 billion whopper that this government made and deceived the people of British Columbia with.

Perhaps that's why we shouldn't be surprised that this government may not support the amendment to refer Bill 26 to a committee to involve all MLAs in this Legislature in an active debate. Two years ago, the government promised that they would involve all MLAs in meaningful work. But since then, like other things, they've broken their promise. So those two balanced budgets that they campaigned on, which they spoke about in the Speech from the Throne two years ago, resulted in an increase of $2.2 billion in the provincial debt.

This year's budget -- tabled about two months ago now, or just a bit more than that -- according to the government's own figures will result in a total increase of $949 million to the provincial debt. So over the last three years, British Columbians have sunk a further $3.1 billion in the hole thanks to this NDP government -- so much for reducing the provincial debt, as the NDP promised to do in the Speech from the Throne two years ago.

[12:45]

"The 1997-98 report highlights good news for Albertans. More Albertans are working than ever before. Alberta's economy is leading the country in growth." Remember, it used to be British Columbia that was leading growth in economic activity in Canada, and now we're dead-last. "[Alberta's] net debt is dropping dramatically, and this year, we've made the biggest ever payment against our debt. At the same time, targeted reinvestments in health, education and infrastructure are having a positive impact on those priority areas. Highlights of the financial results for 1997-98 include. . .a record payment of $2.6 billion against Alberta's net debt."

Because they have paid down their debt, Alberta has saved $146 million in interest costs in 1997-98 alone. Think what you could do with $146 million. That could replace a lot of portable classrooms. That could provide a lot of services in hospitals. That could improve a lot of roadways in British Columbia. That is the benefit of paying down your debt and paying yourself the interest, rather than paying banks and other lending institutions.

It's interesting to note that overall spending in Alberta increased, but was focused on priority areas. They're living within a financial plan. Even though Alberta lowered its personal income tax rate, revenue for personal income taxes increased by over 12 percent in the fiscal year 1997-98. They have learned that by reducing the tax burden, they can actually generate more revenues to fund important programs like health care, education and infrastructure projects. In British Columbia the NDP thinks the answer is to constantly raise taxes. The result is that our economy is suffering, and those key priorities of health care and education aren't receiving the attention they deserve.

Altogether, according to the press release from the Alberta Treasury Department, 44,200 jobs were created in Alberta in 1997. If you compare that to B.C., we actually lost jobs between January 1997 and January 1998. We were the only province in Canada last year that actually lost jobs. Even Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland created more jobs than B.C., and as I said, Alberta created 44,200 jobs. That's a big reason, by the way, why personal income tax revenue in Alberta increased by over 12 percent, even though the actual individual tax rates were decreased.

In Alberta, corporate income tax revenues increased by over 31 percent in 1997-98 and are now nearly three times higher than they were in 1992-93. During the same period of time, the tax rates charged against individual companies has gone down, yet total revenue, because of an increase in economic activity, has increased by over 31 percent.

There is an economic lesson for this government in the province of Alberta, if they're willing to take a look at it. The $2.6 billion payment that Alberta made against their total accumulated debt this year follows a $2.2 billion payment last year. In that same period of time, B.C.'s debt has gone up by close to $3 billion. The total difference is $5 billion, when you compare the two provinces. One province's financial position is improving, and ours is going down, thanks to the policies of the NDP government. Bill 26 will do nothing to reverse that trend.

When I was giving a speech not long ago about the impacts of Bill 26, the Minister of Labour responded by saying: "Well, Bill 26 isn't intended to create more jobs or to stimulate the economy." On that I agree. I don't believe it will, nor do most British Columbians. The track record of this NDP government is more and more regulation that hurts investment and drives away jobs from British Columbia.

It's amazing what you can do when you have more revenues coming into your coffers. For example, because Alberta has seen a 31 percent increase in corporate income tax revenue and a greater than 12 percent increase in personal income tax revenues, they've been able to increase spending on certain key priorities.

Prior to being elected here, I practised law in Chilliwack and primarily assisted those who couldn't afford to hire their own lawyer. That's why I was interested to see that according to B.C. Stats dated June 26, 1998, legal aid expenditures in the province of British Columbia declined by 7 percent in 1996-97. In contrast, the province of Alberta increased legal aid expenditures by 15 percent. Talk about a difference. That's what you can do when you manage your finances effectively, pay down the debt so you save money that would otherwise be spent on interest payments. You can reinvest the money that would otherwise be spent on interest on important social programs.

In British Columbia, far too many single mothers are unable to collect the child support payments that are owed to them because of cutbacks in legal aid services in British Columbia. The statistics from B.C. Stats confirm that. In

[ Page 9887 ]

Again, this government needs to take a remedial course in economics 101. The lessons are all around us if we only have eyes to see. This government has outdated, 1950s socialist blinkers on and cannot see, because they refuse to see.

We got some more news today about the British Columbia economy, which was not very positive. I'm referring to a report from the Toronto-Dominion Bank, which was released yesterday morning, on July 9. According to the Toronto-Dominion Bank, B.C. is in a recession due to the economic mismanagement of the NDP. The TD Bank has said that B.C.'s economy will be the worst in Canada this year and for the next two years after that. The TD Bank is forecasting zero percent economic growth this year, only 0.5 percent next year and 1.5 percent growth in the year 2000.

This is by far the worst forecast for any Canadian province, bar none. In addition, B.C. is the only province forecast to lose jobs in 1998. Again, as I indicated recently, last year B.C. was the only province in Canada to lose jobs. It looks like for two years in a row, B.C. will lose jobs while the rest of Canada is creating jobs.

Since 1991, the NDP socialist policies have taken B.C. from being number one in economic growth to being dead-last. At a time when the economies of other provinces are growing and creating jobs, the NDP has succeeded in putting B.C.'s economy on life support and is throwing families out of work.

In light of that, we have to ask ourselves why the government is intent on bringing in Bill 26 at this time? I think it would be helpful to have Bill 26 referred to a standing committee that can examine the impact this bill will have on B.C.'s faltering economy. We could perhaps call experts from the Toronto-Dominion Bank to give us more insight into why they predict such negative economic conditions for British Columbia in the years to come.

I've got some more details from the report the TD Bank released yesterday morning, and I'll quote from it: ". . .the Canadian economy will expand at a still-robust rate of 3.3 percent this year, before slowing to about 2.0-2.5 percent per year over the next two years. . . . Canada's job situation has shown a dramatic improvement, with more than half a million jobs added in the last two years alone." In contrast, the same report says that B.C. will lose jobs, while the rest of Canada is gaining jobs.

This is what they had to say specifically about British Columbia:

"Although the forecast calls for no growth in 1998, it is more likely that the B.C. economy will actually contract this year. In recent months, merchandise exports, manufacturing shipments and retail sales in the province have fallen below year-earlier levels, and job growth in the province has stalled. The B.C. economy is expected to remain in the doldrums over the next two or three years, and the unemployment rate will remain relatively high."

Bill 26 will only assist in our downward spiral. I think we need to call this committee to work, put Bill 26 before it and have a close examination of the impact this bill will have on B.C.'s already weakening economic position. I happened to be glancing through the Globe and Mail earlier -- yesterday, July 9; it's now July 10 -- and I came across the following article on page B10, headlined "Labour Shortage Hits U.S. Companies: Finding Qualified Workers Much More Difficult, Executives Say." The article goes on to describe that due to rapid job growth in the United States, there aren't enough workers to fill all the jobs that are available to them. The article refers to a survey that was conducted of 476 senior executives in the United States. According to the executives, they anticipated an average wage increase of 4.2 percent over the next year. That's what they expect to see in terms of increased wages for their employees. The reason for that goes back to basic economics: supply and demand. The demand for labour in the United States is growing so quickly that those employers wanting to hire workers have to pay a higher salary in order to attract those people.

In contrast, in British Columbia we're seeing the opposite thing happen. As our unemployment rate rises due to socialist, outmoded, 1950s-style NDP policies, the demand for labour is decreasing. Our unemployment rate is nearing 10 percent, and incomes in British Columbia are dropping. According to B.C. Stats dated June 26, 1998, average weekly earnings in British Columbia dipped 0.2 percent in March. In contrast, Alberta's average earnings rose 0.7 percent, surpassing those in B.C. Workers in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Ontario continue to have the highest weekly earnings in the country. Again, it's fundamental, first-year university economics: supply and demand. The demand for labour in British Columbia is dropping as employers leave the province due to the policies of the NDP. That leaves workers without as many opportunities to pursue in terms of finding employment. What does employment mean? It means an opportunity to provide not only for yourself but also for your family and your loved ones.

[1:00]

Referring to B.C. Stats "Infoline" from June 26, 1998, I saw an even more shocking report. In British Columbia income has dropped from $42,000 on average to $37,700 since the late 1980s. This is essentially due to the effect of increased taxes and government fees. Average incomes in Canada over the same period did decline but not as quickly or by as great an amount as in British Columbia. In Canada as a whole there

[ Page 9888 ]

What a difference! And what government is responsible for that? What government has been in charge in British Columbia? It's the NDP government, the same NDP government that wants to bring in Bill 26 to further dampen economic activity in British Columbia. I think it's instructive to see what people in British Columbia are saying about Bill 26, aside from us here in the Legislature. Yesterday I received on my desk a newsletter from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. This is not a strictly British Columbia publication, but rather is distributed across western Canada. On the back page of that publication is a section entitled "Our Membership Speaks Up." There are short letters from members of the coalition for small business right across western Canada. I found it interesting to see what people from other parts of western Canada were talking about.

Here's what somebody from Alberta, a person who works for Western Star Trucks Ltd., said: "On the subject of the shortages of skilled tradespeople in Alberta, we need additional assistance." Well, what are they saying in British Columbia? "Cut taxes, reduce the size of government and civil service, stay out of business, attract foreign investment and encourage new business startups" -- that from a gentleman by the name of John Swan, Brookdale International Systems, Vancouver.

From Frank Conci Jr., of AC Motor Electric Ltd. in Penticton, there's the following comment: "Elected officials have a moral and ethical duty to represent the good of all, not just party supporters. Canada will continue to languish and Canadians suffer until these people become true public servants." I think that's a very accurate assessment of why the NDP is pushing Bill 26. It's to reward certain key union supporters. It's not to help the majority of British Columbians.

The following comment comes from Ken Hobbs of Fred Surridge Ltd., Parksville: "Governments at all levels need to place a very large importance on public opinion through open discussion, committees and referendum where necessary for important issues. Governments, by and large, have forgotten who they work for." Well, I agree that this government has forgotten who they work for, and I agree with Mr. Hobbs's suggestion that we should open up the discussion, particularly on Bill 26, through a committee process. That's why I support an amendment to move this bill from these cloistered halls to a committee, where we can invite British Columbians to come before us and offer expert testimony about the likely economic impact of Bill 26.

Finally one last comment. Don Holmes, from People's Drug Mart in Creston, writes: "Restrictive labour legislation has harmed the B.C. economy and hurt employment. Changes that consider the effect on small business will help both problems." Tell me what Bill 26 will do to answer the concern of Mr. Holmes. Nothing. That's why I support this amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your time is up.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased this evening -- or this morning, actually, and good morning, everyone -- to enter into the debate with regards to referring Bill 26 to a committee of the Legislature. Tonight I want to just canvass basically some points and discussion relative to why we should do this. I also want to deal with not the vociferous side of this discussion but rather with the human side. I want to go back, first of all, to touch base on the comments last night from the member for Victoria-Hillside, particularly with regards to the letter he read out.

I wanted to do this because I wanted to tell the member that those kinds of remarks that were made in the letter that he received from the individual. . . . Some of those remarks are offensive to anyone, and some of those remarks are offensive to anybody that knows how to run a business or anybody that knows balance in any human relationship between people. And I think that we have to understand. . . . We have to take the time to understand that. . . . What we have to be careful with here is not to go to the point of deciding on one side of an issue or another -- relative to a union or non-union company versus a labour relationship -- that we are going to single out, by virtue of the goods and the bads on both sides of the discussion, that all of one sector is good or all of one sector is bad.

We, as legislators, should know that we do not live in a perfect human society. In a perfect human society everyone would do exactly as we thought they should. But in order to understand "good," sometimes you have to see "bad." And sometimes in order to see how a badly run company can be, you have to see how a good company can be. I think the first thing we should understand is that there are many long standing, working relationships within business and labour in this province -- in both the union and non-union sector -- that have been successful for the families, the workers and for the owners involved. I do not, any more than the member for Victoria-Hillside, cotton to anyone that thinks that that imbalance should be played with or that somebody should insult us all by having any ignorance with regards to this issue. So I applauded him for bringing that to our attention last night, but I caution that we as a legislature and we as legislators must remember that, on the balance, not all are bad and not all are good.

When it comes to referring this particular piece of legislation to a committee of the Legislature, I want to go back to my discussions that I've had with the unionized sector of labour in the craft union and in other areas of the construction industry. The reason I want to do that is I want us to understand that there's a reason that we as an opposition want to refer this particular piece of legislation to a committee.

The reason we want to refer the legislation to a committee is because the correspondence we are receiving directly from the unionized sector has told us that there are a number of issues out there relative to training, performance and inspection -- which goes back, possibly, to the shutting down of the building standards branch by this government and some of the other changes we've made to the Building Code. They tell me that there are legitimate companies complying with legislation and some that aren't, on both sides of the issue. They tell me that we have to deal with how we can have enforcement of labour relations and labour standards in the province. They tell me that we have to have quality control. It is important that quality control is in a position where the tradesman is working in a safe environment and that the environment they're working in is such that they are also being inspected at a level that their work is of high quality. They tell me that they will sit down and discuss with you a number of issues relative to their industry.

I have received letter upon letter from different craft unions and organizations in the province. In not one paragraph in one letter that I have received from any one of these organizations at any time in the last six months has one of them referred to the need for sectoral bargaining in any sector

[ Page 9889 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

They'd also like to see. . . . These are the issues coming to us, and they're not. . . . These are real people that are working in the industry, and they're saying: "Forget this sectoral bargaining stuff, but give us standards of practice, and give us some way of enforcing it. And let's look at my personal needs as a member of the organization, whether it be a union or non-union."

In the union sector they're saying that what they'd like to see -- this is what you get from them -- is better pension reporting. They would like to know where their pension's being invested. They would like to know whether it's being held in Canada or in the United States. They would like to see some quarterly reporting on where their pension is, how it's performing and what they can expect to retire on. They'd like to see that, and they don't feel they're getting that information. Now, it's not me saying they're not getting that information; these are members of craft unions and other unions in the province saying they would like this information.

If we're doing labour legislation, and we're concerned about sectoral bargaining to try and increase the level of unionization -- this is what it would accomplish in the ICI sector -- maybe we should make sure that the membership are getting what they're looking for from their organization or assist them when they're asking these questions. I found it interesting, because their issue was one of personal needs: "I want to know where my money is. I want to know what it's being invested in. And I'd like to know whether the benefit package I'm getting with my long-term and my short-term disability, what I get for dental for my family and what have you, is competitive in price and quality with other packages in the industry. And I'd like to see this done every two to three years." Now, that's pretty well standard practice in industry; it is done every two to three years. But it is important that we understand what their issues are.

[1:15]

It's interesting, because they recognize that at the same time that this is taking place, there has to be some cost-benefit or some analysis of what it is that we are trying to accomplish here. They themselves, the rank-and-file people that I've met from both sides of the industry, don't understand the need for the legislation. What they do understand is that there's a lack of investment, progress and excitement in their industry today and that a lot of them aren't working and are collecting unemployment insurance. They'd like to get back to work, and they'd like to see the climate change so that that could be accomplished.

Having talked to those sectors and those people that are affected by this, the people that would work in the industry, in the unionized sector, and knowing full well -- getting back to the issue from last night in the letter -- that there are some very well run companies on both sides of the issue, I think it's important that we understand what we're dealing with here. We're debating this legislation because the government has ignored the job creators in British Columbia. Now, that's a pretty pat statement. But the interesting thing is that if you go out and talk to the people who work in the industry -- the 27 percent of the industry that is presently unionized and the 69 percent of the industry that is presently non-unionized -- they don't feel that they've been consulted either. And they're the people who work in the jobs that are created by the job creators. They all tell me that the labour climate in this province has been exceptionally good for a number of years, and they don't understand why anybody would want to change the Labour Code. They say: "Leave the Labour Code alone."

Why wouldn't we listen to the unionized worker, the companies and the investors, who are all saying: "Leave it alone. There are other things that are issues to us -- the things that affect our families, like our pensions and our benefits and where our money is being invested by our local, national or international union office. We would like to know those things." If you're going to deal with changes to the Labour Code, why don't you step up to the plate and really stand up for workers in the province and give them what they're looking for? Give them changes to the Labour Code that bring forward some mandatory reporting of pension investments and mandatory usage relative to how benefit programs are administered and priced, so that the workers in the field feel that they are getting what they are paying for. I think that's important.

The other thing is, if they're telling us not to mess with the Labour Code, then let's not do it. If we're going to do it, let's take it to a committee of the Legislature. Let's go out and listen to the workers of British Columbia. Let's listen to the unionized workers, like the ones whose job sites I've been on and who I've spoken to, who have literally told me: "Listen, there are other issues to me. It's not sectoral bargaining to me; it's how I can do my job and how I can do it well."

The job creators are telling me that we are letting them down. There are some very good people who own companies in this province, and whether they have unionized or non-unionized workers is not the issue here. There are good companies and there are bad companies, but there are more good companies than there are bad. I'm familiar with a large com-

[ Page 9890 ]

What we have to understand, though, is that we have a piece of legislation here that is going to hurt those people. It hurts those people, and it hurts them more than anybody else. It doesn't hurt the companies, because companies and money are liquid. What this government has to understand is that investment and business are fluid. They go where they can be successful.

Last night when I was speaking I mentioned that in my constituency, through people that I've contacted, I was aware of $100 million in commercial investment that was not going to be developed in this province as a result of Bill 26. I personally know of that. As a result of those comments and from speaking to people today, I now know of another $25 million in commercial investment that will not go forward as a result of Bill 26. That's $125 million in investment that could have come into this province that will go elsewhere. This isn't an issue of province against province; it's not an issue of province against country or country against country. It is an issue about the fact that money and investment are fluid in an international marketplace, and they do not go where the marketplace does not welcome them.

One of the people that I know is an investor in this province and has been for the last 20 years -- and has built millions upon millions of dollars worth of construction -- and he has left the province now. He basically told me: "I'm in San Diego, I'm in Texas, and I'm not coming back here until you guys in this province get your act together." Now, when he tells me that I go: "This is wrong." I don't feel for me as an opposition member when I hear that; I don't feel for the government when I hear that. I feel for the people of this province. When somebody tells me that they're leaving the province to invest and do business elsewhere because of the economic climate here, because of the red tape and regulation here, because of the way we do business, because of the high tax levels that we have, it bothers me. I know that every dollar that leaves takes jobs with it. The people who are hurt are the workers of the province, the people who want jobs for their children, the people who want a future for their families. That's who's hurt by the loss of investment.

In February, I was down in the States, in Palm Springs, and I went to visit an old friend of mine who lives in the U.S. and is an international investor. They own businesses all over the world. I was at a Sunday brunch with him, and it was obvious in the place where we were having brunch that there was a large amount of investment. We sat around having a chat with a few tables around us. I happened to say to him: "Well, what are you doing in British Columbia?" And they said: "Absolutely nothing." They have money and jobs and projects going all over North America but not in British Columbia. I said: "Why not?" They said: "Taxation and overregulation and your regime of government there does not welcome investment, and we will leave our money or move our money elsewhere until such time as that changes."

That has changed in other provinces in this country, whether it be a government of a Conservative, social democrat or New Democrat nature. That has changed in other jurisdictions for the better, to attract investment back into their provinces. Unfortunately, we haven't had the temerity to do that here. All we can do is play around the edges, and we just don't pay attention to the things that could bring this forward and make this work. That's why you've got to take legislation like this to a committee of the Legislature. You should even go beyond this; you should go beyond the fact of taking one piece of legislation to a committee. You should have a committee of the Legislature that looks at red tape and regulation and its cost-benefit analysis for government and the people of British Columbia and the economy, prior to even letting it get to the floor of the Legislature. Frankly, if you don't do that, what you bring in is ad hoc pieces of legislation that create difficulties within pieces of a puzzle, to the point that we're so confused and so inept in our ability to be successful that we end up not accomplishing anything.

We live in an economy that's declining. We know that capital spending is declining in our province. We also know that's only happening in two other provinces in Canada. We've been told, and we know, that B.C.'s tax and labour laws don't make investors around the globe want to invest here. If we know that, it's our responsibility to do something about it. Again, that investment and that relationship with the world economy is our responsibility, and it's our responsibility because of the people of this province. It still comes down to whether or not they have jobs and whether they can feed their families, pay their mortgages, make their car payments and have a lifestyle that we, as people of this province and legislators, have a responsibility to work night and day to provide for them. That's our responsibility.

The sad thing is that all I hear about is companies leaving the province. All I hear about is losses to the province. I know that when we get into discussions and throw statistics around in this House about other provinces. . . . I don't care about how many jobs are being created in other provinces, because those are not jobs created in our province. What I do care about is the loss of 19,000 jobs in the first half of this year in British Columbia. I care about the fact that in this province we have lost 48,000 jobs in the construction sector since 1993. I care about that because those are real figures that affect real people in only one place that I have concern with as a legislator, and that's British Columbia. The rest of the comparisons don't matter. Just remember that the true comparison is simply what is happening here, and what's happening here is we have an economy in crisis. We have people out of work. All we have to do is travel through the ridings around this province, and we'll find out pure and simple that we have difficulties in this economy, and we have difficulties with jobs for people. If we're bringing legislation into this House that's going to affect the opportunity to create jobs or investment in this province, then we'd better refer it to a committee to make sure we're making the right decision.

If the committees of this Legislature worked, we would also have some other discussions taking place relative to how and why and relative to the issues that we should be facing as a province. If we had the Education Committee meeting right now, we would actually have the opportunity, with the education bill that's going to come before the House, to not do what we've had to do for the last three weeks with regard to labour legislation. We do have a piece of legislation coming before the

[ Page 9891 ]

The other side of the Education Committee and one of the scariest things, because these are our future workers and their future lives -- again, whether affected by labour legislation through loss of investment or not -- is the university students in this province. In 1977, 1 percent of personal bankruptcies in this country had student loans attached to them. In 1996, 33 percent of personal bankruptcies in this country had student loans attached to them. Our education system at the post-secondary level is costing our students to an extraordinary level, to the point where we're bringing them out of university so far in debt, that they have difficulty getting their feet on the ground. Then we don't have the jobs for them because of what's happening in our economic climate.

[1:30]

Bill 26 is one of those prime examples that we have before us. The minister himself has admitted that the economic studies related to this legislation have not been done. The impact that this could have on investment is not clear. So if we have that situation occurring, why would we bring it to the Legislature? Why would we bring it to the floor, particularly when we have a high unemployment rate and an economy that is clearly in crisis? We've just had a downgrade in housing starts from 28,000 to 22,000, which tells us that we'll lose another 17,000 jobs in the construction sector this year. Why would we do that? Why would this government not do an impact study on this proposed legislation and regulations and bring it to the House so that we could discuss it to come up with the proper solutions for it after it went to a committee of the Legislature?

The thing that we have to remember here -- and we hear it all the time in the rhetorical comments in the House -- is that the job creators, the people that take the risk, the people that attract the investment to create the jobs in this province, are not bad people. They're the people that create the engine that gets the economy moving. Without a moving economy, it doesn't matter what you're doing in labour relations, it doesn't matter what you're doing in labour law. If nobody's working, then you have nothing but a situation that just gets worse.

The social impact on those people, their self-confidence and their personal lives is immeasurable. There's no way you could measure that against whether or not you could sit back, grin and laugh about the fact that a piece of legislation like Bill 26, even though it's going to lose jobs in the province, is so important to you. If you really saw through it, you would see that what we have to do is refer this to a committee and look at our labour standards. If the union and non-union members of companies, companies and investors are telling me that labour relations are working well in this province. . . .

An Hon. Member: You're making it up.

R. Coleman: If I was making this up, hon. member, I wouldn't be saying it. You know that. Okay?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. The member continues.

R. Coleman: I have spoken to the people that are affected. I've talked to them at length. Frankly, right now I will tell you that I do not think that it is the position of a member catcalling in this House to question my integrity or my honesty relative to what I'm saying. I do believe that, as an hon. member, I would not stand here and make these comments if I had not made the calls and talked to the people that I've spoken about.

Now, if we could look at this for a second. . . . We have to look at it, and the government has to look at it, because you have to remember what you've done. Before the NDP came to power in 1991, we had the number one economic growth in the country. Our per-capita growth is now one of the worst in the country. Our own growth in the upcoming level is going to get worse. Our personal income has declined by 1.9 percent in 1996 and by 2.3 percent in 1997.

All you're doing by bringing in legislation that hurts economic investment in this province is hurting yourselves, your own constituents and your friends. That's who you're hurting. Without work, it makes no difference whatsoever to any of them. If you chase that investment away and you don't heed the international publications that tell you you're chasing that investment away, all you're doing is not performing the job you were elected to do, and that's to represent all people in the province of British Columbia to the best of your ability, to ensure that there's a future for British Columbians.

It's important that you realize that destructive legislation should go through a process that vets itself at a level where we know how it's going to impact on our economy, on investments and on jobs. The union sector, the non-union sector and the investment sector are all saying one thing. They want a climate where they can create jobs. They want a climate where they can work on jobs. They want that from us; they don't want a rhetorical attitude. They want balance, fairness, sympathy and compassion. They want us, as legislators, to do our jobs. We could do our jobs by referring this piece of legislation and future pieces of legislation that will hurt our economy to a select standing committee of this Legislature instead of foisting it on the public and affecting investment in this province and affecting the most important asset that we have: our people and their jobs.

M. de Jong: I think we're rapidly coming to one of those points in this lengthy, informative debate where we will again have an opportunity to demonstrate to those British Columbians who I know are following this matter with keen interest where we stand with respect to the question of the economy and fostering economic development in this province, and of job creation attracting investment. One of those defining moments is fast upon us.

[ Page 9892 ]

Hon. A. Petter: An astrological point.

M. de Jong: An astrological point, says the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, amongst other assorted titles. Given the hour, I note that it was actually yesterday, in 1955, that Bill Haley and the Comets released the single "Rock Around The Clock." Ironically, it was on this very day in 1964, July 10, that the Beatles premiered the song and the film "A Hard Day's Night."

It is 1:40 a.m., July 10, 1998, and I'm tired. I admit that. I'm tired that the debate has gone on at length. The opposition has endeavoured the best it can, over the first half of this debate regarding Bill 26, to make some points about why it represents a piece of legislation that will have a negative impact on British Columbians and the British Columbia economy. I admit I'm tired.

I'm tired of a government that seems intent upon pursuing a strategy -- to the extent that you can call it a strategy -- and an economic plan that have already condemned this province and the people who live in it to ruin. It has condemned the people of this province to seek their dreams and their futures elsewhere. Hon. members of the government benches laugh and chuckle and mock, and yet to this point I have not heard one of them provide an answer to the fact that people are leaving this province.

An Hon. Member: No, they're not.

M. de Jong: The member for Yale-Lillooet says: "No, they're not." They're leaving his community. He goes back to Merritt on the weekend. He sees the boarded-up businesses. He sees the vacancy signs. He sees the. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The member says things are booming in Merritt. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand here today and echo what the minister, the member for Yale-Lillooet, is saying. Things aren't booming in Merritt. I think the people who are out of work in that community listen to him and think how contemptible it is to say that things are booming when more and more of the people in his community -- in Merritt, Lillooet, the Nicola Valley -- are out of work. But I digress.

Interjections.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, it was such a tranquil chamber when I arrived.

I am tired of a government that buries its head in the sand and ignores announcements like the one we saw today from the Toronto-Dominion Bank that says British Columbia will have the worst economic performance of the ten provinces in this country. Not one of the members opposite deigns or dares to stand up and refute those reports and answer the challenges and the charges of this official opposition that say: "You have done enough damage; do no more." Their answer to those charges is: "If we ignore them, perhaps they will go away." But they won't. They won't go away, because the statistics speak for themselves, and statistics are one thing, but the human misery that they represent is quite another.

I don't make any bones about the fact that I am tired of the fact that the government, cabinet and the Government House Leader have mismanaged the affairs of this House over the past four months to a point where we could be debating some of the other important legislation that remains on the order paper, but here we are. Here we are, trying to undo the damage that this government seems intent on inflicting upon British Columbians -- ongoing damage.

As we look to the vote that must surely take place in the next few moments -- the third or fourth or fifth or sixth opportunity for members of this chamber to signal where they stand insofar as the future of British Columbia is concerned -- I ask those members opposite, who must go home this weekend and look their constituents in the face and provide an answer to those growing thousands of British Columbians who are without work and whose children are without a future, to consider again: here is another opportunity, another chance to stand up for those people, to stand up, presumably, for the principles that they were elected upon. And that is hope, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I don't see the humour. I know that members opposite will find this difficult to believe, but I'm a humorous guy. I've got a sense of humour, but I don't have a sense of humour when it comes to rolling the dice with the future of this province. I don't have a sense of humour about that.

[1:45]

As surely as God made little green apples, there is a cost associated with the introduction and passage of this bill, and no amount of denial by members on the government side changes that fact. We've said it before; we're saying it now; we'll say it again; we'll continue to say it. In spite of the fact that I admit to a fatigue associated with trying to convince members of this government that what they are doing is wrong, we will continue along that path, because what we are saying is right.

As I said last night and the night before and the night before that, when you listen to what the few members of the government benches who have dared to stand up and participate in this debate have said, it is disturbing in the extreme. For some reason those members equate membership in a union -- and the people who organize those unions, to whom they apparently owe a debt that I don't understand. . . . But I surely know it exists, and they have acknowledged it by virtue of their intention to pursue this legislation in the face of all reason. I say to them: stop this. I say to them: look at the legislation, look at what the people who have studied this legislation are saying about what its impact is going to be on

[ Page 9893 ]

At 11:48 on July 10, 1998, the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine spoke. Air Stikine has landed. It is members like the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine who are going to have to return, presumably this weekend, to Smithers, to Burns Lake. He'll get there ahead of everyone else, because he'll buy his own aircraft, presumably at the taxpayers' expense. He'll get there ahead of the rest, because when it comes to priorities, we know where the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine's lie. We know where those priorities lie.

So we on this side of the House say to members opposite: take this bill and refer it to a committee. Refer it to a group of MLAs who can study it, examine it and consider the submissions that are relevant from all quarters -- not just the union buddies, not just Mr. Georgetti. Is that asking so much? When confronted with a body of argument that says this legislation will damage British Columbia's economy and the future of British Columbians, versus the government's self-serving argument that this is a modest bill, this is a bill that contains nothing. . . . They have fought tenaciously for a piece of legislation that presumably does nothing. We're here at -- well, now it's nine minutes to two. The government fights tenaciously for a bill that they tell us will do nothing, that the Minister of Labour, the sponsoring minister, says will do nothing, and yet here we are. Surely no fight has been fought so hard for a piece of legislation that the government says is irrelevant.

So the question, I ask myself amidst my fatigue and tiredness, is: what is it that motivates the government in pursuing this course that will surely reap negative results for the thousands of British Columbians who depend upon those of us who are elected to sit here to enact legislation that will have a positive impact on their lives?

Well, it would be less puzzling and less troubling to me to hear silence from the opposition, from the government benches, particularly given their unwillingness to participate in this debate, and yet they seem particularly willing to engage in unofficial debate if they have something to say. If they believe this is legislation worthy of a defence, then offer that defence -- and yet we hear nothing from them.

A modest bill, says the minister of modesty, the Minister of Labour.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I remember a day, hon. Speaker -- and I haven't been here that long -- when the Government House Leader used to welcome my submissions on just about any piece of legislation. And I am increasingly. . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I sense hostility.

An Hon. Member: Hostility?

M. de Jong: Hostility. And I. . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Worse, I sense skepticism.

An Hon. Member: No.

M. de Jong: I sense an unwillingness on the part of those government members, and. . . . I must say this on behalf of the government. I am pleased to see the numbers of government members who are joining us for this particular part of the debate. I'm going to take advantage of that fact, because I'm going to try and make an argument to them on behalf of the motion that is presently before the House. That is the motion that this bill should be referred to a committee.

There's a number of reasons for it. We are taking up -- and I take a certain amount of responsibility for that -- a great amount of time in debating this point, but I'm asking those members to consider what harm would be done by referring this bill to a committee. And I haven't heard a response from them.

In considering where this debate may go in future days, I ask to those members to answer this question: what harm will follow from referring it to a committee of all members of this House to consider the implications of the legislation itself? I, for the life of me, can't imagine what that would be. So we are going to have a vote in a few moments on the opposition's amendment, and it will be an opportunity for members opposite to indicate where they stand. It will be an opportunity for members on this side of the House to indicate where they stand.

The answer, I think, will be the same as the answer that we heard on the last vote and the vote before that. But that is no reason for this opposition to retreat from the position that we have taken all along, which is that this legislation is going to have a deleterious and negative impact on the economy of British Columbia and therefore on the people of British Columbia.

I'm sick and tired, as I said last night, of hearing -- to the extent that we do hear from the government benches -- that people who want to pursue an economic livelihood in British Columbia, who want to make money, to work hard and to profit from their hard work, are somehow evil people. Surely that is what we should be fostering. That is the dream that British Columbians have had for generations, and nothing that this House does should make realizing that dream any more difficult. That's what this debate is about. That's what this vote tonight is about -- and the votes that will come in the future on Bill 26.

I'm pleased to have an opportunity -- very shortly, I think -- to register my vote in favour of the future of British Columbia. As far as the Liberal opposition is concerned, the future of British Columbia does not include Bill 26.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on their feet to be recognized, I will put the motion on the amendment to Bill 26. The question is the referral amendment to Bill 26.

[2:00]

YEAS -- 12
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Abbott
Anderson	Nettleton	Weisbeck
Nebbeling	Hogg	Hawkins
Coleman	Symons	Krueger

[ Page 9894 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 2:04 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 6:52 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

M. de Jong: When we left off, I was referring back to some discussions we had earlier today about the select standing committee report. On several of the recommendations that were made, the minister preferred to consult some notes, I take it, that had been prepared around those issues.

Referring back to the fisheries recommendation, recommendation No. 1, which questions the wisdom and the ability to apply the model that has been settled upon, at least for the moment, in the Nisga'a AIP as perhaps not being applicable. . . . In fact, the recommendation says that that allocation formula should not be included in future treaties. The minister will know that I include Nisga'a itself within that category, as a future treaty. I anticipate that the minister differs in that opinion, but the recommendation suggests that the model that appears in the Nisga'a AIP is not appropriate for what it terms future treaties. Why don't I let the minister respond to that? I believe -- through you, hon. Chair -- he has indicated that the government accepts that recommendation, and I would like to hear that from the minister specifically with reference to this. How will the government's policy and mandate change to reflect its acceptance of that recommendation?

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me start by just giving the short response, if you will, to the first recommendation. Provincial negotiators have indeed been instructed to ensure that the provincial and/or federal governments maintain decision-making authority over the commercial fishery. Provincial negotiators have also been instructed not to include commercial fishery allocations in treaties unless special circumstances warrant inclusion -- i.e., court decisions. That's the shortest response.

M. de Jong: What the essence of the recommendation is, however, is a recognition that if we approach this issue from the point of view that band A, located at mile 30 on the river, gets X percent, and band B at mile 50 along the river gets a certain percent, by the time you get up to bands E, F and G, there ain't going to be any fish left. The Nass represented something of a unique circumstance, insofar as the Nisga'a and perhaps one other aboriginal group were the only claimants to the fish. I think that is what the committee was addressing when it suggested that the model that had been applied in the Nisga'a AIP would be problematic insofar as application elsewhere in the province.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think that what I ought to do at this point, is make sure that we are indeed on absolutely common ground. I think we are, but for the record: based on a reading of the report, as well as looking at the recommendation, I think that recommendation No. 1 addresses a number of issues. Let me list those: first, the obvious -- namely, that any commercial allocations to first nations should be outside of the treaty and should not receive constitutional protection; second, that any allocation to first nations for commercial purposes should be determined for all first nations throughout the watershed or region of the province, rather than for a single first nation; third, that government responsibility for management of commercial fisheries should not be relinquished as part of treaties; and fourth, that first nations involvement in management should be addressed on a broader geographic area such as a watershed or basis or region or even on a provincewide basis. Are we okay so far? All right, I see the member agreeing to that.

If indeed those recommendations are in fact what the committee is recommending, then I would offer the following. As a general approach, the province agrees that commercial allocations should not be included in treaties, and we would prefer to provide cash rather than treaty commitments for commercial purposes. There may be limited exceptions based on historical circumstances -- for example, herring or kelp beds or something like that -- but the province does not, as a general principle, support the constitutional entrenchment of commercial opportunities. I think that's the first and most obvious conclusion that follows.

The province also agrees that the fisheries allocation should be addressed on as broad a geographic area as possible, for obvious environmental reasons. At the very least, matters such as that shouldn't be settled without due regard for the interests of all the users of the stocks in question. It's clearly a common resource. The province believes it would be useful to provide the public with estimates of coastwide or watershed allocation that first nations would receive.

As well, the province believes that first nations can and should play a role in the management of a fishery in their geographic area or their region. This is necessary simply to ensure proper monitoring, enforcement and enhancement. Having said that, though, decision-making authority must continue to reside with the provincial and/or federal governments. Decisions regarding such matters as escapement levels, fishing plans and in-season adjustments must be made in the

[ Page 9895 ]

M. de Jong: I wonder, then, about the other recommendation that I referred to, which the minister thought better of relying on his memory about. It was the section dealing with cash and land, specifically section 16. We've had very general discussion about the wisdom of adopting some manner of formula, and the minister thought there was additional information that he could offer. I think he touched on this in part in his discussion with the member for Peace River South in attempting to ascertain the basis for the $9 million that is the subject of the agreement-in-principle with the McLeod Lake band. I think we're talking about something similar here, about an ability that non-aboriginal and aboriginal British Columbians would have to quantify in some way the value, the cumulative cost, of some of these settlements.

[7:00]

M. de Jong: If I am repeating myself, I apologize. I think that earlier the minister indicated that within his ministry there are ongoing discussions and attempts at refining a formula. That's the word used in the recommendation, though he indicated a reluctance to disclose in detail the nature of the formula that the ministry favours. Though it doesn't please me that the minister chooses not to disclose that, I have some appreciation of the basis for his reluctance to do so. I don't know that there's going to be much achieved by me stamping my feet and holding my breath, suggesting that that is something that should be available. The minister may want to address that briefly -- or not.

In the main body of the report, No. 31 talked about certainty language. We have talked about that in respect of several specific examples. I just want to ask about the traditional phraseology of cede, release and surrender. It seems to me that what people appreciate about that phrase is the finality, the certainty which is really embodied in the word "release" -- i.e., "we, the aboriginal group involved, release the Crown in right of the province of B.C., the Crown in right of Canada, from any further liability it may have." Am I correct when I suggest that that is the significance of the attempts that are being made to find a way around one or another of the other terms that aboriginal peoples have a great deal of difficulty with? And if that is true, does the minister have legal opinion support for the proposition that the notion of release embodies what we formerly tried to capture with all three of those terms: cede, release and surrender?

Hon. D. Lovick: I was just looking at the deputy. . . . We were looking at each other and saying: "The short answer is yes." Yes, we believe that is the case.

In terms of having legal opinion to support us in that, our two main people at the table are both legally trained. Indeed, one of them is a constitutional lawyer; that's his expertise. They give us precisely those assurances. As the member will appreciate, much of our discussions surrounding certainty -- and that issue is a tough one to resolve -- has been to ask: "If you do dispense with the old formula of cede, release and surrender, what can you put in its place to ensure that you achieve the same ends?" We think we have found the mechanism to do so.

M. de Jong: I understand, then, that this is a case where the ministry is in effect saying to British Columbians: "We are confident of the basis on which we are proceeding, and you have to accept that." Or are the minister and the ministry in a position to offer something a little more tangible insofar as some of the opinions that his senior ministry officials or officials within the Attorney General ministry have prepared that say: "We think the language we have been discussing, which is included in some of the fast-track documentation, sufficiently protects the people of British Columbia, sufficiently protects the Crown in a way that also satisfies our need to reach an accommodation with the other parties at the table"?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to the question is yes. I would simply point out to the member, as well, that obviously this language that we table -- which has indeed been tabled and was discussed at a TNAC meeting quite recently -- is also language that has clearly been vetted effectively by the federal government and by TNAC, I think. Nobody has any illusions that when we table something, the COFIs of the world and the Business Council of B.C. and the B.C. Federation of Labour, for that matter. . . . All of those people at the table are very likely going to have their own legal opinions; and if they have concerns that the language doesn't do what we think it is, I'm sure we will hear that.

M. de Jong: One of the first questions I asked when we embarked upon this exercise several days ago was for confirmation from the minister that the Nisga'a treaty, the final document, will come before the Legislature. I'm just looking now at recommendation No. 33, which recommends the free vote, which we know the government has committed to. I haven't had an opportunity to review the Blues on this, and in a moment it will become clear to the minister why I revisit this with just one question. I just want to confirm the minister's position -- the government's position, quite frankly; ministers change, and sometimes governments do too -- that the Nisga'a treaty will come to the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in its entirety and be subject to clause-by-clause debate in the assembly to the extent that members feel that is necessary.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I am pleased to confirm that the member is quite correct in saying what he just did. What he described will indeed happen in the Legislature.

M. de Jong: Much of what is contained in the minority report. . . . I should say -- since this is the first opportunity I've had, although a year has passed -- that members of the committee that had an opportunity to table a minority report were grateful for that opportunity. It's the first time it's happened, to our knowledge and the knowledge of those who advise us on such matters. Quite frankly, I think it makes for a better report, and in fairness, I don't think it has diminished the import of the document. Nor do I think it has caused the government, from a political point of view, undue difficulties -- if that's the correct word to use.

Just as a general comment, I hope that in the future government won't be hesitant to allow members of committees to include views that may differ from the majority, which

[ Page 9896 ]

I do, however, want to deal with a couple of them. One of them is the amending formula -- the submissions that the minority report makes with respect to the amending formula. The minister was confronted by a question from the member for Richmond-Steveston, I think, who obviously has expertise on these matters that eludes me at least. Nonetheless, the question that I think was posed to the minister in the House several weeks ago and which arises out of this recommendation relates to the fact that as the government is apparently committed to a treaty itself coming to the House for ratification, perhaps a similar exercise needs to be embarked upon when that document is to be amended. I think it's a legitimate question to ask. There is a different process at work right now, particularly on the federal scene, where significant changes can take place with the stroke of a minister's pen. That, I think, is fraught with difficulty.

Hon. D. Lovick: If I may, let me just make a point. I was very reluctant to answer in any detail the question that was posed in the House in question period by the member for Richmond-Steveston. This was simply because the issue at the moment was entirely the Westbank deal, and as we all know, that was a federal deal and a very special set of circumstances.

But I think the broader, more generic question about treaty amendment is an absolutely legitimate one. I can tell the member that yes, I'm well and truly familiar with the debate. As the member knows, there are a couple of models one can use for amendment. One is the federal model, which is essentially just an OIC. The other is that you can have it, in effect, brought to the entire Legislature for a vote and a full discussion and so forth. The debate normally goes something like this, though: do you really want to impose a system whereby every amendment to a treaty of 200 or 300 pages -- even if it's a comma splice or an error in numbering -- must go through the process of legislative amendment? Or rather, is there a mechanism whereby amendments that are simply technical or housekeeping or demonstrably typographical or something could be done via the OIC route?

Our position as provincial Crown is essentially to say that substantive amendment cannot be done by OIC. It must come before the Legislature; we accept that. I can't say with any certainty, because the negotiations are still in progress -- okay? Whether that approach will apply to all amendments -- even, as I say, the most simple housekeeping ones, like numbering and so forth -- has yet to be determined. But again, I want to reiterate that for substantive amendments, we stand by the position that an OIC is not acceptable. Yes indeed, it should come before the Legislature.

M. de Jong: Well, that imparts some level of comfort. I suppose the argument that can be made to emphasize the legitimacy of requiring legislative approval for amendments -- any amendments, I suppose -- is the fact that if you are a self-governing society à la the legal profession or medical profession, you are governed by a constitution that requires that. Lately this Legislature has, I think, struggled with the challenge of finding a way to balance the flexibility needed by a society of that sort to respond to changing circumstances with the supremacy of this parliament to exercise its jurisdiction.

That is a challenge that is probably equally applicable insofar as establishing aboriginal treaties, land title treaties -- probably more so, given the constitutional import of the document itself. So I think the minister has the point that represents the opposition's view on this and probably has the point that we will be looking at any treaty that comes before this Legislature to determine whether or not it minimally meets the test that I think the minister has enunciated here today. That will be at least a minimum position for the opposition -- this opposition, at least.

[7:15]

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the fact that the member acknowledged a couple of possibilities there -- that the provincial Crown may well be aware of what's going on, but the minister hasn't been involved in a regular briefing session on the thing, because that is in fact the case. The reason that is the case is because this is essentially a bilateral agreement between Westbank and the federal government.

Obviously I can very quickly find out what one needs to know about that. But our agenda and our plates here are rather full, thank you very much, without trying to master all the intricacies of a document that's about three-quarters of an inch thick. I do, however, know something about the Westbank deal. I know that this has been around for awhile, that the process has been going on for some while and that it's very much bilateral.

The provincial Crown has been given an opportunity for input. The provincial Crown has certainly expressed some concerns, primarily about whether this deal, if completed, would impinge on what we perceive to be provincial jurisdiction. That was our primary concern. We argued the case that self-government agreements ought normally, obviously, to be negotiated through our tripartite process. However, when you're dealing with reserve land belonging to the federal government -- at least, in terms of constitutional responsibility -- whether we as a provincial Crown like it or not, we're sort of standing outside the shop. Happily, though, we have expressed our concern. Our primary concern, by the way -- for the member's edification -- which we registered quite emphatically, was that the federal government seemed to be oblivious to what we perceive to be the legitimate interests of local governments. They apparently didn't take those things into account.

We don't see this as precedential. We regard bilateral agreements as in no way binding or precedential for a treaty

[ Page 9897 ]

M. de Jong: I'm not sure I share the minister's optimism regarding the non-precedential nature of the agreement. I understand why he might want to believe that and maintain the maximum freedom -- the maximum number of options, the freedom to move -- for the provincial negotiators at the treaty negotiating table. But I think that the document, particularly with the passage of time, will acquire an air of permanence that neither he nor I will be able to demand.

There are two areas regarding the document that I want to briefly explore with the minister. I confess that I may not be understanding this properly, but the agreement addresses the question of tax exemption status. We touched on that as it applies to the Nisga'a agreement. As I understood, the provincial government has adopted as its mandate the elimination of that tax-exempt status. In Nisga'a, it occurs over a period of time, and I'm sure that was very much a point of negotiation. The Nisga'a make a valid point about that being a significant issue for them to have given way on. This agreement, as I understand it, doesn't move in that direction. If I'm correct about that, and it doesn't, is that something that causes this minister concern?

Hon. D. Lovick: No, it doesn't cause me concern, because, as I say, we are talking about federal land, in effect, or Indian land with the responsibility belonging to the federal government constitutionally. We have made it very clear -- indeed, our legal opinion is very clear -- that this is not precedential. In fact, I understand that one of the rules of thumb for lawyers is that nothing is a precedent unless you say it's a precedent. That seems to be a rule of thumb that I have heard from a number of pretty eminent lawyers in my limited experience in this field.

So no, I don't have those concerns, but I would be foolish, obviously, not to listen carefully to the points the member is making and reflect on them and probably look more closely at them. If indeed they deserve sober second thought and reconsideration, they will certainly be given so.

M. de Jong: Well, that may be the case. The federal government is involved in a number of these negotiations, and I suppose that the question that might be asked is: is the minister aware of what extent it is federal policy to pursue a line of negotiations that would lead to the elimination of the tax exemption status that presently exists?

The minister is shrugging, and that may be. . . . He may respond and say, "It's federal, and I'm not terribly interested in that at this stage," but I'm not sure that that is, quite frankly, a responsible position for the provincial government to be taking at this point.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite right that it is federal, but I'm not suggesting for a moment that we aren't interested. I would just make the point that the federal government has followed our lead both in Nisga'a and in Sechelt, so I think they are recognizing that our model is perhaps indeed the more desirable one.

M. de Jong: The other thing I want to canvass with respect to this particular agreement -- it applies to Nisga'a, and I presume we will have an opportunity to debate that at the appropriate time -- is the whole question of self-government. But more particularly in the Westbank case, the issue that hits one squarely between the eyes is the rights of the non-aboriginal people to reside on the lands. At the moment they are federal lands. The hope is that one day they will be, I suppose, Westbank lands within the broader provincial framework.

Again, understanding the dynamics at play in the large chamber during question period, there may have been other reasons why that particular question wasn't addressed. Well, I'm sure there were other reasons why that particular question wasn't addressed more fully, and the time constraints on the minister are also relevant. But it needs to be addressed. It's not sufficient, in my view, to say -- as other ministers have said, quite frankly: "Well, of course non-aboriginals aren't going to be given the right to vote. Of course not; that would defeat the purpose of aboriginal self-government."

But there is a competing principle at work here, which says that in this country the franchise today is granted on the basis of one reaching the age of majority, on the basis of one not being in a penal institution -- although that has changed insofar as some elections are concerned -- and on the basis of where one lives and geographical considerations. But it has not to this point, to my knowledge, been applied on the basis of one's ethnicity. The danger, I think, when you embark upon this discussion, is that when you use words like "ethnic" and "race," you're very quickly labelled with one of those terms. And that's not the point, but it does represent a departure. I think it is an issue that the minister needs to address. I don't harbour any hopes of convincing him of an alternate position today, but I think it is an issue that is worth at least reference in these debates, particularly as we've seen another document tabled with respect to the Westbank first nation.

Hon. D. Lovick: May I just ask the member a question? Does the member accept the Sechelt agreement as an acceptable model vis-à-vis self-government? I say that not to be cute, but just for clarification, so we can advance this discussion.

M. de Jong: If we're going to discuss, first of all, a significant difference, it's a fair question for the minister to ask. We're talking about a government that more closely equates with a municipal level of government. The Sechelt made that as a deliberate decision. The principles around which the vote extends in those circumstances, to the extent that it is also based on membership in a particular ethnic group, are also a problem. To be fair, the Sechelt have made that form of self-government work. I would be very reluctant to stand here and be overly critical of a model of self-government that, quite frankly, more closely approximates the view of the official opposition. But in fairness, to the extent that the franchise exists or doesn't exist for people based on their ethnic background, I think that is problematic.

Hon. D. Lovick: On the one hand, the member is quite legitimately enunciating a principle, saying that voting rights should not be based on one's ethnicity, race, origin, etc., etc. But on the other hand, he's saying that, however, in Sechelt,

[ Page 9898 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Does the member wish to clarify, or shall I go on? Okay, let me go on, then. Maybe I overstate it, but it seems to me that that is the tension, if you like. In other words, we say: "Here is a principle. . . ." And that quite legitimately causes the member some anxiety, some difficulty. That's okay; there's nothing wrong with that. That's an honest opinion. We may have differences or we may not, but fair ball. But his next comment about the Sechelt. . . . I guess that's why I asked the question. . . . Here is something that seems to work, and maybe we don't like the basis of it, but it works. Nobody is upset, and apparently nobody's rights are being infringed or anything. Given the unique and peculiar history and character of first nations in this province, maybe we are going to have to come up with idiosyncratic solutions as opposed to some nice simple model that we can lay out for all times and all places. That's the first point I want to make.

[7:30]

Having said that, let me just make the point about the generic position we take vis-à-vis self-government. Obviously I'm basing this on Nisga'a, but this is clearly what we think is appropriate and desirable for others, so I'll just summarize them. I think the member knows them well.

1. We accept that there are not exclusive Nisga'a -- or for that matter, other first nations -- powers; both B.C. and Canada retain all of their legislative authority.

2. Nisga'a government powers -- let me just use Nisga'a as an example, but I think one can extrapolate -- will be subject to standards or conditions or indeed will be subordinate to federal and provincial laws.

3. Nisga'a government will be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and will be elected and democratic.

4. Nisga'a laws will, in most cases, be in effect only on Nisga'a treaty settlement lands, the only exceptions being adoption, marriage and social services -- which I believe is the case, by the way, for Westbank and Sechelt; I think that's exactly the case. I'm not an authority, but I think that's true.

5. Finally, Nisga'a government will provide non-Nisga'a residents of Nisga'a lands with full consultation and rights of redress respecting decisions which may adversely affect them and with guaranteed representation on subordinate elected bodies -- for example, school boards and health boards.

Now, my conclusion to all of that is that that satisfies all of my civil libertarian instincts, and I think they're probably about as strong as most people's. I'm not for a moment saying that that will satisfy all members, but for me that is sufficient and thus the case, if you will, from our side in terms of the self-government arrangements.

M. de Jong: At one point during these discussions the minister referred, I think correctly, to the importance of symbolism in some cases. Maybe what we're talking about here is symbolism around a pretty fundamental principle in our Canadian society. Maybe the reason the issue arises as it does with respect to the Westbank is as simple as the numbers involved and the fact that though it is an issue insofar as the Nass Valley is concerned, it is a relatively minor issue from the perspective of the numbers of people affected, and that a similar thing can be said about Sechelt. But when we come to Westbank, the numbers are so staggering that the principle takes on a heightened significance. But there it is. There's the opposition's quick and specific take on the problems that will possibly accrue, and that is a matter that I think will be very much a part of the discussion around the Nisga'a treaty, if and when it comes before the Legislature.

At this point in the discussion I would like to say that the path taken by the debates in this estimates session has been determined largely by the answer the minister gave to my first question, which he repeated here today. That is that the Nisga'a treaty will come before the Legislature. That will truly be a historical document and one that will be deserving of tremendous and careful attention. I am pleased that we have ascertained once and for all that all members will have an opportunity to closely scrutinize the 200, 300 or 400 pages that will comprise that document.

At one point the minister talked about how remarkable it is that some of these issues are now in the forefront of the minds of British Columbians -- if not voluntarily, then perhaps by necessity. Let me say this: I think it is remarkable that we began this discussion focused on Nisga'a, and I think the minister will be pleased and perhaps a little bit surprised to know that we will end this discussion by my referring to the resiliency of the Nisga'a people in persevering over this length of time. When the debate takes place around that document, the degree of vigour with which the opposition presents its opinions and its observations about the workability or non-workability of the document should not reflect in any way upon the respect that we have for the work that the Nisga'a people have done, for the perseverance they have shown in coming to this point -- what we are told is the eve of the tabling of that document.

I think the minister is fortunate to be Minister of Aboriginal Affairs at a time when government, for better or for worse, is largely now about taking things apart, tearing things down and cutbacks. I advocate that as aggressively and vigorously as anyone. He occupies one of the few ministries that still maintains an element of building, of construction, of making something new. There isn't a lot of that left in government anymore. I think that is exciting for him and for those of us who are involved even peripherally, although it probably doesn't show most often. I think it is also exciting, engaging and challenging.

Maybe it's a little bit like constructing a building. Everyone agrees that you need the edifice, but the size and the design and the floor plan are sometimes the subject of debate and disagreements. So be it, but unlike ten or 12 years ago, most British Columbians, I think, agree that we need the building. We need the treaties and the settlements, and that is an achievement. We may disagree about how much it should cost. That, I think, forms the legitimate basis for debate. I was reluctant at first to use a construction analogy given the other matter on the minister's plate at the moment, but so be it.

[ Page 9899 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I would just say very briefly how much I appreciated the member's final comment. I would have only one quibble, if I might -- namely, that I do not think the official opposition's role is in any way peripheral to the debate. I think it is substantive and significant and absolutely crucial. I entirely accept his premise that we must indeed have reasoned debate and difference of opinion, but those differences in no way necessarily show anything less than respect or commitment to the cause and to doing what we all perceive to be in the best interests of first nations people and everybody else in this wonderful province.

I take it that the member is content, has canvassed the areas which he had in mind, and I thank him again for his input. With that, hon. Chair, I rise, report. . . .

M. de Jong: There's one other technical matter -- voting the money.

Hon. D. Lovick: Oh, damn. The question, then, on the first vote is in order.

The Chair: The question has been called.

Vote 9 approved.

Vote 10: ministry operations, $28,157,000 -- approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would therefore move, having passed those motions, that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 7:42 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada