[ Page 9987 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

We ask ourselves: why are we here at ten after three in the morning? Why are we here in the middle of the night? What's the rush on this modest bill, as the minister continually characterizes it? If it's such a modest bill, why has there been such a tremendous zeal to push it through the House? The minister decided to call the bill for second reading the day after it was tabled. Why was that? Why is it such a high priority? The government hasn't stood to answer any of those questions or to say very much about the bill at all, in spite of the alleged urgency and importance of it. Somehow none of the government members opposite seem to have the jam to get on their feet and speak to why this bill is a priority, why it is so important that we should debate it through the night.

The Premier is home from his gallivanting around North America -- you know: "Home is the sailor, home from the sea, and the hunter home from the hill." It would be a pleasure to have him stand up and explain to British Columbians why it has been so important that Bill 26 be brought into the Legislature, why it's been so urgent that the NDP wants to jam it down the throats of British Columbians, but he just won't do it. He won't get on his feet. The ministers and backbenchers opposite just seem to be putting in time here in the House, wasting the time of the House, when in our minds we ought to be doing the people's business. There are so many urgent things to deal with. But no, we're here because the NDP wants to debate Bill 26.

What are our answers to why we're here in the middle of the night? The Bible says that men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. Is that why we're here? Are they ashamed of this bill that they've brought in? They say it's modest and that it's no big deal, that they actually want it for stability and to increase the competitive advantage of the construction business in British Columbia. Are they ashamed? Why do they want to sit through the night when they hope that people aren't watching television and seeing what is going on in the Legislature? I think that has to be the answer.

It may have had something to do with the BCTV strike. They were hoping to push this thing through while BCTV was out on strike, but of course, that's coming to an end. In fact, coincidentally enough, it just came to an end this week. Perhaps that's why this is the latest sitting so far. Not that we care. We'll debate through every night if that's what the government wants. Mysteriously, they generally don't seem to want to do that. When they're proud of something they do, they do it in the daylight, and they tend to do it early in the week. We notice that when they have a very negative thing to announce, they tend to do it late on a Friday, when they think the media won't pick up on it through the weekend. Similarly with this bill, they jam it through in the middle of the night.

But it didn't really work for them, did it? They tabled this bill on June 17. They tried to bring it on the next day, and here we are on the July 14, almost a month later. Look at all the things that have had to be put on the back burner in the meantime -- really important things that probably could be helpful to the economy and the people of British Columbia.

Why is this one so important? Why is it such a priority? Of course, we believe that the answer is in the Premier's own words at the recent Order of B.C. presentation ceremony. He referred to Ken Georgetti as the nineteenth cabinet minister -- unblushingly. He was brassy and arrogant enough to come right out and say that in public and get a little appreciative chuckle from Mr. Georgetti's followers in the audience. He's the nineteenth cabinet minister -- and not nineteenth out of nineteen, but first out of nineteen by all indications. It can only be through the impetus of someone with Mr. Georgetti's power over this Premier and this government that this bill would have been rammed through the way it has, that it would have been given the priority treatment that it has. Why else would this government put such a huge emphasis on it and inflict so much collateral damage upon itself just to try and preserve the status of a small group of companies they're working with the Building Trades Council in trying to preserve antiquated, outdated, fossilized collective agreements that no longer allow those companies or those employees to be competitive in the marketplace in 1998.

It's something that Mr. Georgetti wants. That's the only answer that really makes any sense. It's the only reason the Premier would be sitting at 3:10 on the morning of July 14, bleary-eyed and waiting for the opposition to run its course and exhaust every avenue that this opposition has in doing our duty to oppose this government's destructive path, the course that it's chosen to take.

It has gone rather well, from an opposition point of view, hon. Speaker. We're getting calls from business people, workers, communities, chambers of commerce and business associations all around the province. The opposition has been ticking like a well-oiled engine -- everyone doing their part, people coming in one after another, standing in their places, putting their positions on the table. All we get from the government benches across the way is snide remarks and jeers and little chuckles -- nothing that they're willing to put on the record. Indeed, it's going to be very difficult for these people to justify to their constituents the damage they're inflicting on the economy of this province, all in the name of giving Mr. Georgetti, the nineteenth cabinet minister, what he wants.

Those people in the Building Trades Council and the CLRA don't want to sit down and negotiate collective agreements that work in 1998. They want to stick with what they've got. They want to continue to work under the provisions the NDP have given them, like the fixed-wage policy, whereby we can only afford a fraction of the schools, hospitals and roads that we could afford if we had genuine open tendering and competition for public works and government contracts in the marketplace in British Columbia. Rather than march into 1998 and prepare for the millennium that's just around the corner, the CLRA and the Building Trades Councils want to draw everybody else in British Columbia into the same box they're in and further tie up the economy.

[3:15]

[ Page 9988 ]

It's not too late, of course. It's not too late to support this amendment and put Bill 26 back into limbo where it belongs -- or better yet, withdraw it forever and stop trying to cram a B.C. Federation of Labour agenda down the throats of British Columbians. It's not too late to stand up to the nineteenth cabinet minister. It was the Premier who was elected, not Mr. Georgetti, and he should call the shots. He should make the decisions. What are we going to do? Knight this man next? Make him king? Why does Mr. Georgetti hold such sway over what happens to British Columbians and what legislation gets enacted in this House?

There's no acceptable answer. The clear answer, of course, is that it's payback, the big payola that went back to the B.C. Federation of Labour and the big unions that fund and drive NDP campaigns. It's amazing to me the crass way that Mr. Georgetti presumes to speak publicly for the government of British Columbia in various matters. It's a tremendous insult to this government, frankly, and an insult to every one of those government backbenchers.

How must it feel to their constituents? They elect an MLA. They send the MLA to Victoria to represent them. That MLA sits silently on his or her hands, won't get up in this House and speak to the hoist motion on Bill 26, won't get up and speak on the motion to refer Bill 26 to a select standing committee of the Legislature and apparently won't get up and speak to this motion tonight to not proceed with Bill 26. Why is that? Why does Mr. Georgetti have the status, in the Premier's mind, of being in cabinet -- to the extent that he would say that in a solemn ceremony like the Order of British Columbia ceremony? Why does he have that kind of power while all of these people are expected to be silent yes-people and just sit there, say nothing and do nothing except wait it out while the opposition does everything it can to protect British Columbians from this misguided move?

Why the haste to have this bill debated the very day after it was tabled? Why the closed-mindedness and the refusal to listen to what the opposition is saying -- or indeed to what the people are saying? The Premier said he heard it when he spoke with Mr. Pattison and the other business leaders prior to the commencement of this session. The Premier clearly did hear it in Kamloops, because he repeated it and he paraphrased it very well. But the NDP refuses to listen. Instead, they try these weak dodges. In speaking against Bill 26, as we are committed to doing, and in working against Bill 26, as we are obviously doing with everything we've got, they try to take the position that somehow we're being anti-worker. Of course, that isn't true at all -- far from it.

I have a history in the labour movement in British Columbia as a shop steward, as an executive council member, as a board member of an 8,000-member union. I never lost a union election. I represented workers for half my career, until I entered management. I found that with the grievances and concerns I handled for workers, more often the upset was with the union than with management. That's a curious thing, isn't it? Workers tended to be upset about things like promotion on the basis of seniority rather than on the basis of merit. That offends people in 1998, and it's something that unions are going to have to come to grips with. It's something that makes businesses and workers uncompetitive in 1998, because it's really outdated thinking. It's the sort of thing that deeply offends workers.

The official opposition believes in the right that workers have to choose who is going to represent them and, indeed, whether or not they want to have representation by a union. We believe that if a union has something to offer, it should be able to represent itself forthrightly.

When the member for Victoria-Hillside spoke. . . . I commend him for speaking, because there weren't that many government, NDP, members who had the courage to stand up and speak. When he spoke, he talked about organizing and how he and his comrades would go around to pubs and bars and sign people up while they were drinking. That's a mysterious thing, I thought. Why would they have to go where people are drinking? Do you need to get them a little drunk to convince them that you've got something to sell or give some reason that they would want to be associated with a union? When I represented workers in a union, I didn't need to have them in a position of being affected by any intoxicants for them to know that I was representing them and working hard for them. So why is it necessary for these people to sneak around and sign them up in pubs and bars, instead of being upfront with them? It's something that's troubled me.

On this side of the House we understand full well the sacrifices that people have made in the past in order to have unions, and the grief that's been brought on people by bad management in the past. But a lot of those things are things of the past. It's very destructive to the economy of this province to carry on these ancient adversarial positions, instead of seeking to march into the next millennium equipped to compete in the worldwide marketplace that British Columbia is up against.

Bill 26 is another major step backwards, and it will damage the economy of British Columbia. It already has. Just the fact that this government has demonstrated that there's been no change at all in the course of the provincial NDP has been very destructive to the economy. The kinds of jurisdictional disputes that the Building Trades Council is famous for are the very kinds of things that cause people to shy away from British Columbia as a place to do business.

When I was a member of the OTEU, Local 378, and on their executive council and their board, I and many others resisted this drive amongst the big unions to donate money to the NDP. We felt that it was wrong to take people's union dues and give them to a political party, because many of the workers who paid those union dues weren't NDP members or supporters at all. We felt that it really compromised the ability of the union to represent its members when it was so clearly seeking to get in bed with the provincial NDP.

Sure enough, it's been a very destructive outcome for this province, and it has led to this kind of closed-minded thinking by the government members, where they seem to feel that they actually have to compromise all the best interests of their constituents and ignore all the input from their constituents. We know they're getting the same input we are -- that this is a tremendously damaging piece of legislation. Somehow they're forced by the loyalties that they have internally to ignore the input of those constituents and, rather, do what Mr. Georgetti wants them to do.

When I was a shop steward, I was frequently a delegate to B.C. Federation of Labour conventions and would listen to the speakers at the microphones. I was always astonished at

[ Page 9989 ]

So what is the result? In British Columbia we have tremendous pessimism with regard to our economic future. The Toronto-Dominion Bank published a report saying that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year and for the next two years. That's going to take us right up to the next election and probably past it. Surely those types of results would cause the NDP members opposite to have some second thoughts about the course that they and their government have been taking, which has led to these terrible results -- snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, poverty from riches and bringing about this tremendous level of unemployment, unhappiness and fear about British Columbia and its economy.

The minister repeatedly said that somehow, in his mind, if the Liberals would just stop talking about the problems, the problems would get better. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister -- through you, hon. Speaker -- but we can't be your Pollyannas. We can't pretend that things are good in British Columbia when the economy has gone from first to worst, from the best in Canada to the worst-performing economy in Canada. What a shameful thing! What a perverse result!

Bill 26 is just one more dumb move on the heels of a whole parade of dumb moves made by this government over the last seven years. The reason that it makes moves like this, of course, is its bad motivation: the fact that it's captured by the B.C. Federation of Labour. It's a captive of the nineteenth cabinet minister, Mr. Georgetti.

British Columbia is referred to as the most negative investment climate in the world. What a reputation for our province to have. What a terrible thing! When we talk to executives from major international companies who look at British Columbia and other places as potential sites for new plants and places to do business, they tell us that British Columbia ranks down there with China and Third World dictatorships as one of the most unfriendly business climates in the world.

We've had our Premier running around the province -- around the world from time to time; certainly around North America -- trying to come up with good-news announcements. He's been announcing potential smelters hither and yon throughout British Columbia -- in some cases, in places where everyone knows there'll never be a smelter. But there's a place that's a logical location for a smelter, and that's Alcan, where they already have one. Alcan recently published an analysis saying that they weren't sure that they could proceed with a smelter. The taxation policies of this government and the high labour costs in British Columbia were going to add between 20 and 30 percent to the cost of that development, rendering British Columbia an unlikely site, apparently, for that kind of expansion.

We hear those results from major forest companies and major mining companies. And when we hear it from someone like Alcan, which clearly is in a position to proceed and has a long and proud history in the province already, surely it should give this government some pause. Surely, hon. Speaker, members opposite -- government members -- should stop and think that there is hard evidence that NDP policies have been hurting the economy of British Columbia, causing investors to turn away.

If they could only reach that point in their minds, instead of mindlessly and endlessly regurgitating and repeating the talking points that their spin doctors give them. . . . If they could reach that point, it wouldn't be much of a step to move on to actually recognizing that Bill 26 is another huge negative for British Columbia -- absolutely huge, a very bad thing. Even the gentlemen who published this report, "Looking to the Future," on behalf of the government, having looked into this whole question of whether or not to bring around any aspect of last year's failed Bill 44 effort. . . . Even Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Lanyon said that they weren't confident that this was the time to be introducing this type of legislation. There's a clear warning to the government. They seemed to be lacking in confidence that there would ever be a right time, and if that's the way they felt, we believe they were right that there will never be a right time to introduce Bill 26 or last year's Bill 44 or anything like them, because it is unfair to tip the balance so far in favour of one of the parties in the whole labour-management equation, in that whole question.

When a government intervenes in this way, then investors regard the location -- British Columbia, obviously, in our case -- as an unfavourable place to do business. They have many options; capital is tremendously mobile in the late 1990s and going into the next millennium. Once they make their decisions, they can be there for a very, very long time, as we've seen with the existing smelter that Alcan has in Kitimat. I've toured it several times. It's been there generating huge incomes for people for many years now -- decades. A person who has trained for three years there can make $70,000 a year from then on.

[3:30]

Are we approaching the day when British Columbia will be sort of a vacation destination for other Canadians -- that Albertans will continue to buy up the recreational property around the Shuswap and throughout the Kootenays and up and down the Columbia Valley?

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The member from the government side calls out "Six Mile." Maybe that'll be the case; maybe only Albertans will be able to afford property at Six Mile, because this NDP government is reducing the economy of British Columbia to such shambles that there are perhaps only going to be minimum-wage jobs for the asking. We look at our youth and the incredible unemployment rate that's been reported this week: 23 percent. What a phenomenally bad result, and how demoralizing for those young people. It's wrong that young British Columbians have to move out of the province in order to have any kind of economic prospects.

[ Page 9990 ]

K. Krueger: I hear the minister's wife across the way heckling, the way she always heckles. She has feathered her nest so well in this House. She won't listen, won't change her ways, won't look at the NDP's results and the way that they affect this province. She just jabbers away, and she and her husband -- the first couple in cabinet. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I don't think that's appropriate.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Perhaps if you'd intervene with her, then you wouldn't have to intervene with me.

But it's just phenomenal that people could be so wrong-headed and so perverse in their outcomes that they would deliver this kind of result. The minister himself, of course, is not only the Minister of Labour but also the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. And there's a priority. With the Delgamuukw decision last December, the Supreme Court of Canada put a huge black cloud of uncertainty over the economy of British Columbia. It's long past time that the minister showed some leadership in the area of interpreting the Delgamuukw decision for British Columbia. But has he done that? No. Instead, he announced that his priority would be introducing this sectoral bargaining legislation. Incredible -- another blow to this province, to our reputation, to our credibility, to our stature. We've got a minister who thinks it's more important to jam sectoral bargaining through the Legislature than to deal with aboriginal treaty settlement issues and the whole issue of interpretation of Delgamuukw.

We're faced with the prospect of more blockades. Not far from my constituency is the whole unfortunate Adams Lake situation, where residents have to take a ferry at government expense to get to their homes because the road was severed, arising out of a dispute with aboriginal people because the agreement they signed with this government was never honoured, was never put into place properly. They finally reached the point of frustration, and they dealt with it in that way -- by severing the road. That's what happens when governments refuse to come to grips with their responsibilities, to make decisions or to show leadership. That's exactly what this minister has done. He has two very important portfolios, obviously. Why would he ignore the one that is clearly so pressing -- the Aboriginal Affairs issues, dealing with the Delgamuukw decision? Why would he turn his back on that and instead decide to drive this sectoral bargaining legislation through the Legislature?

Turning to that question, it troubles me that the government persists in saying that this is not sectoral bargaining. What is it if it's not sectoral bargaining? I'm just reading from the government's news release of June 17, 1998, in which the minister says that this will allow for different forms of trade union representation in the construction industry, and sectoral bargaining schemes of any sort will be rejected. Well, if it isn't sectoral bargaining, then it's just imposition of a contract on a sector, and of course, there's some truth to that interpretation. I guess you don't have to call it bargaining if you're just saying: "I'm going to take this thing and jam it down the throat of every construction firm in British Columbia." Is that what it is, I wonder -- just another little dishonest play on words? "We're going to increase competition in British Columbia by forcing you all to work under exactly the same collective agreement and to bid from the very same book, and you've got to know that you're going to be working under these rules no matter what you bid, so you're going to go broke if you introduce any kind of competitive bid." Is that why the minister says it's not sectoral bargaining -- because there's really no bargaining at all? Could be.

For the minister to refer to this as modest, just as this government referred to the massive gambling expansion last year as modest, is such a dishonest thing. These changes are huge, and they have huge consequences for British Columbians. The government ought to have the jam to stand on its feet, to say why it's doing what it's doing and not play around with words this way. Those members opposite who have fallen silent, after heckling so enthusiastically a few minutes ago. . . . I encourage them to get up on their feet and tell us, if they've got anything to say that justifies not endorsing this amendment, that that justifies them imposing Bill 26 on British Columbians. I don't believe they do, because there is no justification.

It is the wrong thing to be doing; it's a bad thing to be doing. It's sending a message to everyone that nothing has changed in British Columbia under the leadership of this Premier and in the grip of this failed New Democratic Party -- nothing has changed. They will continue to be the same -- these conditions of overtaxation, overregulation and massive interference in labour-management relations that have broken the back of the British Columbia economy and driven us to a position where we're an unattractive location for any investor looking to create jobs or expand jobs or even maintain the jobs that they presently have in this province.

With that, I'll take my seat and defer to my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: It certainly is great to be here at 3:35 in the morning on July 14. . . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: Bastille Day. I see the flight arrived. I'm really pleased to be speaking today. July 14 is a very special day in my life, and I'll talk about that later today.

I want to speak in support of my colleague from Matsqui, who had the courage to bring forward a very important motion. I'd just like to quote the amendment: "To delete all of the words after 'that' and substitute therefore the following: this House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26). . .for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." Yes, I support this amendment. I am, quite frankly, very disappointed that government members have not in fact shown any care for the province of British Columbia and its citizens. Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz once noted that trust and credibility are the currency of public office. Last year the socialist government. . . . Bill 44 was downplayed as minor by the former Minister of Labour. A year later the minister may have changed, but the government message remains the same. Step by step, inch by inch, this government and its actions are poisoning the labour relations climate in British Columbia and killing investor confidence, killing investment and taking away the precious jobs that British Columbians so rightly want and deserve. It's not just jobs for the workers; it's the impact on their families.

I realize that many of the government members come from major urban markets and aren't in touch with what's happening in the north or the interior of British Columbia. Beyond Hope, there is a whole province, and these people, this government, should listen. When there are people in

[ Page 9991 ]

The same gang that brought the B.C. economy to its knees now wants to bring you, the province, the son of Bill 44. The economy of British Columbia is on life support, and introducing Labour Code changes now is like pulling the plug. We cannot afford more investment-killing, job-killing, small business-killing policies here in British Columbia. We all know, and members over there know, that Bill 26 is just the thin edge of the wedge. The Premier and the NDP know they can't impose Ken Georgetti's entire agenda all at once, so they're imposing it piece by piece, a step at a time. He's cabinet minister No. 19. The Premier acknowledged that at a public ceremony. British Columbians should be embarrassed for their Premier, and they should be shocked at the way this government is treating the democratic process. To have to be debating in this House, at quarter to four in the morning, because this government is so intent on pushing through the Georgetti bill before he goes on his holidays later this week. . . .

This bill is going to kill investment. It's hurting investor confidence, and it's going to significantly hurt future employment opportunities for our youth. But we must remember that it is this government's Minister of Forests who has said so often: "Remember, government can do anything it wants." This government apparently does whatever it wants whenever it wants, with no regard for its responsibility to govern on behalf of all British Columbians. Bill 26 is not supported by the majority of British Columbians surveyed in two polls. In both polls, British Columbians overwhelmingly turned down the concept of sectoral bargaining. Bill 26 is the latest attack on employees' rights and employers' rights.

Having operated and been part of a rebuilding operation of the British Columbia grape and wine industry, I know what it's like to work side by side with workers at the winery and to understand their problems, to understand the concerns of their families and to understand about job security. You know, I'm very proud of those workers that I worked with, because together we were able to work hard to turn an industry around -- more importantly, turn around the company they worked for. They shared together in the successes of that company, and their biggest dividend is their secure job.

That's what comes from viable businesses; that's what comes by allowing people that own a business to work hand in hand with their workers, who understand each other's situation as opposed to having something imposed upon them from some big union boss in Vancouver -- or even Washington, D.C., as many of these unions are international. So the one-size-fits-all approach is just not going to work in British Columbia. It never has, and it never will. You would think, as this government goes through disaster by ministry. . . . It doesn't matter what ministry this government has touched; the one-size-fits-all solution throughout British Columbia has not worked, and it will not work.

[3:45]

You know, hon. Speaker, some of the ministers on the other side of the House have said in public forums that they are going to act on behalf of all the constituents of British Columbia. One in particular, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, said on February 26, 1998, in Kelowna that he was going to act as the advocate for all small business and tourism operators in the province. I note in a recent July 6 release that, "96 percent of B.C. exports are from small and medium-sized businesses," stated the minister. Now, let us think: exports -- that means they are competing in the global marketplace. That means we are going to have to be competitive to be successful. Yet that minister has failed to stand in this House and state his position as the advocate for small business and tourism with respect to Bill 26. This bill is going to kill investor confidence in British Columbia and lead us further down the road to bad results.

You know, it's really discouraging when you look at what the Labour minister said -- that he was going to use as his criteria, as his accountability matrix, if I could. . . . What he was going to use. . . . He says in his first points. . . . I think there are five points here, and I may have time to do them all. If I don't, you'll get the gist, hon. Speaker. The first one he said is that we must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplace. Well, that's a great goal to measure against. But if that's the goal, why has this government, and in particular the minister responsible, not conducted a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate to British Columbians what the impact of this legislation would be? Why would he choose not to do that? Does he know that it can't meet his own tests? One would almost think that there's a conspiracy theory here. What are we really trying to achieve from that side? Who do they owe? What do they owe? Why are they pushing this through with so little public debate? Why is that happening?

The minister went on to say that we must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But this bill doesn't allow that. It doesn't allow the employer and the employee to build their own contracts -- a fundamental that I thought the NDP stood for. But maybe they're further to the left than we really think.

The minister went on to say that we must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs. Well, we know how we're doing on the job creation front. We lost 19,000, while Alberta gained 22,000. We know that youth and student unemployment is now the second highest in Canada, at just under 23 percent. We know that we've lost almost 13,000 jobs in the forestry sector since the government announced the jobs and timber accord.

But the issue here is creating stability. This motion talks about the risk of further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy. Investor confidence comes in large part from government's actions and what the commentators are saying about the government's actions and their intentions. The Wall Street Journal, probably one of the most respected investor papers in the world. . . . I quote from a

[ Page 9992 ]

The closing paragraph is: "But many remain troubled by the province's track record and its continuing budget deficit. 'Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws, I think its actions are window dressing. . . .' " Hon. Speaker, that's not the Liberals talking; that's not our leader talking. That is a recognized leader in the financial community of the Wall Street Journal. Some members on the other side may say: "Well, you know the Americans." Of course, the Premier was just down in the States wanting to meet a major Senator, but I guess that didn't happen.

Let's look at one of our major financial papers, the Financial Post, from Canada. On June 19 the headline said: "Rocky Labour Relations Cloud B.C.'s Business Climate." Now, that is certainly going to bring investors here. That's certainly going to bring investment dollars here; that's certainly going to help us create jobs. Their editorial closes: "The government would have been wise just to leave its labour laws alone and spend that political energy on issues that would improve the business climate."

Why is it, hon. Speaker, that these recognized leaders, who have no axe to grind with the socialist government of British Columbia. . . ? Why are they not listening? Why are they not acting? I thought I remembered the Premier saying that he was on the side of British Columbians, that he was listening. Do you remember that? I remember that. But he's also the Premier who said: "We're going to have our second balanced budget" and "We had nothing to do with Hydrogate" and "We're going to pay back Bingogate."

It's about trust; it's about confidence. The investment community has no confidence in this government -- whether it's the investment community in B.C., the Canadian investment community, the American investment community or the investment community of the world. It wasn't that long ago that the world entrepreneurial leaders met in Vancouver, and the Bill Gates of Taiwan said: "You know, there's only one thing wrong with British Columbia -- high taxation and labour laws. You can't invest here."

The chief, the Minister of Human Resources, snickers. She used to be the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. The minister should know that these are not joking matters. These are very, very serious times. Perhaps the title of the book that the minister is reading from time to time is appropriate, because the government is adrift. Check the title.

But the Minister of Labour says that we must consult carefully with key stakeholders before making changes to laws, policies and regulations. But did he listen? The answer is no. Did he act upon the advice? The answer is no. The Federation of Independent Business said: "Don't touch the Labour Code." COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations, said: "Don't touch the Labour Code." The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, which represents communities throughout our entire province, from Sparwood to Terrace to Chetwynd to Penticton to Merritt, said: "No changes to the Labour Code." That's what they said. What did the B.C. Real Estate Association say? "Any changes to the Labour Code will negatively impact housing affordability." What did the Canadian Homebuilders Association of British Columbia. . . ?

Interjection.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: You know, hon. Speaker, before some of those members snicker at some of these organizations, perhaps they should get in touch with their constituents. Maybe they should find out who is creating jobs in their ridings.

What did the Canadian Homebuilders Association of British Columbia say? "No changes to the Labour Code." Now, these are people who get up in the morning, take their crew, go to work and try to build affordable housing for British Columbia families, and this NDP socialist government wants to put them down. That's unacceptable. What did the Restaurant and Foodservices Association say? They said: "No changes to the Labour Code."

You know, we hear all too often that you're not in touch with your constituents. Well, I try to be in touch with my constituents. When I get letter after letter after letter. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Actually, they don't all say the same thing. At some point in time we'll share them with the minister. But we go from architects that say: "Stop. . . ."

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I haven't heard from them.

We go from automobile dealers. . . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: Just a minute. I think I hear them calling for a flight at the airport, hon. Speaker.

[4:00]

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: This is the problem, the fundamental problem. The member for Victoria-Hillside has hit the nail on the head. They do not understand. He may recall that there was an American election, and one of the President's advisers said: "It's the economy, stupid. It's all linked together. It all works together. It's about investments. It's about jobs. It's about families providing for their children." Perhaps when some of the members over there wake up, and if the House rises later this fall, they should take a simple economics course. They may understand some of the concepts. They may understand that if you take investors' money, you invest it. You create a product, you produce it, and you do that by employing people who they look after their families. Then they can look after

[ Page 9993 ]

If we listen to this government, what do we have to be concerned about? We've only gone from number one to number ten. That's all that's happened in British Columbia. Our unemployment rate is almost double every other western province, and it's the highest west of Quebec. Student unemployment is now the second highest in Canada. Capital investment is running at 50 percent of the Canadian average, and 391 businesses have left British Columbia in the last five years. Last year alone 107 left for Alberta, hon. Speaker, and I know you understand the importance of that impact.

People vote with their feet. It's a sad commentary that the great province of British Columbia, with the richness of our minerals, our forests, our strategic location, our workforce. . . . Why are we losing so many people from our province to other jurisdictions in Canada and to the United States? Since 1982 the lowest figures. . .and now it's a net flow of people out of the province.

What does the future look like? The Toronto-Dominion Bank, I think, was actually a partner of this government in an automotive purchase and also in the Skeena bailout. The T-D Bank -- what are they saying? They are saying that we are going to be number ten this year, next year and the year after. It's hard to believe that our growth is forecast to be zero. Newfoundland is 5 percent; Ontario, 4.5 percent; Alberta, 4.1 percent; Manitoba, 3.7 percent; Saskatchewan, 3.4 percent; Nova Scotia, 3 percent; New Brunswick, 2.5 percent.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: You have to listen, because the important thing here is. . . . A member over there is mumbling that we've heard this before. But you don't get it. You do not get it. You haven't got it. You're not going to get it. The only thing is, you're going out. That's what is going to happen. You'll be going out.

What we have to ensure happens in British Columbia is that we have competent people managing this province, and to date this government, under the leadership of the one-man wrecking crew, has proved that it is incompetent. How can anyone take an economy, blessed with the riches of this province, from number one to number ten? How can someone take our debt to almost $32 billion -- higher than all of the other governments in the history of British Columbia added together -- in seven years? We can't take this government any longer. There is no investment. There are no jobs for the future.

I am very proud of the fact that our member for Matsqui has brought forward this motion.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: We hear, every once in a while, a little nattering from the other side, but very few have had the courage to stand up in this House and be held accountable, to their constituents -- to the people of British Columbia, whom they deceived in the last election.

Let us close with a. . . . It's happens over time. The former Premier said, on April 22, 1987: ". . .for the reasons that it is contrary to the interests of democracy and our traditions of free collective bargaining to grant the non-elected chairman of the Industrial. . .such wide powers. . . ." Then, of course, on April 14 the Premier was quoted: "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. . .the province to debate it, to look at the ramifications." Hon. Speaker, what has happened to the Premier of this province? Why has he changed his position so drastically in a mere 11 years?

L. Reid: I too rise to debate the motion that would have us have some substantive discussion regarding the future of Bill 26. It is about investor confidence in British Columbia; it isn't about anything else. The motion reads: ". . .risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." My colleague talks about the package, and it isn't possible to have the discussion without ensuring that both of those elements are covered off this afternoon -- and, frankly, this morning as well, because it's now 4 a.m. in the provincial Legislature.

I too would reference some quotes that have gone before.

"What government has done with this particular piece of legislation -- which it is apparently bound and determined to push through, come hell or high water or other such stuff -- is simply to confirm the suspicions of so many."

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

I want this to be a principled debate, because this is the principle of the future of this economy. This is all about safeguarding the economy. That is where we are today. We cannot somehow drift off into all the other legislation that this government would like to pursue, unless the foundation is firmly in place and the foundation is a vibrant economy. Today no one the world over is referring to British Columbia's economy as vibrant. That's a concern. We have the best chance of all the provinces of being number one. This House knows that we now sit in the tenth spot across the country. It's absolutely nothing to be proud of when it comes to delivering the very best possibilities of life and livelihood to British Columbians -- to citizens, to families, to the people the members opposite profess to represent. They have a stake in this debate -- each and every one of them. At 4 o'clock in the morning, each and every British Columbian has a stake in this debate, because this is about safeguarding the economy.

I would submit that there is little understanding from the government benches. There is little respect for the fact that

[ Page 9994 ]

The Toronto-Dominion Bank talks about British Columbia having the worst economy in the country for the next three years. There's no hopefulness in that statement; there's no optimism. There's no commitment on behalf of this government that they have some opportunities to make life better, to do the right thing, to ensure that some decency is in place for individuals who work really, really hard week after week to return a decent standard of living to their families. This statement crushes the optimism they might have had -- crushes it out and eliminates it for three additional years. We've already had seven years of mismanaging the public trust, mismanaging public finances. This will round it out to a complete decade of, I think, bad money management. Certainly that's a concern to me.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank is forecasting zero percent economic growth this year. How does that offer hope to British Columbians, who indeed might wish to make some choices with their disposable income -- some decisions that are in the best interests of their families? None of this offers hope to individual British Columbians, who in the past probably supported much of the work of this government. That was prior to this scenario, which sees British Columbia being in the worst economic position in the country. It was only in 1991 that this province was in the best economic spot -- from the best to the worst in seven short years.

We have a climate that's uncertain, and then we have a government that introduces legislation that will craft further imbalance. Investment-killing Labour Code changes will craft further imbalance. Certainly the Minister of Finance has taken to citing readily in the last number of weeks the good things banks have done for the province, to the extent that she even gave them a tax cut. Now we have banks saying: "Sit up, take notice and listen."

You as a government need to listen when banks are forecasting dire consequences for a majority of British Columbians. This is not an isolated report. This will impact every single British Columbian as we move through. . . . That has to rest on some conscience of the members opposite; it has to have an impact on their thinking. For the next three years, they cannot ignore the plight of their constituents who are unable to find employment and unable to provide for their families. Those decisions result only in an increased call on the social service rolls in this province. They craft only greater dependence on the programs this government offers, which are paid for by the taxpayer.

[4:15]

The press of the day, in the last month, has talked about a battered B.C. economy, with thousands planning to leave. Since this article was written on June 20, many more people have left this province. I'll put this comment on the record: "B.C.'s slowing economy caused an outflow of nearly 3,600 British Columbians to the rest of Canada during the first quarter this year, the first quarterly interprovincial loss of migrants since the mid-1980s, according to the B.C. Stats report." Their own report is telling them that people are leaving in the thousands to find their fortunes elsewhere, because they don't believe this is a fair and just place to do business.

That's what this is about -- a fair and just place to do business. It's not possible to separate out that notion from investor confidence, and it's not possible to separate it out from whether or not we have a vibrant economy. Those concepts are married together and will be for all time. When this government chooses to tamper with one aspect of the equation, the domino effect is significant. The repercussions are huge, simply huge, when it comes to whether or not the average British Columbia family has more dollars in their pocket. Disposable income is on the increase. . .and those decisions rest with this bill tonight.

That is why this official opposition is taking that so seriously. Whether or not British Columbians have disposable income next year and the year after is directly hinged to this bill. If you remove investor confidence in this province, and if people take their dollars and leave, you have hampered, hindered and diminished the possibility of British Columbians being successful. I know I've had this discussion many, many times about the lack of regard and understanding of the entrepreneurial spirit in British Columbia. It cannot be further evidenced than by the lack of regard for scientists and researchers who would come to this province and create employment. They are the only individuals who can.

There's no durability to yet another government job of some interesting length and of interesting application. We are looking at jobs that can support individuals monetarily -- no question -- but also intellectually. We have individuals who are prepared to make significant contributions to how this province works and to answer some significant questions on behalf of British Columbians. Do they feel supported by this government? Not by a long shot. They feel that this government is out to diminish their likelihood of success.

Those are the individuals who are leaving this province. Those are the individuals who have mobility and are able to leave. Many people do not have that choice open to them, and they will continue to be subjected to bad legislation that will negatively impact how people live their lives in the province. Those who have the mobility to leave will leave; those who don't will be stuck here, subjected to the terrible lack of vision put forward by this government when it seems to knowingly talk about how to build a strong economy and does everything contrary to that, taking steps in the opposite direction.

On June 18, 1998, "Labour War Is Last Thing Province Needs Right Now. . . ." Again, there are some amazing articles by people who have often been supportive of things this government has done in the past. This is the straw that breaks the camel's back; they can no longer support the direction they see this government going in. They see this version of Bill 44 doing a lot of damage in British Columbia.

A concluding quote, hon. Speaker: "Whatever the reason, brace yourself as a B.C. citizen for exactly the last thing your struggling, debt-ridden province needs right now: a labour war, pitting the investors with money in their pocket against a government with a debt to repay." It pretty much sums up the discussion. Those words were spoken not a month ago. This

[ Page 9995 ]

We know, based on numerous reports, not the least of which is the B.C. Stats report, that those with mobility will leave. There will be lots of individuals in this province who don't wait around on the off chance that this government will come to its senses and actually put into place a reasonable business climate.

If you listened to the Minister of Finance when she introduced her budget, she talked about having met with business, having listened to business, and said that she might actually do something that made sense for business. There's nothing yet; not a budget for 1998. Frankly, it's a budget for 1999 -- and a 0.5 percent tax cut maybe next year. Frankly, why would we suggest that this time we're getting the honest goods? Pretty soon, the train of deceit will speak for itself. This government hasn't been honest with the taxpayer, and it's not being honest today when it talks about this bill being modest. The minister herself said many, many times that doing anything to unsettle the business climate would not be helpful. She seemed to have that message worked into her thinking. What happened? Somehow that message is no longer with us today.

I'll put the exact quote on the record: "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." It seems pretty straightforward. It was signed by the Minister of Finance. What happened to that since the third day of June of this year -- just a little over a month ago? How could this sentiment change that dramatically? These pieces of legislation are absolute contradictions to what the minister said when she introduced the budget.

I think that at some point the government has to come to grips with the fact that most of what they say is contradictory. Most of what they say is illogical when it comes to safeguarding the economy. They need to come to grips with the fact that people are looking for decent, fair and just government. They're not looking for people who unduly meddle in their lives, in their business. They're looking for people who take forward opportunities and craft employment. We all know that those are the only individuals in the province who do craft durable employment. Government is not the economic driver; it's small business. Small and medium-sized business is what has made this province great. It is indeed what has crafted very fine employment opportunities for a whole range of British Columbians and will continue to do so if this government pulls back on this discussion today around Bill 26, doesn't tamper with the fragile economic climate and doesn't put forward legislation that is absolutely contrary to the stated objectives of the Minister of Finance. Someone has to coordinate the package on that side of the House. Someone has to ensure that what is said at one point actually coordinates effectively with what is said by other members of this cabinet. I would suggest that that is not happening. One minister continually contradicts the work of another.

It begs the big question: who's in charge? We're not clear anymore. I'm not convinced that government truly understands how ineffective its current presentation is and how deplorable its current presentation is for supporting British Columbians -- the citizenry who elected these individuals. They truly want to see better, cohesive, more precise decision-making. A series of contradictions serves no one.

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind the member that the debate is on the amendment to the bill.

L. Reid: Absolutely -- and the amendment to the bill, hon. Speaker, is about fostering investor confidence and the British Columbia economy. None of my remarks have strayed from that topic, because that is the topic that we are here to address this evening. Frankly, it's the only topic that concerns British Columbians: is this government doing anything to improve its economic outlook, the economic forecast, that they and their families will experience over the next two to three years? The answer to that is zero. This government is not assisting British Columbians. This government will unsettle the labour climate to the extent that more British Columbia investors will take their money and go. So I am absolutely speaking to the amendment.

I'll put on the record correspondence from the Gisborne Group, written to the Premier on July 9:

"Dear Premier:

"As the owner of a business in British Columbia and a creator of 300 jobs" -- when was the last time the government could say that they created a single job, let alone 300 jobs? -- "I am appalled by the government's latest labour legislation, Bill 26. This legislation will further undermine investor confidence in the B.C. economy. I urge you to send a strong and positive signal to the job creators of B.C. by cancelling this legislation immediately."

Indeed, if the economy is strong, governments can afford to purchase other services and fund other programs. If indeed the government's economy is not strong, where do they get those dollars? By increasing taxation? That would be a very sophisticated move.

There are so few choices in this life that it's interesting that they would make the choice that is the most damaging to the provincial economy, which is to unsettle the job creators to the extent that they leave, so that the only choice they have left is to tax British Columbians further. British Columbians today are only looking to have increased dollars in their pockets, to have somebody respect the hard work and the effort they put into sustaining their families. That's what the majority of British Columbians have asked for. We know that to be true, because they certainly asked it of government.

Frankly, again, ministers opposite send contradictory messages. Ministers opposite have heard that government is expected to deliver some honesty and some decency, some integrity, to the process. They are expected to make life reasonable, not unreasonable -- not to choose the harshest course of action and put that in place and then to somehow stand up and take pride in not having done an economic impact study. They say: "Well, we're not really clear on how bad this is going to get, so hang on for another rocky ride." Dead wrong. It's insensitive, it's callous and it's mean-spirited. All of those things are not attributes that people are looking for in their government. It doesn't make me particularly proud of how disjointed, uncoordinated and illogical the legislation that emanates from the government benches is. It's a sad comment

[ Page 9996 ]

[4:30]

That's what the decision was all about around the Minister for Children and Families: disrupting thousands of lives, because the government didn't do their homework yet again. Then the government seems bemused when people bring them to task for that. This is about reasonable spending decisions that need to be supported by strong research. This government needs to do their homework and hasn't demonstrated on any front that it is indeed the case. Just think what British Columbia families, who are seeking $30 and $40 a week for respite care to assist them in the care of their special needs child, could have done with the millions of dollars wasted by this Minister for Children and Families.

Is that an economic question? Absolutely it is, hon. Speaker; there's no question that it's an economic question. There's no doubt that individual British Columbians know better how to spend their tax dollars than this government has demonstrated to date; that is a fact. So when we talk this evening in this particular discussion about investor confidence and the economy, those kind of decisions confound British Columbians who are attempting to make good on the promises to their families, to their employees.

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind the member again to speak to the bill -- to the amendment to the bill.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I believe I am. I am convinced that this discussion is about investor confidence in the economy, which are the only words on the paper on the motion we've submitted to the Speaker.

Interjection.

L. Reid: I'm intrigued by the commentary from the members opposite, because they too know that this is about investor confidence and about safeguarding the provincial economy. That is one of the basic tenets of coming together today; that is the basic tenet.

Interjections.

L. Reid: What I think the members opposite have forgotten, hon. Speaker, is the ability to listen. I would ask the Speaker to bring the House to order.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I would also like to remind you once again that a general discussion on the bill is not relevant to the motion. So I would also ask you to please continue to keep your remarks to the bill. I will also call the House to order.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

There is much discussion about individuals who could make a reasonable contribution to this economy, how they feel about Bill 26 and how important safeguarding investor confidence and safeguarding the economy is to their life and livelihood. Many of these individuals are members of the Chamber of Commerce. John Winter, president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, says he's "appalled but not terribly surprised." He's describing the business community's reaction to Bill 26, the proposed changes to the Labour Code. "It sends entirely the wrong message to the investment community. . . ." That is the tenor of the motion: investor confidence. The man who is the president of the chamber of commerce says that it's sending the wrong message: ". . .that this government, despite recent initiatives, is not at all interested in creating a business-friendly economic climate in our province" -- which means they are discounting the ability of business people to generate employment. Yet the research is clear. We know full well that those are the only individuals that do generate employment of any durable nature.

It really is the son of Bill 44, and it introduces, de facto, collective bargaining in the construction industry. It takes away the right of each business to negotiate its own collective agreement. How in the world does that instil investor confidence? That's the question that this House must answer and that members opposite must answer. They must actually get to their feet, participate in debate and explain to British Columbians how that instils investor confidence. It would be a very fine dance of the seven veils if any of them got to their feet and could answer that question, because we know that those are contradictory statements; we know that those two items do not mesh. British Columbians know that, taxpayers know that, and I think there are members opposite who also know that. They are charging down a path, hoping that somehow they can avoid further scrutiny and future scrutiny, when it's more than obvious that these measures will only impact negatively on the British Columbia economy. They will only impact negatively on investors in the province.

That's the tenor of our motion, hon. Speaker -- that this should be a discussion about fostering investor confidence and safeguarding the British Columbia economy. It's about individuals who don't understand the provincial economy today, the fragile state of the provincial economy, and are seemingly uninterested in crafting employment opportunities. There needs to be some reckoning on the part of these members. They need to come to some decisions when they are facing their constituents across the table who say: "What have you done to the person who might have invested in my community, who might have brought some dollars to my community?" They won't be thanking you, hon. members. They won't say that this has somehow improved the quality of their lives. They will look at the whole array of government legislation, much of which is contradictory and sends conflicting messages to the taxpayers who fund this process, this economy and this province. . . .

This government needs to come to grips with what is vitally important about this debate this evening. The debate is about safeguarding the economy. Those who have a very large role to play as investors, who might bring money to this economy, this province and a variety of communities, who

[ Page 9997 ]

The best example is the red-tape committee. The minister stands up and introduces the bill, one of a series. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I will again remind you that general discussion of the government is not relevant to this bill.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Chair.

We have a government that brings forward contradictory statements, that does not have the future of British Columbia at heart, that does not have the needs of British Columbians at heart -- British Columbians who truly understand what it means to foster an economic climate or safeguard the economy. Either situation will be rectified only by an election.

R. Masi: It's my pleasure to rise and support the amendment, which asks that this House decline to give second reading to Bill 26, "for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." We all have concerns about the B.C. economy, but it's ironic that when you look at the situation today, on one hand you have the Finance minister meeting and talking to business leaders on a regular basis and encouraging investment, and you have the Premier calling summit meetings -- as is his wont -- meeting the top business leaders in British Columbia and getting very cosy with the likes of Jimmy Pattison and people like that. On the other hand, we have the Labour minister tampering with the Labour Code, and we have the Premier, after cosying up to the business leaders of British Columbia, advocating sectoral bargaining and saying that it's a matter of human rights.

In the meantime, while this situation of irony is going on we have over 100 businesses that just upped and left British Columbia. It's sad to see this. It's sad when you see a longtime company like Finning Tractor -- one of the top-line corporate citizens in this province, I'd say, and a longtime employer for over 60 years in British Columbia -- moving its head office to Alberta. That's got nothing to do with the Asian flu. It's lack of confidence in the economic policies of this government. It's sad to see, when we have 16,209 British Columbians leaving the province. They're people that are saying: "We've had enough." They're voting with their feet.

It's also sad to see that the Toronto-Dominion Bank forecast that the British Columbia economy is the worst in Canada this year. You know, this is very disheartening for someone who has lived in this province all their life. Also, the Toronto-Dominion Bank has forecast over the next two years that this year -- 1998 -- there will be a zero percent increase, in 1999 a 0.5 percent increase, and in the year 2000, 1.5 percent. As has been stated again and again -- but I think it's something you have to listen to -- we've gone from first to tenth in economic development in this country. When you compare our growth rate of zero percent, Ontario's is 4.5 percent, Alberta's is 4.1 percent, and even Quebec's is 2.9 percent. The Canadian average is 3.3 percent. We have a sad and very shaky economic situation in this province.

I think, as well, that no matter how many times the members opposite hear this. . . . Maybe they have to start to listen. Maybe it will sink it in; I don't know. Mark my words, hon. Speaker, they're going to hear it again and again. Maybe it will sink through the thinking department on the other side. Our province has suffered downgrades in credit rating. The Dominion Bond Rating Service has once again lowered us to double-A standing.

I'd also like to talk about British Columbia's after-tax personal income; this is your personal money that you get to spend. Actual spending money has declined by 1.9 percent in 1996 and by 2.3 percent in 1997. That means fewer and fewer dollars into the direct economy. This money goes into things like ordinary businesses: barbershops, hairdressers, restaurants, taxis, extras at the supermarket, home improvements and all these sorts of things that develop a vibrant economy in the province.

We're actually putting literally millions of dollars, which are coming out of the free economy, into debt service costs. That's the tragedy. If we didn't have the major debt, if we weren't in this economic situation, we'd have that money that could go back into the pockets of ordinary people and, of course, develop a more active economy.

So what happens? In the meantime, the Labour minister tampers with the labour bill, while the Premier goes on and on about future sectoral bargaining. But, you know, from January 1997 to January 1998, B.C. lost 19,000 jobs. Good old Alberta -- I hate to bring it up, because I like my province much better -- gained 22,000 jobs.

We have to talk about perception here. The Minister of Labour talks about perception. The minister says that the modern economy functions to a huge degree on perception. Well, I think he's got the seed of the idea there. But the minister's argument is somewhat fallacious, because perception is based upon fact and observation. It's not based upon fantasy. So we have to ask some questions: what do international investors perceive when they examine the economy of British Columbia? What do major corporations perceive when they look at the British Columbia economy? What do smaller businesses and companies perceive when they leave B.C.? What do thousands of workers perceive when they lose their jobs? That's really serious; that is something we must all be concerned about.

[4:45]

Roosevelt's famous remark in the thirties was: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." He was talking about perception, but he took steps to stimulate the economy. I think that's what's lacking here -- not to upset an already fragile economy, as is British Columbia's, with a very ill timed, unnecessary piece of labour legislation.

The timing of this bill is horrendous. If there was ever a time not to implement a change in the Labour Code, it is now. The only demand for this change is the move towards sectoral bargaining. It comes from a section of the union movement

[ Page 9998 ]

This bill has also created a situation where any new employer is required to accept the master agreement without the right to bargain. Just on general principle, that's not good labour management practice, and it certainly inhibits bargaining rights for the employer. If you're going to have a balance in labour legislation, you must keep a balance at all times.

So what is the problem? Why attempt to pass this one-off bill? Why now? The construction industry isn't hurting. Of all the segments of the economy, it's healthy. Even in the Kelleher-Lanyon report, they stated that in 1997, 129,000 persons were employed . Employment edged upward in the construction industry. That's not too bad, because it's not edging upward in any other component. Unemployment reached a ten-year low of 10.5 percent in 1997, and that was well below the unemployment rate of 17.1 percent in 1993.

If the situation is somewhat stable, if it is fairly stable or looking good, why bring this in? Why bring in this one-off piece of legislation? It's sad to see. I don't want government moving into this area in this manner, because when government moved into mining, we had disastrous results. When government moved into forestry, we had disastrous results. We have to realize that the economy is very fragile and that it really doesn't need any adverse signals at this time. It's unfortunate that this has come along.

I think there's more to all this than these statistics I've been talking about. First of all, I think we have to understand why government is there. There are social responsibilities, and those are very important. Governments cannot carry out their social responsibilities if the economy is fragile and weak and if the economy can't provide the resources to develop good social programs. When you look at the province and see that we're sitting on a $31 billion debt -- and that we again have a deficit of $1 billion, despite what the budget said -- it casts some doubt that the province has the capacity to effectively develop or maintain the numerous social programs that it should be committed to.

I think it's really important that any government must maintain that economic base. Really, what else is government for but to do good for the people of the province, especially a socialist or social democratic government? I'm not sure which it is. These are the things that they have always prided themselves on. We are talking about social welfare programs, health programs, education programs. . . .

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind the member to keep the debate relevant to the amendment.

R. Masi: Absolutely. Part of the economy and investment process in this province is simply to develop programs that will in fact further the good of the people. You can't really, in this day and age, separate any sort of. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I will clarify that by again reminding you that general discussion of the government is not relevant to the debate of the bill.

R. Masi: If we have a social welfare program in place that's so tightly regulated because of lack of resources and a shaky economy, we leave ourselves in a position where we have people who are actually suffering. If we had an effective economic base, then our social welfare programs would be much better, and we wouldn't have people having to move in with friends or borrow money, or have to give them bus fare to get from one social services agency to another. It's easy to say -- and it's easy for the Ministry of Human Resources to say, "Well, get a job" -- but it revolves around the economic stance of the province.

If you have 21 percent unemployment for males aged 18 to 24 and you have youth unemployment of 18.9 percent. . . . We're not talking about freeloaders here. We're talking about desperate people -- people who need help but can't get it because of the shaky economic base and the lack of investment in this province. When the government fiddles and tampers with the labour laws, which directly affect the economy, this is when we run into trouble developing resources for the social programs and the social assistance that we in fact need in this province.

This government prides itself on developing programs. One of the positive developments. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, to the amendment.

R. Masi: When we have economic development and investment in this province, government can go ahead and pursue programs that are valuable and worthwhile to the people. I was going to comment on one of the fine programs developed by this government: Youth Works. Now, Youth Works has a connection with training, the economy and jobs, and all this goes together. You cannot separate training, the economy, investment and jobs today; you just can't do it. I mean, training is one big, big component.

You have a very commendable program like Youth Works. We had, I think, a very positive initiative. But with youth unemployment at 18.9 percent, this is one of the programs that should be up and running, dealing with very positive results. What happens is that because there's a lack of resources and because we have a shaky economic base, we have to make cuts in these programs. There have been cuts in the skills development programs, and the programs now -- the ones that are geared to help young people find jobs. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the debate is on Bill 26 and the amendment to Bill 26.

R. Masi: I must say that the whole economic base is in place to help people, and this is point that we have to talk about. When we talk about concerns in the health area, in the welfare area or about children and families. . . . Children and Families is a another great idea, with a great report by Gove. But then the implementation policies were rushed and poorly designed. Why? Again, the money and the resources weren't there, because of the shaky economy. What had to happen? We saw a whole program rushed in, developed on the cheap. That's basically what it was all about. Again, it's resources, resources, resources -- resources that aren't there. So where do you find the resources? You find them in the economy.

I have to ask where the social-conscience people were when this ill-timed bill came forward. It will have a definite effect on the economy of the province. We know the difficulties in this economic climate that we live in and the difficulties that face single parents, who are largely women. We know that single parents have to find work, but when unemployment is between 9 and 10 percent, this is very difficult.

[ Page 9999 ]

It's the same for any single moms who have teenage kids who are seeking entry-level jobs or part-time work. This is the reality of the unemployment situation and the shaky economy. I know that in Delta North, there are many such situations, and I know this is also the case throughout Surrey. You wonder where the members are who are worried about this very fragile component in our society. What we need there are jobs for single moms and their kids -- to go on in school, to get training and to lead a good life.

We can go on in these fields, and we can talk about education and about all these programs that must sit on the very solid framework of the economy. If the economy is not solid -- if it's as fragile as it is today -- then all these programs are in jeopardy. That's the sad part of it. The part that really bothers me is that all these things are supposed to be sort of the pennant-waving of the government. I mean, this is the thing we hear about. If there's something they can do right, it's supposed to be in social programs. Well, you can't have effective social programs without an effective economy, and it just keeps going round and round. You have to have the money to pay for them. It's something that, while going through the rules of debate or something like that, may not quite fit -- I'm not sure. But in reality, it does fit, and we can't close our eyes to it. We acknowledge, then, that the economy has a direct effect on social programs.

[5:00]

In my last go-round in this House, I mentioned some of the historical aspects of unionism in British Columbia. The union movement certainly has a long and interesting history in B.C., and I don't believe it's something you can just dismiss with a wave of the hand or a shake of the head. I think it's really important that we remember that the union movement and unions have a vital part to play in the economy. I was berated a bit by the Deputy Speaker for speaking about social programs, but you can't sort of lift out the union movement and say, well, that's over here and the economy's over there. It's all part and parcel of the same thing.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

When we have unions like the IWA, a longtime union, getting into sawmill construction, and then we have various other unions like the Christian Labour Association. . . . You have the Carpenters Union involved in some wall-to-wall projects. We know that the boilermakers and the sheet metal workers do quite a bit of their bargaining outside the bargaining council. We have to think about the concept of unionism and where it's going in the future. I don't claim to be an expert in unionism, but I've been somewhat close to it over my history, with family and various people I've been very close to.

We have to realize that the times we live in now are changing very rapidly and that unions have to adapt to changes that, whether we like it or not, are thrust upon us. We have technological changes. Training methodology has drastically changed. We have computerized drafting, computerized metal fabrication, modern tools and machinery, prefabrication, electronics, satellites, the Internet. All these things have made an impact on the whole world. I don't think unions can say they're not part of this.

In all honesty, I really don't believe that craft unions can insist that the trades have to be divided into 16 separate units in this day and age, and I don't think they can demand that training and apprenticing take years to complete. Despite what a lot of people say -- and I certainly hope the members opposite aren't saying this -- our school graduates are really better educated, more aware and more capable than ever before. What they're not, though, is trained. A lot of people mix that up. They say: "Well, these kids can't do anything. They can't do this; they can't do that." But they can do it, and they are capable.

We graduate more people than we ever have before. You compare your curriculum -- I go too far back, but you people can compare it -- and you'll see that it's much more advanced today than it was before. What we're talking about here is that gap between young people coming out of school and training. I don't really think that today we can say to young people: "Look, you have one job to do. You get trained for one thing -- it's going to take you ten years to do it -- and then you might be a journeyman." I just don't think we can go that way. I think we have to be much more flexible in terms of how we train people, so that they can become multiskilled. There's job mobility today. We change jobs every five years -- I think that's the average -- so we have to realize that concept and develop our training methods to fit that.

I would also really like to ask some of the members opposite, who have had much more to do with unions than I have, what's really wrong with the concept of the wall-to-wall union or the industrial union. What's wrong per se? If we think back to the Depression of the 1930s, the early days when there were a lot of problems in the world and a lot of unemployment, there was talk then of One Big Union -- I think that's what it was called. The One Big Union said: "We take everybody in."

Well, I really have difficulty in understanding why there can't be a broader-based concept of unionism. It's beyond me. I think what we're still trying to get over are a lot of turf wars that have existed over the years. This is a new age, so we can't just say: "Well, we've done it this way in the past. We've had 16 crafts, and that's it." We have to look beyond this.

The members for Okanagan East and Richmond East spoke extensively about the new technological industries and how they have to operate from a much broader base, and it's true. In order to survive, they can't be under restrictive union organization, so the union has to change. Let's look at the structure of unions. The movie industry is another one. It's more logical not to be restricted, if we're going to have these industries and develop them.

I would also like to examine the idea of training and education, in terms of increased productivity. Why can't you build into the agreements, into contracts, the concept of training and education and provide some motivation for companies and employers to, in fact, carry that through? The government has set up ITAC, the Industrial Trade and Apprenticeship Commission. It's an absolutely excellent concept, and we on this side of the House support it. What's wrong with giving ITAC the authority to credential in multiple trades and services? It has to come.

[ Page 10000 ]

Governments themselves have to adapt to changes. In this province, labour issues are really polarized, and it's unfortunate. We've gone from Bill 19, and the former Socred governments way over to this side, right over to Bill 44. We're flipping back and forth.

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

R. Masi: Let's think for the future, and good luck to a reorganization of unionism.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak to the motion put forward by my colleague from Matsqui: "That this House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26). . .for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy."

When a contentious bill such as this labour bill comes before the Legislature, the opposition does not have too many tools to use in their opposition of it. One of the tools that we have is for each member of the opposition to speak for their allotted time, in second reading and on each of the three amendments. The members opposite also have that opportunity, and they should use it in their own allotted time, not when members on this side are speaking.

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: That is what we have been doing, hon. Speaker. We will continue to fight this bill with every tool we can find. With this amendment that we have put forward, we are giving the members opposite a final opportunity to see the light and give British Columbia a fighting chance of survival.

I read in the Saturday, July 11, Vancouver Sun, on the editorial page, a reminder for the NDP about the word "democratic." I will quote from this short article, because I think it speaks volumes about the attitude of the NDP and their socialistic government:

"[The Finance minister] is letting power go to her head. The sharp-tongued MLA from Vancouver-Hastings has dismissed out of hand those who want an environmental review of the new SkyTrain extension. Her reasoning boiled down to: 'Victoria knows best.' Similarly, this week she ridiculed the Liberal opposition's filibuster to highlight the dangers of provincial Labour Code amendments. Again, in her intemperate remarks, logic was replaced with invective. 'It's irrelevant, it's frivolous, it's repetitive. It's got nothing to do with the public good.' "

In other speeches I have made in this House speaking against Bill 26, I mentioned that every day we seem to read bad-news stories in the newspaper. Well, over the weekend I was reading my community newspaper, Surrey Now, and the bad-news stories continue. There was a letter to the editor from Peter Simpson, the chief operating officer of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. Mr. Simpson wrote the letter in response to a column that had been in a previous paper. I want to read to you most of what this letter has to say, hon. Speaker, because it makes some excellent points on why Bill 26 should be deep-sixed. The headline of the letter says: "Deep-Six Bill 26 Before It's Too Late." I will quote from the letter for the members opposite, because I think it's very important that the members opposite hear what he has to say:

"First, let me make it clear that we are not anti-union. We have members, friends and family in both union and non-union. . ."

B. McKinnon: When they're ready, hon. Speaker, I'll continue.

". . .sectors -- each to his or her own. This issue is about choice, and we support an individual deciding if the union route is the appropriate route. Bill 26, the Clark government's proposed amendments to the B.C. Labour Code, undermines flexible and fair collective bargaining, and forces individual employers and employees into a one-size-fits-all sectoral deal that will not let them tailor their collective agreement to the unique characteristics of their workplace. Mr. Thompson writes that the 'modest' changes to the Labour Code do not affect residential construction. Don't believe it. Bill 26 allows unions to organize the residential sector through the back door.

"For example, if a multi-unit residential construction project has a commercial component, it will fall under the sectoral agreement of that commercial sector, resulting in less flexibility for employers and workers and higher costs for consumers. In 1992 Bob Rae's Ontario government amended its labour laws, wreaking havoc on an already staggering economy -- much like B.C.'s current situation. The Ontario law gave sweeping powers to unions. In frustration, companies simply closed their doors and moved to friendlier jurisdictions. When the dust settled and the bodies were counted, more than 70,000 construction sector workers lost their jobs.

"Here's an example from the Ontario debacle. A businessman recounted how an electrical union, with the stroke of a pen, made it impossible for his company to carry on its business. The union sent a letter to a company employee who refused to join the union: 'You will be given until Wednesday to join the union or have your employment terminated.' This came from the union, not the worker's employer. Soon after, the business failed, and the concluding paragraph from the businessman's protest letter to a local politician was as follows: 'I may no longer have a company or a means of income, but I did not, nor will I, give up my rights or my dignity. I can only hope that my story wakes up government officials and motivates them to action before it is too late for other businesses.'

[5:15]

"In Toronto, residential construction is unionized. During the past ten years, 21 construction strikes have occurred there, for a total of 110 weeks of lost production, all during the summer. Currently, there are five craft union strikes in the residential construction sector, and sadly, there have been many cases of threats, violence and vandalism. In one senseless act of vindictiveness, a partially framed senior citizens home was trashed. The public was outraged. Because the nine-week-old strikes have delayed closing dates, new-home purchasers are storing their belongings and bunking in with friends and relatives. One of the unions is holding out for a 40 percent wage hike. We're not talking about minimum wage here. The pay rates are already in the high-$20- and low-$30-per-hour range.

"Last week we lowered our housing starts forecast in the greater Vancouver area from 15,400 to 10,500 -- the lowest per-capita starts since 1951. The 5,000-starts shortfall means that 12,500 fewer construction jobs will be created this year. The

[ Page 10001 ]

provincial government's proposed amendments to the Labour Code would only exacerbate this precarious situation. The Premier and [Labour minister] should learn from the Ontario example and deep-six Bill 26 before it kills even more B.C. jobs."

What this undemocratic government will do. . . . The NDP will pass this bill on the backs of the taxpayers of this province, to pay back Ken Georgetti and big labour. They won't even blink their eyes, nor have a twinge of regret or concern for what is happening to the people in this province. The NDP do not have any respect for the way the business of this House is carried out. That is shown every day with their arrogant "do as I say" attitude.

When the Social Credit were in government and passed Bill 19, the pendulum was swinging in the opposite direction to what it is doing today. Two wrongs do not make a right. I believe that the Social Credit government went way overboard with Bill 19, just as I believe the NDP are going way overboard with Bill 26. It is interesting what the members opposite said when they were in opposition and the Social Credit government brought in Bill 19. Our motion not to give second reading to Bill 26 for the reason that the bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy is a good motion. It gives the members opposite another chance, another opportunity, to make things right in this province of ours.

I'm going to remind the members opposite of some of the things they said with regard to Bill 19 and whether that bill should be hoisted, sent to committee or just stopped. All of these comments apply to Bill 26. The pendulum swinging to the far right or the far left doesn't serve the people of this province fairly; it doesn't serve anyone. What is wrong with fairness and equality?

The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was quite vocal on June 23, 1987, page 1941 in Hansard: ". . .we haven't heard any defence from the other side of this House with respect to this motion. Two speakers from the other side have stood up, but what about the other 45 members of the Social Credit caucus? How come they're not standing up and speaking on this legislation with respect to this motion?" Golly gee, hon. Speaker, I guess we could say the same thing about the NDP. How come they're not standing up and defending Bill 26?

I will answer for them: because it's indefensible, that's why. On June 23, 1987, on page 1945 of Hansard, a former Minister of Labour said: "The motion for hoisting should pass, because this government is drunk with the power of October 22, and this motion would bring about a little bit of sobriety that's much needed in this province -- six months' cooling off." The now Minister for Children and Families, on April 9, 1987, on page 545 of Hansard, said: "Two meetings in three years in the past. The Labour Committee is an important committee. Surely the bill should go there. Surely this is something that the committee should be looking at. Without them looking at it, what is the point in having that committee? What is the purpose of committees if they're not to deal with bills and things of substance?" Here's another statement from the now Minister for Children and Families, on June 22, 1987, on page 1930 of Hansard: ". . .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."

Guess what: this government hasn't learned anything from being in opposition. Their own words -- words that they themselves said in this very Legislature -- are words that can be used against Bill 26 as they were used against Bill 19 in 1987. The NDP did not learn anything in the many years they were in opposition. It's very apparent when you look at the mess that the economy of this province is in today. We on this side of the House are trying to help the members opposite by giving them an opportunity to change their minds and to support our motion that is before this House.

The Minister of Labour made so many comments in 1987, when fighting Bill 19, that he needs to be reminded of his words. His words are the same as what we are saying about Bill 26. I quote from page 509 of Hansard, from April 7, 1987: "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." That statement is so true when it comes to Bill 26. The minister should pay attention to his own words.

Again, on the same page and the same day, the now Minister of Labour's own words were: "Another reason for people on our side of the House suggesting that this motion should indeed be hoisted for six months is simply that no evidence whatsoever has been given, either in the minister's opening submission or in any of the comments that have been made thus far in the debate, explaining this haste. Why do we need. . .this now?" I ask the Minister of Labour, using his own words: why do we need this now?

On April 8, 1987, the now Minister of Labour said in Hansard: "What government has done with this particular piece of legislation -- which it is apparently bound and determined to push through, come hell or high water or other such stuff -- has simply confirmed the suspicions of so many." I think the minister's words are coming back to haunt him. If they're not coming back to haunt the minister, then I can only deduce that the minister just likes to hear himself talk and that the words that he said then and the words that he says now are meaningless.

The Minister of Labour said in the July 2 Nanaimo Daily News that he has carefully evaluated the concerns about this bill, but that the opposition to the code has no substance. He went on to say: "If someone can show me what's wrong with the legislation, I'd be prepared to listen, but it hasn't happened." Can you believe it, hon. Speaker? Concerns about this bill have been given to this minister, and he refuses to pay attention to anyone but his arrogant self.

In the same article, Mike Blumel, president of the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce, said the minister hasn't proved it's good for the economy: "I can tell you there has been no economic impact study done. It's imperative that this be done. [The bill] affects the cost of doing business." The reason we are fighting this bill is because it takes away the rights of workers. It takes away the rights of the employer. It will kill investment in British Columbia, and when investment is killed, there are no jobs for the people to go to.

[ Page 10002 ]

Being in opposition didn't teach the NDP anything. If it had, they would not be the terrible government they are today. The NDP in opposition would have tried to fix what was wrong with the government. Two wrongs do not make a right, as I've said before. "The provincial government needs to create a framework of accountability that oversees their ethical conduct, legal compliance and operational capacity, says British Columbia's auditor general." That was from the Alaska Highway News, June 26. Mr. Morfitt was speaking to a combined Rotary-Chamber luncheon. The auditor general at that luncheon outlined various ways in which the government skirts issues of ethics and integrity. Also from that same article, Mr. Morfitt said we should not sit idly by as the NDP government creates a fiscal fantasy land while preaching accountability.

Hon. Speaker, you can understand why the members on this side of the House are very worried about this province, about what this Bill 26 will do -- the message it is going to send around the world that British Columbia is not open for business. Our motion is giving the members opposite an opportunity to wake up and smell the roses. The roses are dying in British Columbia. The downward spiral is quickening, and hope is disappearing with each piece of legislation this government puts through this House. In each piece of legislation this government puts forward, you are sure to find a poison pill that serves only the NDP agenda, not the people of this province.

It was an absolute pleasure to embarrass the NDP, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson adjourned the House and caught two ministers, who should have known better, asleep. They couldn't shrug off the error and use their majority to ram the bill back through the Legislature. They were not paying attention to the debate and got caught with their proverbial pants down, much to their embarrassment. We scored big-time.

The government talks about creating a climate where jobs will actually come back to British Columbia rather than leaving. The NDP are all talk and press releases -- advertisements all over the province, paid for by the taxpayer. All talk and no action -- that's what this socialistic government is. I don't think they know how to do anything else but spin, spin and spin again what a great job they're doing, while British Columbia sinks deeper and deeper into a recession, soon to be a depression.

Saskatchewan has an NDP government; that government does not put roadblocks in the way of business. They know what an asset they are. In Saskatchewan they're looking at an 8.1 percent increase in capital spending; British Columbia is looking at a 1.3 percent growth in capital spending. This government has an opportunity to turn things around for this province, and they could start with the opportunity we on this side of the House are giving them with this motion. It is a small start, but it is a start.

The Minister of Labour says that there isn't anything to worry about. He may not be worried, but we on this side of the House are desperately worried. The Minister of Labour continually says that this bill will not affect small business. When the minister makes such ridiculous statements, you know he doesn't understand anything about this bill.

[5:30]

The NDP have not shown anyone in this province that Bill 26 will perform some benefit for the economy. If it will, where is the proof? We are asking to see the proof that this bill will be beneficial to this province. We don't see any proof, because this socialistic government hasn't got any proof. They haven't done an impact study or made an effort to find out how this will affect our economy. When we ask for the proof that this bill won't further damage our already weak economy, we don't get any answers.

That's what this is all about. This bill is not about doing good or preventing harm; it's only about driving an ideological agenda. We know where that approach has taken us: from the number one economy in Canada to number ten -- last place.

What British Columbia needs right now is fairness in B.C. labour laws, laws that provide a balance in the workplace. Bill 26 will not provide that balance. We need to put a stop to the damage being caused to the B.C. economy. We need to get rid of the red tape, overregulation and high taxation that are killing our province. Bill 26 won't do that. We need to send a message to the business communities around the province and to the international investment community that B.C. is supportive of the people who create jobs -- and that we are open for business. Bill 26 won't give that message. Bill 26 will not get British Columbia's economy moving again.

So I ask: what is its purpose? How can any jobs be created in this province when there is no wealth involved? If there is no wealth, it must be done on the backs of the overburdened taxpayers. We have already seen what happened to Skeena Cellulose, and now a fish plant is getting an $8 million loan from the government to keep it going. That is the only way this government knows how to create jobs: to put our money into losing businesses.

Interjections.

B. McKinnon: The members opposite sit on the other side of the House and heckle, but they haven't got the courage to stand up on their own time and support this bill that they know in their own hearts is wrong for British Columbia. That is why this is a government that does so little good for this province and so much bad.

We have been debating this bill for the last two weeks, because the Premier of the province ignored the advice given to him by the job creators in British Columbia. They told him: "Do not touch the Labour Code. Leave it alone." He said he was listening, but he wasn't. He was playing games with the people's livelihood.

[ Page 10003 ]

Our health care system is near collapse, and we can't provide the schools to educate our children. The schools in my riding are overflowing and have been for years, but only promises have reached the schools. Why are the NDP so afraid of being fair? What is wrong with treating people with fairness and equality? What is wrong with a secret ballot? This government has its own agenda -- an agenda that is destructive to this province and that has brought British Columbia to its knees. Last year, when Bill 44 was introduced to the Legislature, the people of this province showed the government that they were listening to what was happening in Victoria. They showed the government an anger that was not anticipated by the NDP.

Let's bring workplace democracy back to this province. The minister said that this legislation, Bill 26, was in the best interest of workers. Workers have rights when they have choice, in my opinion. The Minister of Labour says that this legislation doesn't force trade unionism on anybody, but Bill 26 clearly does just that. Bill 26 is a labour organizer's dream come true. Not only are we going to see trade unionism forced on the worker without a democratic vote, but we are also seeing that their interests are not going to be served, because a master collective agreement from on high is going to be imposed on them. . . .

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: Every member opposite has their turn to get up and speak if they have some problem with what I am saying. So just wait your turn.

They will not have a say when negotiating for the terms and conditions that suit their workplaces and allow their employers to stay in business.

In a letter he wrote to a business organization, the minister said that we must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in national and international marketplaces.

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: It may be old, but it's still your letter.

He went on to say that workers' rights to join the union of their choice would be respected. A climate of stability must be created to encourage investment and create jobs. The letter goes on about consulting with key stakeholders before changing laws. He talked about working to bring labour and government together, addressing issues of common and public concern.

These are all the messages that we have been trying to give to the minister. Now we find out that he's saying these things to the business community, but he's not following through. The minister has invited input from the business and labour communities and government. If only the minister would take his own advice, British Columbia would be so much better off.

We have lost all sense of democracy in British Columbia. We have a government that is incompetent, arrogant, and feeds on control and power. That's the NDP in a nutshell. We were elected by the people of this province to do a job, and as opposition we have an obligation to stand up to this socialist government. As I have said many times, this is an opportunity for the government to do something right for British Columbia for a change, to show that they are prepared to make a move to stop our downward spiral. They should at least have the decency to do an impact study, to see what effect this bill will have on the province. This legislation is being forced into this House without adequate public debate. We have a government that is afraid of public discussion on this legislation, because they know it's unpopular with the majority of people. The reason this legislation has been brought forward for debate so quickly after introduction for first reading is that they know and we know that the public will overwhelmingly condemn this bill. The NDP lack courage; they haven't got the courage to face public opinion.

P. Nettleton: This is a somewhat interesting exercise in that this is my first experience in this House of speaking to a motion and a bill around the clock, in effect. It is certainly of some interest personally, and I expect that there are members on the other side who have found themselves in the position of opposition in years gone by, and may very well have gone through the same exercise. I think that people expect those of us in opposition to hold the government to account on a wide range of issues, although I certainly think it is somewhat unusual. . . . I expect, given my limited experience, that this is somewhat unusual in that those of us in opposition are clearly not going to be opposing the government with such vigour on every issue. That's not what the public expects, nor would I expect it to be particularly effective. There are a number of legislative initiatives, certainly during the course of a session or a sitting such as this, which we in opposition have to examine. We have to decide which initiatives are particularly harmful and which initiatives we should work most vigorously to oppose. This is the initiative that we have chosen to quite vigorously oppose, and we have chosen to highlight what we see as the dangers inherent in a piece of legislation of this sort. I know that government certainly does try, for the most part, to govern in a manner which will lead to the well-being of the population as a whole, but I think that oftentimes it falls short.

This is one instance -- with all respect for and deference to the experience of the Labour minister, the Premier and others on the other side -- in which we take exception to their legislative agenda. We take issue with them on this initiative. I think the motion speaks for itself, in that it refers to the risks associated with further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy.

I have a few comments to make with reference to Bill 26 and this motion before us. I will also make a few comments, if I may, to the whole question of investor confidence in the provincial economy. Much has been said over the course of the past number of days, in the context of the discussion on Bill 26, about those two issues, which I think bears repeating. Perhaps there's a different or fresher approach that I can employ to discuss those issues.

Again, I would say that while this exercise of speaking through the night is a somewhat unusual exercise, I believe,

[ Page 10004 ]

This session in particular has been an interesting one, hon. Speaker, in that like no other session -- this being my third session, which isn't a lot in terms of experience. . . Unlike previous sessions, this is one session in which I've been hearing from constituents, hearing the concerns of constituents -- not specifically tied into this bill or amendment but concerns which are tied into the economy, jobs and issues of that sort. As I suggested earlier and I think various members have suggested, those are linked in some way to this bill. Clearly constituents have concerns. Beyond concerns, many constituents are in a state of crisis at a personal level -- particularly those who are tied into the forest sector. It's incumbent upon me to speak for them, to speak to this issue and anything which I see or we see as potentially a threat to their prospects for a secure future in terms of job security and things of that sort.

We certainly have a different approach than the current government does when it comes to their legislative agenda, as it relates to labour legislation. I recall, back in law school some years ago, taking labour law, and it's at times like this that I wish I had been a little more attentive in terms of studying labour law and listening to the prof, who was a wealth of information. I know that what we did study was in a historical context. We looked at previous administrations like the Socred administration, which had certainly gone too far in one direction. At that time we looked at. . . . I don't recall the bill that followed Bill 19, but in any event, it was certainly one of the more interesting courses that we took in law school and of particular interest here in British Columbia, where we see the kind of polarity that exists even currently to some extent in terms of the labour climate. Oftentimes the polarity gets in the way of finding the kinds of solutions that are necessary in order for employers and employees to work together towards a common goal.

I've had my chance in terms of being attentive in law school, and, as I say, I should have been more attentive. But again I find myself in a wonderful position in that the constituents of Prince George-Omineca have entrusted me to speak for them, to be their voice and to be attentive to the legislative agenda -- particularly in this instance, to the potential impact on them. It's a wonderful, awesome privilege. So this is an opportunity for me to listen, to learn and, as well, to speak for them and to this legislation.

[5:45]

Those are the kinds of issues that I know affect the people I represent. That's the kind of approach to governance that is of concern to the people I represent, and it is not particularly productive or effective. While we can't turn back the hands of time in terms of that issue -- that is, the issue of health care in rural and northern B.C. -- we can at least look for a new approach. I'm thinking now in terms of the labour legislation that is before us and of a new approach to working together, to a time of generating some sense of reconciliation, some sense of trust and goodwill. It seems to me that this is really essential whether it's within education or health care. Even with labour legislation, it's important to build some sense of trust and goodwill as we bring together all of the players. Certainly that's where we should be aiming.

One of the things that I find sometimes gives you some sense of the public response on any given issue is looking at clippings. For those of us who live and work in this environment -- I'm sure it's the experience of members on the opposite side as well -- generally, the first thing we do in the morning over our coffee is grab the clippings and review them to give us some sense of what's happening not only here in Victoria and the lower mainland but in the outlying communities back home, and even to some extent nationally and internationally. The clippings are oftentimes very helpful. On this issue -- that is, the labour bill, Bill 26 -- the clippings, as well, give us some indication of the public sentiment in and around the whole question of tinkering with the Labour Code. I will preface my comments and remarks by saying that in fairness, I have been somewhat selective in choosing the clippings. I'm sure there are clippings out there that point in the other direction.

An Hon. Member: Pretty scarce.

P. Nettleton: Yes. As the member indicates, they're rather scarce. It's pretty tough to find clippings which are supportive of the government's action to amend the Labour Code.

I know certainly that in Prince George the Free Press recently pointed to the concerns of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce and talked about how they were joining other business organizations around the province in criticizing the proposed changes to the Labour Code. The president of the Prince George chamber went on to say that he was surprised that the government introduced the review panel's recommendations, considering the widespread opposition they had received from business. The changes, he went on to say, bring in "de facto sectoral bargaining. When the craft unions and industrial-commercial institutional unions have to have a council bargain on their behalf, it seems to me that is sectoral bargaining."

He goes on to talk about the impact on the business climate. He said: "The perception is [that] B.C. is not a friendly place to operate. Now the government is bringing this in. What kind of a message does this send to businesses?" That's the position of the chamber of commerce in Prince George. As I think I've mentioned a number of times in this House, Prince George is particularly feeling the strain of the downturn in the economy, given their reliance on the resource sector and being tied in as closely as they are to the forest industry.

Here's another editorial from Prince George, which again criticizes the move to amend the Labour Code. This editorial is

[ Page 10005 ]

"The political spin from Victoria is in high gear concerning Labour Code changes before the Legislature. Bill 26, introduced Wednesday and headed for passage, applies a master collective agreement to workers newly organized in industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors in British Columbia. It's alarming legislation, to say the least. Critics -- and there are many -- are being labelled by [the minister] and the Premier as forces working against B.C.'s future. [The minister] says opponents to the changes will be to blame if the economy suffers, adding that what the government is doing will have no significant economic impact."

The editor responds and says:

"Balderdash. That's political spin of the lowest order. B.C.'s reputation as an unbalanced locale to do business is growing rapidly, and this repetitive favour-giving to unions only adds to the concern. Time and time again the government has been told to alleviate this pressure, but instead they march ever forward in their quest to place allegiance ahead of practicality. Bill 26, as so many critics have pointed out, provides an unbalanced package and simply continues to present to outside influences that cautionary attitude of doing business here and it gives no relaxation to business within the province to seek growth or to even stay here. That's not negative, it's a reality."

Another clipping I'd like to refer to, if I may, is closer to Victoria. In fact, it is from the Victoria Times Colonist. It's a clipping by Les Leyne, who is no lightweight in terms of his reputation as a journalist. He's very astute and has some very insightful comments on a wide range of issues -- including, in my submission, the labour legislation before us. The headline is dated Thursday, June 18 and reads: "Labour War Is Last Thing Province Needs Right Now." "It's as much a part of life on the coast as tide changes. Every few years, the government of the day decides to start a labour war."

He talks about how the Bill Bennett Social Credit government did a wholesale revamp that tilted the field in favour of employers. He talks about how "Mike Harcourt's government pulled. . .field, putting the fix in for the unions which control the New Democratic Party." Finally, he says: "So after a winter's worth of work by an expensive bunch of labour lawyers, [the Premier's] New Democrats tried again Wednesday to give their friends in the building trades a leg up. It's a pale, insipid version of last year's Bill 44, but it can still do a lot of damage." That's a view from here in Victoria from one member of the legislative press gallery.

The last clipping I'd like to refer to, if I may, is the view from back east -- or at least it's a view which is being espoused back east. It was in the June 18 Globe and Mail by contributing journalists Ross Howard and Craig McInnes. The clipping was entitled "B.C., Business Tangle over New Labour Law."

"Risking the hard-won goodwill of the business community, B.C.'s NDP government introduced changes yesterday to the province's Labour Code that will make it easier to unionize a large part of the construction industry.

"[The Labour minister] unveiled yesterday what he called modest special provisions for collective bargaining within part of the construction industry. But a coalition of large and small corporate interests, the opposition Liberals and some independent contractors warned it would have a devastating impact on the industry and the already weak B.C. economy.

"The legislation to create one bargaining council for employers and for unionized workers in industrial, commercial and institutional construction will inevitably spread to residential construction and drive up house prices, declared the non-unionized housebuilding sector spokesperson, the Canadian Home Builders Association.

"The legislation will also further hobble B.C.'s economy and drive away capital and workers, said [the spokesperson] for the Coalition of B.C. Businesses."

We understand that this exercise, which is an important exercise from the point of view not only of government but particularly of those of us in opposition who want to hold this government to account on this piece of legislation and create an opportunity in which there is some pause, some opportunity for reflection. . . .

Nevertheless, we understand, at the end of the day, that this government will have its way. That seems to be the case; it seems to be inevitable. This government doesn't use guns and tanks, as they perhaps do in other jurisdictions, to impose its way, but nevertheless, this government is certainly in a position to silence the voices that are raised in opposition to this particular bill -- to the likely impact of this legislation -- and impose its own agenda on this province and impose its view of the world -- at least in relation to labour legislation. I think it's generally recognized that we in the opposition have been effective -- that certainly seems to be what we're hearing -- that we have been effective and that we've done a good job in terms of bringing this whole debate to the fore in the public's mind. We've carried forward the concerns of British Columbians from throughout the province, members representing, as they do, the various regions of the province. And we've done that. We've carried forward to this Legislature the concerns of the regions we represent.

[6:00]

As I say, we're fighting for those who are union, non-union, business people -- particularly small and medium-sized businesses, the backbone of our economy. We've certainly heard from people who are in those businesses; we've heard their concerns and their fears. We have spoken for them and have done so rather effectively. We've heard from entrepreneurs, people who have an entrepreneurial spirit and are looking for opportunity, looking for places to invest and to create jobs and opportunities for others. We want to encourage entrepreneurs, and this legislation is seen as a signal to entrepreneurs and to people in small and medium-sized businesses that in fact this is not a friendly environment for them.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 10006 ]

That's a huge concern that all of us have -- the exodus we've seen in recent months of capital, of expertise and of confidence. We've seen a mass exodus to borders beyond our own, and there's a very real concern that this hemorrhaging of talent and moneys outside our province will continue.

I know that the Premier said prior to the introduction of this legislation that he had gotten the message in terms of high taxes, red tape and the anti-business stance of his government. In fact, there were a number of highly publicized meetings with leaders in the business community -- highly publicized meetings which I think raised expectations, public expectations and expectations among the business and investment community, that in fact there was some recognition, some realization, from the point of view of not only the Premier of this province but this government, that things had to change. There needed to be some adjustment. I think there's no question that. . . .

Interjection.

P. Nettleton: My, this vigorous debate has certainly stirred an interesting response from the members on the other side. But in any event, Bill 26 sent the wrong message to the business community -- at least, that's what we're hearing. I don't know. I don't know that it's had. . . . It's certainly not the message that we want to be sending: that B.C. is closed to business. I'm sure none of us on either side of this House wants that message to be out there. First and foremost, we are British Columbians. We want to see our economy prosper; we want to see jobs created. That is something that we all want.

The minister has also made the comment -- perhaps he's right in asking that his comments be taken in context -- that he, too, wants to see that the economy is efficient and competitive. He has said that we must create a climate which will encourage investment and create jobs. That suggests to me that that is his government's aim.

Again, we would say to the minister and to this government: "Bill 26 does not assist you in your objective, in your aim." That is our concern. I know that there was, as I mentioned earlier, a public relations exercise involving the business community and the public as a whole. We do not want to see all of that thrown away as a result of legislation of this sort. That's our position. Certainly what we're hearing is that people do not want this legislation; people do not see the need for this legislation. In fact, people see it as something which is potentially very damaging to what is, without question, a very fragile economy. That's not something that we want to see.

It seems to me, and I know it's been said here before, that actions speak louder than words. What we need to see is some demonstration on the part of this government that in fact they are open to business. No one would ask that they encourage the rights of workers to be trod upon. In fact, we expect them to vigorously represent the interests of working people; that's a given, it seems to me. But at the same time, the way to do that is not to introduce legislation which will signal to the business and investment community that British Columbia is closed for business. What we need and want to see is jobs. We want to see investment. We want to see B.C. back in business again.

R. Coleman: Good morning, hon. Speaker. Good morning to everybody who has been engaged in this vigorous and scintillating debate since 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon and who has participated in what can best be described as the government's form of closure on Bill 26 -- and as its inability to run a parliamentary calendar. It has to go all night to deal with a particular piece of legislation, rather than have some planning in the way it operates itself.

This morning we're debating an amendment to Bill 26 to lift the bill because of its effect on the economy. I want to talk this morning about a number of people I've spoken to in the last 48 to 72 hours, since I last spoke in the House, relative to this piece of legislation. It's people that are directly affected by this legislation, both in business and in labour. It's also families that are concerned about the future -- their future within this province versus outside this province -- because of the dramatic drop-off in economic activity here in British Columbia.

It's unfortunate, first of all, that we have to be debating a piece of legislation that is going to cost us investment, and it has already cost us investment in real terms. As I've said before in this House, it's unfortunate that we as legislators cannot seem to figure out that the important part of this province is the people we represent -- that's all the people in the province, not just a select few. When we come to Bill 26, we have a piece of legislation that absolutely, without question, is going to cost us jobs. The reason I can categorically say that is because I am aware of $125 million worth of construction that will not be going ahead in this province. They are now going to leave their land base sitting here for the future, and they are moving their capital out of this province -- offshore and to other projects in other locations.

The reason is for a number of factors. First of all, there's something called redlining. Redlining is what happens when financial institutions take a particular sector of business or the economy, or a particular geographical area, and draw a red line around it relative to their interest in financing in that particular location. British Columbia has a red line drawn around it by the chartered banks of Canada. That red line says that they're not really interested in doing business in this province because of its instability, its rules and regulations and its overregulation. We're at the point where this is just not a good place for them to put the capital of their shareholders, who are the people who are the depositors in our banks.

Some might say that I'm all wet in that statement, except that I'm very familiar with the fact that a major project in our province was redlined in Ontario with regards to a borrowing capacity of $65 million. The particular project that was going to be built here was going to create a substantial number of jobs. After having debt-to-equity ratios above the industry average -- having the project, on a lease basis, already above the industry average qualification -- out of all the Canadian chartered banks, only one was prepared to look at the package. When the senior vice-president in British Columbia of that chartered bank looked at it, he said: "Tentatively, here's your letter for the financing of this particular project. However, it has to go to Ontario for the senior management of

[ Page 10007 ]

Here we are dealing with Bill 26, a bill that's definitely going to affect the economy, because this government has ignored the job creators of British Columbia. They told the government in writing, verbally and in presentations to various commissions. They basically said that they should leave the Labour Code alone. They said that, because we are actually experiencing relative labour peace. We are dealing with a period of time in our province when, from a labour-management perspective, we are actually achieving a level of balance that is good for the business community and for the labour community. Having done that, why would we tinker with it just for the purpose of turning around again and scaring more investment away? Labour won't have work, and business won't have business because investors won't invest. If we don't get those three factors into our economy, we won't have much of anything.

We have an economy that is already shrivelling up. It's already in recession. We're seeing huge levels of unemployment at both the youth and the adult levels, to the point where we are sitting here seeing our resources -- that being our people -- leaving our province in droves to go to other locations so that they can make a living for their families. When the job creators in this province say something to government, government should listen, because they are the ones out there taking the risks. They are out there saying: "Look. We can give you all of the statistics and all of the information that will show you that right now we have an investment problem in this province. We can show you that in this province right now, we have a problem and a difficulty around the fact that we don't have stability. We don't have that stability, because we have a regime of taxes, red tape, regulation, deficits and budget difficulties. We have difficulties around other areas of the economy relative to property rights and to the education and job training that we're providing to make our workforce stable in the future."

[6:15]

When you move into tinkering with a portion of an industry -- which is what we're doing here in Bill 26 with sectoral bargaining in the ICI sector. . . As soon as we do that, we affect the entire construction industry. We affected it because of the interrelationship between ICI and residential construction in regards to how we do business and construction in this province. If we affect the residential side in addition to the commercial side, which is already affected. . . . There's $125 million that I personally know about that is not going to be spent in this province, that's going elsewhere. If you multiply that by 75, it's a pretty scary number. People are talking to people about it being in the billions.

When we look at this economy and at the job generators, we have the resource sectors of our economy, which are forestry and mining, both in something of a crisis. In mining it's because of the lack of security of tenure and regulations that affect us on an international level. People don't want to invest in a mine here, because they don't feel they have security of tenure for their investment. That goes back to the way government does business in this province. I can tell you there was a major mine in this province that tried to get financing in New York in the not too recent past. When the presentation was made in the boardroom in New York -- there are only seven major players in this world that can finance a mine -- a couple of them sat around the table. The presentation was there; the ore body was there; the investment opportunity was there. Halfway through the presentation, one of the senior people of the fund management company that was in the room leaned across the table and asked the individual: "Did you say this mine is in British Columbia?" The individual said yes. He answered, "I'm sorry, we don't do business there; we're not interested in investing there; that's not an area that we like to go," simply because of all the things I've just mentioned: taxation, red tape, lack of security of tenure and what have you. So we have a mining industry that's in trouble. It isn't attracting jobs, and that affects the economy. That's one little piece of the puzzle.

Then we have the forest industry, which we all know has been affected both by the Asian economy and by adjustments in the marketplace. But as a huge economic generator in this province, it's having an effect on every single one of us in one way or another.

Then we add in intrusive legislation in the construction sector, which is obviously going to have an effect on residential construction as well. We have to look at what is probably -- if not the largest -- the second-largest economic driver in this province: the construction industry. Let's look at one portion of it. In 1993 we had 42,807 starts in British Columbia; in 1996 we dropped to 26,641; and in 1998 it's predicted that we'll have 22,000 housing starts in British Columbia. That means that from 1993 to 1996, we lost 31,000-plus jobs in residential construction alone, and from 1996 to 1998, we've lost another 17,000 jobs. That's 48,000 jobs in construction in British Columbia. Now, if the housing side of the economic generator is being damaged at that level right now and people like those I have met and spoken to are moving out of the province with their capital because they're not going to do commercial development in the ICI sector today -- if you stack that on top of that -- then this huge economic driver is being devastated by legislation like Bill 26.

The devastation took place months ago when the government started to think about bringing in this bill. It started last year with Bill 44 and continued on through the different reports and information that kept hitting the industry throughout that period of time coming into the spring of 1998. Before this bill even hit the floor of the Legislature, a number of major investors had already moved. They'd already said: "That's it. That's enough. We're out of here quietly." And they moved on to where they can do business without this type of attitude that we get from this particular government.

It's unfortunate, because this government could have done things a little better, and in doing things better, it could maybe have dealt with some of the issues they had in certain

[ Page 10008 ]

The interesting thing is when you actually hear about the impacts when you talk to people. I took a cab the other morning, and my cab driver was also a boilermaker. He had worked in the shipbuilding industry and in other industries as well. He got to talking about his concerns. It was interesting, because we actually sat on the side of the road after he delivered me to where I was going, and talked about his concerns relative to organized labour and what would kick-start the economy. It was interesting. As I said earlier in other comments I've made in this House, I've yet to receive a letter from a member of the craft unions in this province saying that they want sectoral bargaining in any sector of the construction industry. But the rank and file certainly has some other concerns in other areas.

This fellow's concern was that organized labour in the province wouldn't reach the point where it was modernized in its philosophies or wouldn't realize that efficiencies for the employer were efficiencies for the employee and would allow an employer to run a job and be competitive in a world market. His comments went back to the inability to have craft unions work together on a job site so they wouldn't have large jurisdictional disputes over what was going on relative to their particular jobs and would actually complete the task at hand. He felt that they -- and speaking of himself, as well -- were large contributors to the loss of competitiveness in his field, and the reason he was behind the wheel of a cab today versus following his selected trade as a boilermaker is that he felt that before the unions in his particular industry would be able to work in a non-jurisdictional-dispute type of environment. . . . His comment was: "We have to suffer so that we can learn how to do business better with the employer." He said: "We brought a lot of this on ourselves."

His other concerns relative to organized labour -- I keep getting these two back; he brought them up to me, and of course I have spoken to and solicited comments from different members of craft unions -- were the pensions and benefits of their particular organization and the lack of reporting or control that they have. It was interesting how he described how he wanted to get involved in the democratic process. When he asked for information from his organization relative to those, it was provided, after a long period of time, and then he was told: "Don't do anything with this, because this is not something we want for public consumption." His concern was: "Where is my money now?" He worked in the industry for a long time, and he wasn't getting answers as to where his pension benefits were. Of course, his personal benefits are long gone. He's not working anymore; therefore he doesn't have the benefits he had when he was working.

Those were his concerns. I asked him about sectoral bargaining, and he didn't know what it was. He didn't see the benefit of it. He said: "Until we, as a labour force, become more competitive along with business, we'll never compete in a global market. You can try and legislate whatever you want; it's still not going to fix the problem."

The sad part about that is we live in an economy in British Columbia where capital spending is declining. You just cannot continue to live in denial with regard to this particular side of the problem. We do have a lack of capital spending, and it is declining in this province. That's only happening in two other provinces in Canada: Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Imagine that, in a province like ours, with its resources and people and climate and all the attractions of it. Capital spending is down in British Columbia. Without capital spending, you don't create new activity, and without new activity, you don't create jobs. If people are walking away from us with their feet, it's because they have a reason.

If you ask people who are investors in the economy. . . . A friend of mine just came back from Singapore. He was over raising capital for a project that he's doing out of province. He has dropped his major hotel project in B.C. for the time being, until he's more comfortable with our particular environment. He got the same answer from investors in Singapore and Hong Kong as he's getting from investors in British Columbia -- that is: "Your taxes are too high. The environment that you have with the labour legislation that's going on now. . . . It's competitive in a global market, and you have this regulation and red tape and lack of security of tenure in your province. We just don't want to invest there right now." He's getting that story wherever. It's amazing, because when I asked him about the labour laws, he said: "It's just seeing that right now, here you are in a tough economy, and you're changing your commercial construction laws. This is going to create some very funny and odd jurisdictional disputes within the construction industry, where you have the wall-to-wall unions and the craft unions. With that mixture, a lot of people have uncertainty as to how they'll be able to manage their investment in the construction phase."

I found that interesting. This morning I was in a meeting in Vancouver -- actually, yesterday morning, considering that it's. . . . Sometimes I feel like we're on a 24-hour clock. The interesting thing was how, in the union movement within the construction industry itself, there's going to be some difficulty with Bill 26. We actually have one particular union, the Carpenters Union, which has basically moved itself outside the craft union relationship and is also operating as a wall-to-wall union. It's going to cause some very interesting jurisdictional concerns when that particular organization chooses to operate on a job site in one manner or the other. That, of course, will take us down a road where uncertainty on the job site will then increase the costs and tell people that they don't want to be investing here. Again we'll lose that opportunity for us to be successful.

[6:30]

When you're sitting in an economy like we are and that economy is having difficulties like this one is, you would think that a government would do some economic impact studies on proposed legislation regulations. Why didn't they?

[ Page 10009 ]

How can the Minister of Small Business, for instance, support a piece of legislation that attacks the people who create 70 percent of the jobs in this province? That interaction between small ICI and residential on a contractor basis, through to the investor and then finally to the people who would lend the money, is just going to send a ripple through the industry. I doubt that even one chartered bank that was prepared to do a project in this particular province will do one the next time.

The NDP have to understand that this is not just about labour legislation. What this is about is sending messages about a working environment within an economy, with optimism within it so that people would want to invest. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in their annual survey of members' expectations, revealed that business optimism is highest in Ontario and the Prairies and lowest in New Brunswick and British Columbia. What that means is that money doesn't come here. It's that simple.

You can have all the philosophical discussions you want, but the bottom line is that we're losing investment. When investment is lost, jobs are lost; and when those are lost, other economic indicators go down -- housing, residential construction, the commercial construction sector. Add that to where we are right now, and we are a province that is in tough shape with people who are being hurt. The last thing we need is a piece of legislation that is going to drive a further wedge between investment and business in this province.

In my constituency you can feel that lack of optimism in the business community, and you can see the fear on the people's faces relative to it. Let's talk about that for a second. Let's talk about that feeling of fear. We sit in a building, insulated, and although we've been here since 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon and have sat all night -- because, as I said, there is embarrassment relative to this legislation, and we now have to get some form of closure and push it through because the government is not doing too well out there with it -- we still have to go back to where we come from and look at the people we deal with in our communities and see what's going on out there. I can tell you that I can see it in my constituency. I get it on the telephone, and I get it in the letters. I get it in my conversations with people on the street. This is what I get. People are increasingly saying that they're looking for alternatives, for work outside of British Columbia. They're looking at separating their families, with one wage earner leaving the province to make a living in order to maintain their credit rating and pay for the mortgage on the family home. They are so concerned and so afraid that you can see it in their faces.

When you see it in their faces, it brings up, on a regular basis, the whole list of social problems relative to families and to their lifestyles in this province. If you have that family break up and you have that financial pressure as the result of the lack of jobs in this province and they're going elsewhere, that has an impact that trickles down right through our entire operation of government.

The record here is not good. For seven years, since 1991, when we were number one in economic growth, we've gone down to number ten. We've gone at an alarming rate from having a high per-capita investment to having a decreasing per-capita investment coming into this province. We have had increases in taxes to the point that British Columbians are paying $2,300 more tax per year on average than they were five years ago. In 1996 we had a decline in personal income of 1.9 percent and in 1997 a decline of 2.3 percent. We have had an increase in red tape and in government regulation. While we're doing this, we have ignored the fact that we have an economy in trouble, and all we've done is added to the difficulty.

Statistically, as we all know, the province has lost jobs. In January alone we lost 19,000 jobs. It really bugs me when I see my close friends out of work and looking to relocate out of my community to other areas, and I'm sure every MLA in this House feels the same way. We don't want to see the fabric of our communities start to die as good people move away because the opportunities died before the community died, and they've had to move on.

The thing that we have to remember is: why are we doing this? What real good will Bill 26 do for the people of British Columbia? Where is the proof that Bill 26 will perform some benefit to the economy? There is none. There isn't even a decent economic assessment study of this particular piece of legislation to say that it will do anything good. Where is the proof that it won't do further damage to our already weak economy? Well, it will do further damage to our already weak economy. It's just that the bill is not about doing good or preventing harm; it's only about driving a particular agenda. We know that that agenda is sending a message to investors that we deal with, that we know, that we speak to, who are saying: "We don't do business in B.C. anymore because of this type of legislation."

What this government needs to do is cut personal income tax; it needs to eliminate red tape and government regulation. It could deliver an honest, true and balanced budget, start to get to work on the deficit. You could give some people some security of tenure in their property, in their investment and in the resource base of this province. You could work on a better education system and better job training, which you could do without having to have intrusive bills like Bill 26, which will scare away investment. And if you do that, you'd have the support of this side of the House. It's time you woke up and realized you need to do something good for the B.C. economy.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment put forward by the member for Matsqui in relation to Bill 26, the amendment being: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26). . .for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy."

It's hard to try to put into new words many of the things that have been spoken in regards to Bill 26 and the damaging effect it will have on our economy. It has been said over probably the last month -- three weeks at least -- that we as an official opposition have been standing almost daily, sometimes late into the night and now on through the night, to put forward some of the concerns that we're hearing from people across the province -- the job creators of the province and those people who have jobs -- about labour legislation that everyone fears will further erode our economy. Our economy in British Columbia is dismal at best; I guess that is probably a good way to put it. It's been dismal for a while. No matter who you speak to, whether you go to Prince George, where there is 15 percent unemployment, or into the northwest -- Smithers, Terrace, Prince Rupert and all those places -- where unemployment is at record levels, people are concerned. Peo-

[ Page 10010 ]

Many of those people have said that changing the Labour Code, dramatically changing the way government does things, will have a negative effect on the job creators and the people that invest in this province to create jobs. They're fearful -- and rightfully so. I have probably been one of the more fortunate ones. I've always been able to have a job, ever since I started looking for work as a young person. By the way, I didn't have to always work in a union environment. I worked most of my life in a non-union environment, and I worked part of my life in a union environment. Both provided good jobs, and that's what I was concerned about at the time. I had a young family; my wife and I had to raise a young family. We had to put food on the table and a roof over our heads. Our concern was that we wanted, desperately so, for our job to stay so that we could provide our family with the best that we could at that time.

So it makes me wonder what kind of government it would take to come into power in British Columbia in the fall of 1991 and, within the first year of its mandate, do a complete rewrite of the labour legislation, which we debated at length in this House, and then to come back a few years later -- last year, for instance -- and say: "Whoops! We want to introduce more legislation as far as the Labour Code is concerned. We want to further strengthen it for unions." Throughout this time we had a relatively good labour peace. People were working; the province was doing fairly well; our markets were doing fairly well.

But then things started to crumble. Obviously it takes a while for negative legislation to take hold in the whole scope of things and in the whole picture of the B.C. economy. So we started to see the British Columbia economy go into the tank. When I say that it went into the tank, it didn't just start easy. It's gone into the tank big-time; it has gone from the top of the tank to the absolute bottom. Much of this is a result of economic policies, regulation, legislation and certainly some of the impending labour legislation that industry, businesses and investors thought they were going to experience last year with Bill 44. I know that last year, after the Premier withdrew Bill 44, there was a huge sigh of relief from those businesses that were still operating and from people who still had jobs, thinking: "Wow! Maybe this group of wizards has finally seen the light and will allow us to continue to keep our jobs and provide for our families" -- or, from the business viewpoint, to have a return on investment or a profit, which seems to be a very dirty word on the other side of this House.

[6:45]

When we look at the forest industry, the absolute devastation that has taken place in the forest industry. . . . Even though quite a few of the members from across the way may come from downtown Vancouver and may not really feel the effects of what has taken place in the forest industry, there are members on that side of the House who live, have grown up and have worked in towns where forestry was the mainstay. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine is one; the member for Skeena is another; the member for North Coast is another; some of the members from the Kootenays are others. They've seen the absolute devastation that this government has caused on the major engine of our economy: the forest industry. No matter how you cut it, hon. Speaker, no matter how you slice the pie, no matter how you try to dissect it, the forest industry was the engine. Unfortunately, it has just about puffed its last bit of steam.

When we look at the job loss in the North Coast constituency, for instance. . . . That's the riding of the Deputy Premier of this province. He had to convince his colleagues to come up with a $300-million-or-so bailout for a failed forest company to save jobs and what he termed the economy of the North Coast. The government still doesn't realize what they have actually done to that industry, even after having to provide the biggest bailout in British Columbia's history by any government, bar none. The people from across the way, who in 1992 said they would never do that, levelled some towns and totally abandoned others. But all of a sudden in 1997 they saw their way clear to providing the largest bailout that's ever been given to a forest company in British Columbia. That, as the Deputy Premier spoke of many times, was done to save thousands and thousands of jobs. Well, why can't that same member make the same parallel to bad legislation and what it's done to the industry, to start with, to create that problem?

We look at the Forest Practices Code. I think people have become tired of trying to count the number of pages in the code or the number of volumes of books or manuals that explain, or try to explain, almost every facet of the forest industry from the viewpoint of someone who has, in most cases, never worked in the forest industry -- over 1,000 pages. It's devastating to that industry. The member for North Coast should know well how devastating it is.

When you see the increase in taxation that this government foisted on individuals to get us to the highest marginal personal income tax rate in the country and to the highest marginal taxation rate for business or industry -- to apply a corporate capital tax because, as the Premier said at that time, "We're still not getting enough; we need more money" -- slowly, bit by bit, they chiselled at those bricks that held up that forest industry. They kept knocking them out, breaking them down, until we have what we have today: bailouts -- in the Kootenays, it's Evans Forest Products, to keep it operational. Hon. Speaker, this is a government that said they would never do that; that was prior to the election in 1991. Then they come along and end up having to do it in the name of saving jobs.

But in the name of saving jobs, they haven't taken the broader viewpoint: that we have to retain the industry and business that we have and the jobs that go along with them, and we have to be able to attract new investment. Well, British Columbia has done a dismal job of attracting investment -- dismal. In fact, hardly anybody wants to invest any money in British Columbia anymore. They're sitting on their hands and their wallets, waiting for the next election. "Let's make sure," they say, "that we have a change of government -- that we get the socialists out, to get that philosophy in British Columbia out of the minds of British Columbians -- so that investors

[ Page 10011 ]

I talked about the forest industry in B.C. In comparison, the oil and gas industry in Alberta is its engine; that's what keeps Alberta going. The B.C. economy was forestry; that's what keeps British Columbia going. The difference is that in Alberta you have governments that tend to say: "Yes, we need some more investment. Yes, we're going to create a climate that will encourage that investment. And yes, we're just so pleased that they're going to provide jobs." The flip side is absolutely the truth in British Columbia. We have a government, which has governed for the last seven years, that said: "No taxation is high enough. There's never enough regulation. And everybody but the NDP is out to make a fast buck."

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those same people that invest in Alberta and Saskatchewan in the oil and gas industry also invest in British Columbia. They can see very clearly what the difference is in the return on investment. I don't care who you are, you have to have a return on investment, or you're just not going to invest the money. Money is mobile; they can move it to other parts of the country.

We saw a change in government in Ontario, which in fact now has, I believe, the lowest personal income tax rate in all of Canada. Their economy is growing. Why? Why, after a number of years of Mr. Bob Rae and the NDP, is the economy growing? It's because the province of Ontario is encouraging people to invest their money, encouraging industry to come to Ontario and create jobs in the manufacturing industry -- whatever. Even the other socialist province in Canada, Saskatchewan, has a much better way of approaching how to have investment in their province, compared to the British Columbia NDP. They want people to come to Saskatchewan, invest their money, make a decent rate of return and create jobs. British Columbia, under this administration, has some ulterior agenda, some other agenda -- which almost no one has been able to figure out, least of all the governing party, I think -- for what they're really going to do and how they're going to do it.

When we see investment fleeing British Columbia to Alberta, fleeing from our forest industry to Alberta and to other provinces. . . . In other provinces in Canada you see that their forest industry, their exports, are up. Get it? They've got business happening in the forest industry in other provinces. Alberta is ahead of British Columbia. They are actually investing. . . . There are people investing money in the forest industry in Alberta -- a huge amount of dollars; huge plants in northern Alberta -- all because the investment climate is right, and they can make a return on their investment. Not in British Columbia. Just go look at the stats for the forest industry in the last two years. "B.C. forest industry returns are dismal," an industry news release, the Forest Industry Trader, says. "The British Columbia forest industry suffered losses for the second year in a row, with losses of $192 million for 1997."

That's what this government should be addressing. That's what this government should be looking at: how we get that engine back on the track with a full head of steam. If we're going to continue to provide the health care, the education and the social services that people in the province of British Columbia have come to demand or need, we need a robust economy. We can't have an economy that's in the tank; we can't have an economy that's number ten in all of Canada. Somehow those numbers. . . . Even an NDPer ought to be able to understand that. You need to get money from somewhere.

I guess the difficulty in the last number of years has been that the folks across the way thought you just increased taxes. You increase royalties; you increase taxes; you get those terrible, bad businesses and industry and make them pay more and more. If taxes don't work anymore, because you have some fictitious thing about freezing taxes, then you'll bring in some new fees -- all kinds of fees, some kind of revenue generators -- and all will be okay.

[7:00]

But that hasn't proved to be in fact what happens in British Columbia. What has been proved is that that is the quickest way that is known to chase industry and the job creators and investment out of the province. And they're gone. When we talk about the forest industry, we talk about an industry that creates so many of the jobs in my constituency. The member for North Coast, the members for Skeena and Bulkley Valley-Stikine, the members from the Kootenays. . . . Those are the jobs that people need -- the good, IWA-type jobs that pay really good money and are the type of jobs that British Columbia needs for its people -- those high-paying jobs. And that money will recirculate.

What this government has done over the past number of years, as I said earlier, is just continue to increase taxation. I want to read another little article from the Forest Industry Trader. This is the June edition -- June 9. This is to do with the cost of logging, which is what I've been talking about through my presentation. It says: "The average cost of logging on Crown lands continued to increase, rising $5 per cubic metre to $88 per cubic metre in 1997. Five dollars per cubic metre translates into an additional cost of $20.41 per thousand board feet. The cost of logging has increased $40 per cubic metre since 1992, or $163.27 per thousand board feet."

That's the problem. It's this government's -- the NDP's -- appetite for money to spend. Just continue to say, as the Forests minister so ably put last year, that the days of profit in the forest industry are gone forever. What a way to encourage new investment. Worse yet, what a way to try and encourage those folks that have already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in plants in the province. What a way to encourage people to stay.

It's much the same as Bill 26. If it's just an innocuous little piece of garbage, as many of the NDP say it is -- it really means nothing: it's just a couple of pages of whatever -- and it's really not going to have any effect, why even bring it in? Why not leave it out there with Bill 44 in the trash bin, where it should be? Get those people that invest in British Columbia back here. Get the ones that have gone to Alberta. How many? Is it 150 industries in the last few years? Those are jobs, good-paying jobs -- Finning Tractor jobs, Nalley's potato chips jobs, oil and gas industry jobs, forest industry jobs. There are all those good-paying jobs that thousands of individuals out there in British Columbia right now would love to have -- and should have. That's what keeps British Columbia robust. That's what keeps our economy going -- well-paying jobs and industry being able to have a decent return on investment.

I would be really surprised. . . . Actually, to back up a little bit, it really amazes me when I think of how the NDP have totally destroyed our economy. They have destroyed the engine of the economy, the forest industry. The mining industry has gone; it's gone to Chile for many of the same reasons -- lack of tenure, lack of the ability to go and get a mine started. When people want to go out and do something, when

[ Page 10012 ]

I don't know. I've yet to be able to figure it out. How the member for Victoria-Hillside can stand in this House. . . . I think he's probably the only one that's spoken to any one of these amendments or to the bill other than the minister, and that was a speech of about five minutes, telling everyone that it should have been in the labour legislation a long time ago. I asked the question: if it should have been in the labour legislation a long time ago and if it's so simple and really means nothing, why in the world wasn't it there? Why wasn't it there a long time ago?

But it doesn't matter who you talk to. This group of wizards across the way has totally destroyed a robust economy, the number one economy. When you talk about folks who tend to say that they know labour best -- I guess in some cases they do know labour best -- you wonder how they operate when we also see on the order paper Bill 39, the Public Education Collective Agreement Act. This is an act that forces an agreement on all the school boards in the province of British Columbia. I guess it's socialist collective bargaining: "If you don't like it, we'll stuff it down your throat, and we'll take a stick and stuff it a little bit further." That's actually what you've done as a government.

When the teachers in my constituency were on strike, no one over here cared. Not a whisper, not a whistle did I hear from these people who are so concerned about the labour movement -- not one whisper. But when Vancouver went on strike, this House was called back on a Sunday to deal with the strike. This is what these folks are all about: downtown Vancouver. "If you don't like it, we'll shove it down your throat, and we'll shove it as hard as we can. We don't care what it does to jobs." They don't care what it does to investment in the province of British Columbia. It's a dismal group at best, who ought to be packing their bags and heading back out someplace else.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've been listening to this debate throughout yesterday and now well into today. I can honestly say that in the time that I've been here, I can't recall the Legislature sitting until this time of the day except for once, shortly after the election in 1991. It was in the spring of 1992, when the government had to get its first interim supply bill through -- and in fact had virtually an entire year's worth of estimates that were attached as a special warrant to that bill. This House sat around the clock until 9 a.m. the following morning in order to pass that. I have never, in the seven years that I've been here, seen a government so panicked, trying to get a piece of legislation through. I've never seen a piece of legislation driven so hard by a government so desperate to get it through. I'm sitting here while the government Whip says: "Remember the labour bill way back in 1992?" Hon. Speaker, we put that through the House. We didn't sit late once. We didn't sit past 6 p.m. once. On this bill, virtually every single day since this piece of legislation was introduced, this government has tried to drive it through every single night and the following morning. I have never seen a piece of legislation driven as hard as this one. I'm sitting here tonight -- like today, yesterday and the last couple of weeks -- and I'm asking myself: who is asking for this legislation? Who is asking for it?

An Hon. Member: And why is his name Georgetti?

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not even sure it's Mr. Georgetti. I think Mr. Georgetti is doing it a little bit out of some sense of loyalty to his colleagues in the building trades unions, but I don't think it's really him that's driving it. I think -- in fact, I know -- that it's a few people at the Construction Labour Relations Association, a few businesses that are unionized, but more importantly, it is primarily the leaders of the building trades unions. That's who it is.

The building trades went out and knocked on doors across my constituency from one end to the other, and it presented me with a petition with 216 names on it. Out of 48,000 voters, I got a petition with 216 names. I get more calls on health care from people in a week. I could walk down one side of West Broadway from Cambie Street to Granville Street and probably get 916 people to sign it, just the owners of the small businesses on that street alone. But it would be a different petition, one saying that they don't want this legislation, that it's bad for the economy and that it's bad for the people of British Columbia.

Usually when you have a piece of legislation that is this controversial, you get letters on it. You get the proponents advocating it. You have a piece of legislation that's. . . . You know, at least there's some discussion out there. The Mental Health Amendment Act that's on the order paper. . . . We're getting calls on it. You see it in the paper; you see letters to the editor. You get letters to your constituency office or your office here. It's a bill that people care about. I haven't had any letters or phone calls from workers out there, from these so-called oppressed workers, crying out for Bill 26.

The people who want this bill are the leaders of the old building trades unions that have become so uncompetitive, so inflexible and so hardened that they can't compete. They've seen their market shares drop precipitously over the last ten or 15 years. Not only has their market share dropped, but their membership has dropped, because the workers are saying: "I'm tired of being on strike with these idiots. I'm tired of going out on strike for six months of the year. I'm tired of being off work. I would rather work with an industrial union or in a non-union environment where I've got some flexibility, where I don't have these rigid rules about who can drive a nail and who can twist a pipe."

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member should pay more attention.

The fact of the matter is that it is not the workers who are crying out for this legislation. I don't see it. Where are they? I haven't seen them on the front steps of the Legislature. I haven't received the phone calls or the letters from the construction workers of this province saying: "Please pass Bill 26." All I've received is a petition done by the heads of the building trades, with the signatures of 216 people from my

[ Page 10013 ]

[7:15]

Last year, with Bill 44, I didn't like the legislation. I thought it was ridiculous, but I thought there was at least an issue there, a real issue that could have been dealt with. I thought the government, in their traditional way, were dealing with a sledgehammer rather than trying to fine-tune the legislation that was there to try and protect some of the lower-paid workers in the service sector. That's not what they were doing. They were taking a sledgehammer. They were going to use sectoral certification, the nuclear bomb of labour legislation and just -- poof -- create this whole sectorally certified service sector in British Columbia. But at least there were stories that could be told; there were people; you could understand their plight.

But where are the stories? Where are the people around Bill 26? I don't see them. I haven't received anything from them. I haven't heard from them. So you have to ask: why now? What is it that's so urgent about this?

If it was so urgent, why wasn't it done in 1992? You know, we had a huge overhaul in the labour legislation then. The government chose not to change the labour legislation around the construction industries; it chose that. It had a choice, and it chose that. I know that the former Minister of Labour, the individual who was Minister of Labour at the time, will say that there were reasons for that. There needed to be a special consultation done on the construction industry. Well, hon. Speaker, why didn't they do it in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 or 1996? Why did it take until 1997, five years later, for them to even get around to asking about it, to even start to open it up and look at it? Why did it take that long? It wasn't urgent. It wasn't on the government priorities; it certainly wasn't on the previous Premier's priority list.

Something happened between, say, 1996 and now that moved this to the topmost rung on an NDP agenda. It got top-class, A1-grade service from the NDP caucus. It became the most important piece of legislation for this session. It got the full treatment. It got the every-night treatment, it got the around-the-clock treatment, and it now has the early morning treatment. It got treatment that no other piece of legislation has ever had from an NDP government since 1991.

So you have to ask yourself: if before the election it wasn't a priority at all. . . ? It wasn't being done at all; it wasn't a concern. They had plenty of opportunity to do it -- when they had a mandate to do it, I might add. They ran on changing the Labour Code in 1991; they had a mandate to do it. But they didn't do it, they chose not to do it, in 1997, after the 1996 election -- when they didn't have a mandate to do it, because they didn't run on the issue, it wasn't in their platform, it was nowhere to be seen as an issue for them, and it wasn't something that they took to the public. In fact, just the opposite was true. They were told that there were no plans for changes to the Labour Code. Why is it that in the second term of this NDP government it suddenly became the very top priority?

I think the answer to that question is pretty clear: because the building trades supported the NDP financially and emotionally, with manpower, drive, energy and people. That's what it was that changed it. All of a sudden there's this huge debt that's owed. We all know that they supported the Premier's leadership campaign extensively. All of a sudden there's this big debt owed.

So, you know, members like the member for Surrey-Whalley, who probably has other items on her priority list of things that the government should be dealing with. . . . Knowing what I've heard her talk about in this House for the last seven years and from her reputation before as being a strong advocate for certain social issues, she's probably got a list as long as her arm of things she thinks are important and that should be on the agenda -- which, if we were going to be here at 7:20 in the morning, we'd be talking about. All of a sudden all the members of the NDP -- none of whom were terribly wound up about this issue for five years, when they had the mandate -- are now sitting here around the clock backing a piece of legislation to help the Premier pay off his debt.

That's all this is. Nobody's clamouring for it. Nobody is out there asking for this; nobody's out demanding it. In fact, when the government went out to do its consultation on construction, when they hired their special people to do the review panels, they said: "If you're going to do it, here's how you can do it, but we have no comment on whether it's a wise thing to do, given the current economic climate." The advisers -- the Vince Readys, the Kellehers -- all understand that one of the key levers up and down in the economy, particularly in British Columbia, is the Labour Code. They know that. They know that when you push or pull on that lever, it has an effect on our economy. They said that in their report. They advised the government -- and I thought it was a pretty clear caution to the government -- to be careful about those types of labour legislation changes.

Did the government heed that advice? Did they even bother to go over and look at the economic statistics for the province and realize that we're sliding into a recession -- that we have the worst economic performance we've had in probably 20 years? Did they bother to do that? Did they look at the unemployment numbers to see how unemployment in this province has skyrocketed in the last number of years, particularly in certain regions of the province? Did they go to the unemployment rolls and look at the high unemployment rate for young people? Did they look at the unemployment numbers for students? Did they say: "Gee, how many students are out of work? How many students aren't going to have access to the construction industry as a summer job if we bring in this legislation?" Did they bother to do that? No.

On one hand, all the advisers and all the business groups, with the exception of the CLRA, are telling them: "Be careful, or don't move at all." On the other side, you've got some members of the Construction Labour Relations Association and primarily the leaders of the building trades unions saying: "We need this." We've had the Skeena bailout for $329 million; we've got the J.S. McMillan one -- a second go-round -- with another $8 million loan; we've got a whole bunch of other bailouts. You know what Bill 26 is? It's a bailout of the archaic construction sector in British Columbia.

The leaders of those unions have priced themselves out of the market. They have become so intransigent and so inflexible that they cannot respond to the modern economy anymore. Their prices and costs of labour are just too high; they're too inefficient. It's not that the people on the other side aren't getting paid enough an hour; it's that these unions -- the old-style building trades -- in dividing up the work

[ Page 10014 ]

You know what happens when businesses or trade unions aren't competitive anymore and they start to lose their market share and start to go out of business? They come to the government for a handout. They come to the government for a hand up. They come to the government for a bailout. That's exactly what Bill 26 is. It's another bailout, only this time it's a bailout of the trade unions and the craft unions. I say to those craft unions: "If you want to secure your job and your market share, wake up. Look at the reality that's out there. Look at how British Columbia has to compete with Alberta and Manitoba and Saskatchewan and Washington State."

We're out there competing for jobs in the industrial sector. Apparently we're out there competing for an aluminum smelter. We're out there competing for investment in pulp mills. We're out there fighting and competing for investment in the forest sector. When a company is trying to decide where it's going to build that next mill, that next facility -- because they can build it anywhere in North America -- they look at the costs of building it. They look at the costs of construction. From now on, in British Columbia we are going to be significantly higher in our costs of production in the industrial sector than our surrounding jurisdictions.

It's not necessarily that our workers here will get a lot more money, because they won't. They'll either be unemployed, because the construction isn't happening at all, or the project will be built, and they'll make about the same amount of money. But the costs of the project will be dramatically higher because of the inefficiencies inherent in those building trade craft unions' collective agreements. That's a big part of it. You've got to look at the impact that this legislation is going to have on our economy.

When the Premier is out flying around North America trying to get people to come here and build an aluminum smelter, is he telling them that he is bringing in sectoral certification and, essentially, sectoral bargaining for the industrial sector? I doubt that he is. But I can tell you that when they do their research, when they look at what they're going to do and where they're going to build, one of the things they're going to look at is the Labour Code. They're going to look at how the construction industry is unionized here, how it's certified, what the collective agreement is and how much it's going to cost them. That's how they do a proposal study. When you're in construction, the labour cost is a significant portion of it. They're going to look at it and gauge it. They're going to say: "Do we build it in British Columbia, or do we build it in the southern United States? Do we build it in British Columbia or Washington State? Do we build it in British Columbia or Alaska? Do we build it in British Columbia or Alberta or Ontario or Quebec?" That's what they're going to look at. They're going to look at British Columbia and the changes we've brought in to the Labour Code this session, and they're going to price it out and go elsewhere. They're going to build that smelter elsewhere.

It doesn't matter if the government tries to bail them out; it doesn't matter if the government tries to put up cheap power in order to attract them. What it should do is put up efficient labour; what it should do is put up an efficient economy. Put that up there on the block to compete with the other people. Put that up there, and we'll do well. British Columbia workers are as skilled as they are anywhere, if not more, and they work as hard as they do anywhere else, if not harder. They have the ability to compete everywhere as long as they're not hampered by a piece of legislation like this, which prohibits that from happening and entrenches an archaic bargaining system that doesn't work and won't compete in the world marketplace anymore.

This isn't going to suddenly give the building trades more money. They think it is. This isn't going to suddenly benefit them. They may get more market share -- in fact, they probably will -- under this act. They will get a significantly larger piece of the construction market share, but that piece of the pie, while it may grow, is going to be a piece from a much smaller pie, because there's going to be less industrial construction and less commercial construction in this province. At the end of the day, the workers, the union members, are going to be no better off. They'll probably be worse off, because they're not going to be working very much because there aren't going to be the projects there for them. That's the reality.

You know, hon. Speaker, I've stood in this House for seven years, and I've watched members of this party, before the last election and since the last election, stand in this House hundreds of times. I watched the old Social Credit Party -- the seven members that were there after the '91 election -- stand up tens of times. I've watched other members, independent members, stand up in this House time and time again on a whole variety of pieces of legislation over the last seven years and warn this government about the effect that that piece of legislation was going to have on our economy and how it was going to affect jobs. We get the same reaction from the NDP that we had all last night. They laugh, they joke and they say: "It's not going to have that big an impact. Show me where it's going to have an impact. Explain to me the impact. Show me how it's going to affect automotive dealers. Show me how it's going to affect the various other businesses in the province."

[7:30]

If you don't have the money coming in because you're not working, then you can't go out and spend it on the tools of production that you use in your job. The construction companies certainly aren't going to be out there buying new trucks while this legislation works its way through the province over the next year. They are not going to be buying new vehicles. You can bet on that.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member asked me about the car sales in Alberta. The member should go check what the car sales are doing in Alberta. I challenge him to do that. Go right now, while I'm talking. Check the car sales numbers in Alberta and come back and tell this House what they are. I challenge the member to do that. I can tell you that they are a lot better than they are here in British Columbia. In British Columbia, the economy isn't working. In Alberta it is working, and people are buying new vehicles, and buying new homes, and the businesses in the construction sector in Alberta are buying new vehicles. It's not just pickup trucks; they're buying huge vehicles. They are out there working in the oil fields, the gas fields, the construction sector.

[ Page 10015 ]

When the member for Victoria-Hillside asks me about Alberta, I would think that as a member of the government who is supporting this legislation, he would have gone and checked that. I would think that as a member of the caucus, sitting around the caucus table, he would have looked at this piece of legislation when it was handed down the table to him and said: "Excuse me. I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has he checked out what the impact of this legislation is going to be on the economy in British Columbia? Has he checked out what this legislation is going to do to people trying to look for work in my riding?"

I guess he hasn't. I would have thought he would have done that. That's his job. It's the job of every member opposite, when a minister comes to the caucus with a piece of legislation, to ask the tough questions.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says he has. He tells me to read Hansard -- that they've asked the tough questions. They haven't asked the tough questions. What they've done, along with this piece of legislation as it was passed down the table in the caucus room to him, was get an 8-1/2-by-11 with talking points on the top. It said: "This is a modest bill. It will have no impact on the economy." That's as far as they went. They never actually read it. They never actually looked at it. They just got the talking points, and they've stood up, one after the other in second reading, and read them, verse by verse, individual by individual.

So when I hear the member over there ask me what impact this bill is going to have on the economy in his riding, I say that's not my job. I'll gladly do it for him, but that's not my job. That's his job. The member for Victoria-Hillside should be the one asking those questions of the Minister of Labour. He should have the answers already, and he doesn't have those answers. So he is asking me for them. A month into the debate on Bill 26, he is asking the opposition how this bill is going to affect his constituents. Well, what's he been doing for the last three weeks or a month? What's he been doing?

I look over there every day, and I see them all reading stuff. I see them reading things, and I assumed they were looking up and researching the impact of this bill on their constituents. It's not like they haven't had any time. If they had time. . . . You know, they've been sitting here with all this time. You'd think they would do it. The member for Victoria-Hillside should get up right now, because he's still got time, and he should walk out the revolving doors and go into the library. It's about 30 steps down the hall. You might know where it is, and if not, ask one of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, and they'll be glad to direct you. If you go into the library and ask the people in the library for some of the economic data on the province of Alberta, perhaps the states of Washington and Oregon and on British Columbia, you can lay them out on one of the big tables in there, and you can compare them. Then if you want them, they've actually got copies of the labour legislation from those other places too. You can take their labour legislation and lay it out on a different table, and then take this piece of legislation and lay it out with those other pieces of legislation, and you can compare them.

An Hon. Member: You're confusing him here.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just trying to explain to the members opposite how to do their job and what they should be doing on behalf of their constituents. They come in here for the debate and sit down and make noises, but they don't ever get up and speak. All I'm suggesting is that while there's still a little time left in second reading of Bill 26, he should go out and do the research he should have done a month ago. He should go out and do the things that he should have been doing all along.

After second reading is done, there's still committee stage, and he's got time in committee stage. That's where he gets to get up and ask questions. That's where he gets to actually get up and ask a question of the minister. It's something I haven't seen a member of the NDP do since the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca questioned the former Minister of Labour on the WCB act, I think, some years ago. I remember that fondly. I almost had a heart attack when I saw a member of the New Democrat caucus. . .

An Hon. Member: Independent thinking.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . .an independent-thinking member, actually get up and challenge a minister of the Crown about something he'd brought forward. I was in shock.

I've been waiting seven years to see the second version of that. We're about to go into committee on this bill either today or tomorrow or some other time. When we do, I can't wait to see the member for Victoria-Hillside come in with his piles of books and research from the library and his well-written, well-crafted questions that he actually wrote himself, and stand up in the House and blaze the trail of those that went before him -- the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca -- and actually ask the minister a question. I can't wait. When it happens, I will stand up and cheer. If it's a good question, a well-researched question that has to do with his constituents, I will be in shock. I will be in shock once again, for the second time in two years, when an NDP backbencher actually does the job that they were hired to do by their constituents, and that's to stand up in this House for the people who elected them. I await that moment. I don't expect to see it, but I sure hope it happens. I await the member for Victoria-Hillside when he starts to do that.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 7
Farrell-Collins	Neufeld	Nettleton
McKinnon	Krueger	Dalton
	Coleman

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

On the main motion.

[ Page 10016 ]

[7:45]

There's a deputy minister in this government who advocates an annual wealth tax. It's an interesting concept. This deputy minister feels that the ability-to-pay criterion should dictate how we deal with taxation and how we distribute wealth. I gather that the philosophy is that this deputy minister would restrain the accumulation of large amounts of wealth. Well, it's an interesting concept, but, quite frankly, when I hear comments like that from people with obviously some influence in government, I know that there is a likelihood that draconian legislation will follow.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Certainly last year we saw a very draconian bill, Bill 44. That bill was withdrawn at that time, happily for the good citizens of this province, the taxpayers, the business people who employ those who pay the revenue to this government. But a year later. . . . In fact, it was only one week short of the anniversary date when Bill 26 hit the floor for first reading, June 17, the next day -- they didn't even wait for the ink to dry -- second reading was introduced, the very second reading that we are now back on today.

The deputy minister went on to say that a wealth tax would "enhance substantive equality of opportunity." Again, I'm having a little trouble with where this may lead us, but I think we're seeing some evidence of it through Bill 44 and its successor, Bill 26, which we're now addressing this morning.

I just want to set the stage again with another concept. We've seen some rather sad and deplorable things, quite frankly, in the record of this government over the last seven years. I would refer the House to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holdings Society scandal, which is still ongoing -- endless court cases, inquiries -- and to Hydrogate. Do the members opposite remember Hydrogate? Well, I guess they do, because the Pakistan investment sure went down the tubes just a little while ago.

Need I remind the members opposite of the deception in their budget presentation? I see the Minister of Advanced Education in the House. He probably has some working knowledge of that deceptive action. That led into the 1996 campaign. We know the aftermath of that. There's still an outstanding lawsuit over that budget preparation. We'll see that in court one day.

We see a government that only consults -- that's a word I would put in quotes, and I will do so for the sake of those viewing at home -- with its friends and supporters, people such as Ken Georgetti, of course. There was no true consultation in the preparation of this bill. In fact, the draft bill was attached to the report of Messrs. Kelleher and Lanyon, which was filed on February 25 of this year. The bill was attached to that report. The thing sat there for three or four months before they introduced it in this House, and it's the same bill that was attached to the report. So they didn't do anything with it; it just sat there. Then they brought it in, in the form of Bill 26. We've seen their consultative record regarding courthouses and municipalities. Remember Bill 2, when they killed the municipal grants?

That, by the way, I'll just remind the members opposite, was the interesting day when the Premier was locked out of this House and missed the vote. The committee Chair actually had to vote to break the tie that this government got itself into, because it couldn't even manage a simple thing like a vote in committee.

It goes on and on. Later, maybe even today, we'll be dealing with the education bill and how the employers, the school trustees of this province, were entirely cut out of the action around how we're going to deal with public education. We know that there's been no consultation. All we knew is that eventually Bill 44 and now its successor would hit the floor, and that's what we are dealing with this morning.

We've seen other reports, and I may be commenting on some of them later. There's been a whole volume of reports, a flurry of paper from various gurus in the labour movement who brought in reports on whether we should do this, that or the next thing. All, of course, culminate in "Looking to the Future," the very report I've referred to which has Bill 26 attached to it. There was a previous report, and I will specifically refer to it. It's the Kelleher-Ready report. I see the former Minister of Labour across the floor, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. He had a hand in the request for that review to be done. Kelleher and Ready made a very important comment: "One size does not fit all." The wisdom of that phrase has been quoted many times since. To give the former Labour minister credit, he recognized the validity and wisdom behind that phrase. We did not see one-size-fits-all until, unfortunately, last year, when another Labour minister brought in Bill 44. But we were able to dump it. The good citizens and the good taxpayers of this province, in a universal outcry, convinced this government to dump Bill 44. We haven't yet been able to convince the government to dump Bill 26, but we still have to vote on second reading. So who knows? Maybe there's another opportunity.

Kelleher and Ready went on to make another comment dealing with sectoral bargaining. They said it is, "to say the least, far-reaching." So they also recognized -- and this is the wedge in the door for sectoral bargaining, this Bill 26 -- that that's a very far-reaching comment. How would you interpret far-reaching? Well, I would interpret that as very dangerous. We've already gone through a long exercise last night and this morning over the economic harm that Bill 26 will cause this province. I believe that's the far-reaching concept that Messrs. Kelleher and Ready are referring to. They go on: "We are not prepared to recommend legislative changes to accommodate collective bargaining between [the B.C. and Yukon trades] and CLRA" -- not at this time. That's a direct quote -- not completely direct, but taken right out of the Kelleher-Ready report. "We believe the parties themselves are best equipped to work out a suitable bargaining framework to govern their relationship." Wouldn't that be refreshing -- to allow the marketplace to take care of itself and the employer and the employee to sit down face to face across the table and work out their own agreement? But no, we can't do that.

Again, I must refer to Bill 39, the education bill. We know exactly what happened with that: collective bargaining was tossed out the window. The Premier's Office negotiated that deal, and the Education minister, proudly or otherwise, trotted it into the House. We have yet to deal with that in second reading, but it's coming.

[ Page 10017 ]

That's some of the background of where this government is coming from and who's influencing them and how we got to the stage we're at this morning with Bill 26. That's why we're in the mess we're in, and we are in a mess. When you read the Toronto-Dominion report, we're in a recession. When you read about lawyers giving advice to their clients, we're in a recession. When you read the Vancouver Province of Sunday morning, everyone's heading across the mountains into Alberta. We are in big trouble, and Bill 26 is yet another nail in the economic coffin of British Columbia.

Why has the province's credit rating been downgraded? Just take a look at it. Why wouldn't it be? Why is business relocating to Alberta, Washington State, Hong Kong and other parts of the Pacific Rim? Ask yourselves that, hon. members opposite. Ask yourselves why this province is in the economic difficulty it's in today and why your revenues are down. Check the books. Check with the Finance minister. She'll tell you what's going on in the revenue loss in this province.

"We have a combination of corporate capital tax, numerous fees, licences, rates and other taxes, all driving investment from British Columbia." It goes on and on. "A party that accidentally or otherwise forms government has a responsibility to all its constituents, not just the select few who dictate that we need Labour Code changes." It's a party dominated by ideology and, quite frankly, incompetence. That's what this party is driven by. We've seen that time and again. It's a government that is unprincipled and consistently deceptive -- a government that, when it fudged the books in the '96 budget, was unfortunately able to convince enough voters to return it for a second mandate. Well, there won't be a third.

What does the business community say about Bill 44, the predecessor of Bill 26, and about this bill itself? I think it's important that we listen to a few of the business leaders of this province. I do have some quotes from various business leaders.

[8:00]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

You know what, hon. Speaker? Ms. Yamamoto is referring to many of the communities represented by the members opposite, like Golden, Lillooet, Smithers, Port Hardy, 100 Mile House, Ladysmith, Fernie, Harrison, Alberni and even Yahk. I've got a picture in my office. I went through Yahk two weeks ago. Yahk didn't look terribly exciting economically. It's like every other community. Earlier this morning I commented on Squamish. Interfor has just announced a three-month shutdown of its mill in Squamish. Now, if that won't have a serious economic impact on the municipality of Squamish, I don't know what will. This is all part and parcel of the problems created by the government opposite. "Investment will go elsewhere rather than deal with our difficult labour regulations." That's another quote from Ms. Yamamoto.

What do the B.C. Road Builders say? Their past chair, Case Van Diemen, says: "Investors are finicky decision-makers, and rightly so. Why would an investor want to risk further investment in British Columbia construction projects when Bill 44" -- and now we can just strike out the 44 and put in 26 -- "threatens dramatic changes and uncertain results almost immediately."

I'm hoping the government members opposite will take heed, not of what we are saying. . . . We are delivering a message from the business community -- the business community that pays taxes and employs people, builds our schools and hospitals and allows our social services programs to flourish. Hon. Speaker, without that revenue, without those employers, without the employment -- union and non-union -- this province is finished, but the government doesn't get that message.

Another person of importance in the business community is Jerry Lampert, president and CEO of the Business Council of B.C. What does he say? "Employers are not given the option of whether to bargain sectorally or on an enterprise basis." That's what Mr. Lampert feels is a major difficulty with Bill 44 and now its successor, Bill 26. He carries on. Another comment from Mr. Lampert: "Clearly there is no substantive basis emanating from the construction industry review panel's interim report for the government's move to adopt sectoral bargaining within the construction industry."

They haven't gone all the way, admittedly, to complete sectoral bargaining, but we do know that the construction industry now is significantly impacted by Bill 26. That's the problem, and it's the wedge in the door. They backed off on the big bill, Bill 44, last year. Now they say: "All right, we'll bring in Bill 26, just open the door a little bit." Then next year, of course, boom -- an explosion -- and the door will burst open. If we haven't already killed B.C. economically by then, that will do it for sure.

I might remind the government that we are getting closer every day to an election, and every day of economic harm brings us one day closer to their defeat in that next election. That's a reality. I've got some other quotes here from Ms. Sanatani, the chair of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. I did quote from some of her comments last. . . . I was going to say yesterday, but that's not true; it was earlier this morning. One thing that Ms. Sanatani said is: "Master or sectoral agreements suffer from the same problem -- namely, rigidity and inflexibility. They are not responsive to individual businesses and their employees."

I would like the government members opposite to consider the workers of this province. There's no point in being unemployed. What does unemployment get us? You can have the highest minimum wage in the country; you can have the best collective agreement in the province; you can have every-

[ Page 10018 ]

Ms. Sanatani goes on with some other comments: "The New Democratic government decided not to entrench sectoral certification in the code" -- she's referring back to some previous references -- "as this may not be the most appropriate way to solve the problems of those not traditionally represented by labour unions." What she's referring to, of course, is that this government. . . . And I did give credit to the previous minister, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, that he saw there were difficulties in the one-size-fits-all approach and backed off from it then. But why are they bringing it in today? Our economy is not getting any better, due to all sorts of factors, but mainly because of government policy. So many people in business have been telling this government: "Don't do it." Do not bring in the very thing that we are now debating this morning. The message has fallen on deaf ears, hon. Speaker. It's unfortunate.

Other comments. Here's an interesting gentleman that I think we should give some credit to: Paul Weiler, who was the first chair of the Labour Relations Board. This is going back to 1974, when labour relations were significantly changed in this province, and of course, that was a previous NDP government. Mr. Weiler commented on the 1973 Labour Code changes that were brought in under Dave Barrett: "The important lesson to draw is the need for reciprocity, for balance in labour law reform." Well, good on ya, Mr. Weiler. I wish you were around today to maybe give some guidance. Maybe these people would like to try and find Mr. Weiler. He'd be happy to give them some consultation. He'd probably do it for free.

The important lesson to draw from all of this, when I'm quoting from people like Ms. Sanatani, Ms. Yamamoto, Mr. Weiler and others, is indeed the need for reciprocity, for balance. If you're going to bring in labour law reform, consider the economic impact. Don't do it just because Ken Georgetti told you to. Do it for some economic reason. Do it so you can encourage economic growth, so you encourage the small contractor to actually go out and build a house or a small apartment building, or whatever it may be. But when the government starts out to make substantive changes to labour legislation, the process that it uses has to be done carefully with true consultation, not with this rather phony exercise that we go through: "Oh well, we might trot out the bill by attaching it to a report. We'll let it sit there; we won't comment on it. Maybe someone will read it. Maybe three months later, we'll bring it into the House. And the day after we bring it in, we'll introduce it for second reading and try to ram it through." That's what the government has been doing.

Labour relations were somewhat stable, actually -- going back and looking at the 1974 bill. Things have gone on since, but we do remember Bill 19. Well, some sparks certainly flew when Bill 19 was brought into the House. A change in government in 1991 -- of course, that would be the Harcourt government -- produced the current Labour Relations Code. Quite frankly, it wasn't perfect, but it was one that we could all live with -- and we did live with it. We lived with it from 1992 until last year, when Bill 44 hit the fan. Then they pulled back Bill 44, and we thought: "All right, then we'll carry on with Bill 84" -- the Labour Code as we know it -- "until June 17." Then they throw the wrench back into the works, and we've got Bill 26. Boom! The sparks are flying again. It doesn't make any sense. They sort of stop, start, hesitate, jerk around, react, consult with Ken and say: "I guess we'd better do it. We're getting closer to that general election. I guess we're going to have to do it." So here we are today with Bill 26.

Now, hon. Speaker, let's just talk a little bit. . . . I've probably got about another five minutes. There are 15 craft trade unions in B.C., and they're all locals of the international unions based in Washington, D.C. Maybe Mr. Premier was back there last week chatting with them; I know he was in the capital of the U.S. They bargain with an employer association, which in B.C. is the Construction Labour Relations Association. There are several non-traditional unions, notably CLAC, the General Workers Union and CISIWU. Of course, they are the so-called rat unions, so these guys don't want to talk to them. But there are employers that are non-union; there are non-union employed people too.

It's all revenue for the government. If you're working, you're paying taxes. If you're not working, you're drawing from the government -- you're on social services or on employment insurance -- or you're in Alberta. By God, none of those people in any of those three categories are paying a nickel to this government. That means our health care and education are compromised even further.

We've had all sorts of other commissions and documents, etc. But I do want to make sure, before I get to the end of my time, that I give some reference to "Looking to the Future," because this is where we are apparently. We're at the future, although I think it's a pretty dismal one. This is the Kelleher-Lanyon report, the one I already commented on, that was tabled and presented to the Labour minister on February 25 of this year. It has Bill 26 in draft form attached to it.

Here's an interesting observation that Messrs. Kelleher and Lanyon make regarding the building trades; this is on page 11. If the members haven't had the chance yet to read "Looking to the Future," I would recommend it as reading for all of them. I don't know whether they've even read Bill 26; my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain has already made the point that it's not likely that they have. But they still have the chance because we haven't yet voted on second reading. We haven't got to committee stage, and there would still be third reading after that. There's still plenty of opportunity to reflect on what's in this document, what's in the bill.

So on page 11, what do we read? "The building trades favour maintaining craft-based bargaining. They view CLAC, GWU and CISIWU as unions of convenience. Owners, on the other hand, oppose any legislative change which would eliminate these alternatives to the building trades. They believe that costs are kept down by competition from bidders other than the building trades contractors."

This would be a refreshing thought for the government to consider. If you go to the employers in the construction industry and ask them: "How are you going to be competitive in this very competitive, global market? How are you going to be able to maintain your employment levels within British Columbia -- not in Alberta or Washington State or Saskatchewan or wherever else in North America or otherwise? How are you going to maintain that competitive status?" Naturally, you keep your costs down. You maintain a level playing field, so that, as I said earlier, the employer and the employee face each other across the table. They bargain collectively -- not as we see they do with the education system in this province -- and hammer out an agreement that's fair for all. Then everyone's employed, revenues are generated, the Minister of Finance is happy, and we all go home and have a summer.

But it's not working that way, hon. Speaker. Something has gone off the rails; something is sadly missing in the entire exercise.

As I wrap up my comments, I think it's very sad that this government brought in this bill on June 17 and had second

[ Page 10019 ]

[8:15]

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 8
C. Clark	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Reid	Neufeld	Nettleton
Krueger		Dalton

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

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'll take this opportunity to wish you and all other members a good morning. It is a good morning. It's a rainy day out there, if anyone hasn't been outside yet. I was driving here this morning on my way from home. . . .

Interjections.

C. Clark: We can hope for better weather, but one of these days the government members might get outside to see what the weather is really like. So I wish you all a good morning and will start my remarks with that.

Interjections.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

C. Clark: I do want to get serious for a moment. After the House has sat. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the member could wait a moment while members clear the House, so that we can hear the debate.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Well, those that have to leave could leave; those who wish to stay, please do.

C. Clark: I understand that after sitting for 22 hours straight, the members on the government side of the House might be feeling a little bit raucous. But I'd ask them to perhaps put aside for a moment their feelings and their discomfort about staying up all night and think about the serious issues that are before us when we talk about Bill 26. We are down to the final lap, the final few hours in our discussion of this bill, before potentially voting on second reading and putting the government in a position to move the bill to third reading and completion. This is a serious debate that we need to have this morning. I think the House needs to maintain a sense of decorum and calm while we discuss the issues that are before us.

Bill 26 will have -- there is no question -- a devastating impact on British Columbia's economy. That's the issue that we will be considering this morning. When government and opposition members make their decisions about how they will vote on second reading, that is the consideration that we must keep uppermost in our minds. What will this do to the economy of British Columbia? What impact will the action that we take today in voting on second reading have on people's lives, on people's families, on the sense of certainty that people need to have in their lives -- the certainty that comes with having a job and a regular paycheque? What we are talking about today will affect all of those things. Make no mistake: Bill 26 will have an impact, a devastating impact. But also make no mistake that the government hasn't even bothered to try and determine what that impact might be, hasn't even taken the time to do an economic impact study and determine what's going to happen to our economy as a result of this legislation.

That is probably one of the most irresponsible moves I have seen this government make during my short time here. To bring forward labour legislation that will destabilize a fragile economy and not even bother to check what impact it could have on people's lives, is nothing short of irresponsible. That is the mark of a government that doesn't care, that doesn't even care to find out what impact their legislation will have. They can't even be bothered to ask.

The opposition brought forward three amendments. One of those amendments was to move this bill to committee, to activate a committee. When I spoke on that, I talked about the fact that I was excited by the opportunity that we'd offered the government -- inviting the government to activate a committee of this Legislature. Committees are amongst the most important parts of our democratic structure here, in my view. That is the best way for legislators, for the members of this chamber, to go and find out what the public is interested and concerned about, to go out and ask the public what they think.

For goodness' sake, the government belongs to the public. This is their institution; it is their chamber. We are here as MLAs to represent them. Each individual here has been charged by the voters, the citizens, the residents -- young and old -- of their communities to represent their interests here. But I get the sense -- when the government stands up en masse and votes against activating an important committee for one of the most important pieces of legislation that's been

[ Page 10020 ]

Not everybody who appeared before a travelling legislative committee would call themselves an expert on the economy. There's no question about that. But I think that everybody who has a job or who's looking for a job or who's given up looking for a job, because there is so little to do out there because the economy has stagnated so badly. . . . Those people do have some expertise in the economy. They might not have CA designations, they might not have a degree from business school, but certainly everybody who has participated in the job market brings with them some expertise. When they appeared before a committee, they would be able to tell us -- not just members of the opposition but also the members of the government -- what's going on in their lives and what impact the destabilization and stagnation of the economy that's occurred under this government has had on their lives. They would be able to tell the committee what unemployment has done to their families, what mass closures of mills and industries have done to their communities. They would be able to tell the committee what it's like to try and start a young family when one spouse has to commute to Alberta to work in the construction trade.

[8:30]

My parents never faced anywhere near those kinds of challenges when they started their family in British Columbia. In those days, jobs were a dime a dozen. It was easy to find jobs. When my father graduated from university, he was guaranteed a job. My mother, when she graduated, went out and found a job within a few days. They were good professional jobs. Then, once they'd both started working and after they got married and had a child, my mother was able to afford not to work.

For my entire youth -- and I'm the youngest of four children -- my mother didn't do a lick of paid work. She worked full time as a volunteer, but she didn't do any paid work. In that economy, they could afford to live on one income. It's unimaginable today. My parents raised four children in Burnaby on one income in a home that they owned. You could never imagine that today in British Columbia, and the reason is the dismal state of our economy. In this province, take-home pay has actually declined.

This is a government led by a Premier who claims to be the Minister Responsible for Youth in a province where almost no young person can aspire to the standard of living their parents had. That is disgraceful. The Premier should be ashamed of himself as the Minister Responsible for Youth, when young people can only expect to have to work harder and harder for less money and still never be able to attain the standard of living that their parents had. They can never be able to attain a standard of living where one spouse is able to stay home and care for the children full-time -- not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford to.

They can't afford to do that in British Columbia anymore. How can you afford not to work when the government is taking a bigger and bigger bite out of your paycheque in taxes and in payroll deductions, and when your ability to try to get more hours at work is constantly stymied by the fact that your employer can't expand because there isn't any room for him or her to expand? The economy is such that employers won't expand their businesses. In fact, it contracts. What is happening in the economy today is that small and medium-sized businesses are actually getting smaller. The guy who owns the coffee shop next door to my office told me the other day: "You know the way to start a small business in British Columbia? You start a medium-sized business, and before long it'll be small." He laughed, but I don't think he thought it was very funny. He's got a small business, and what he's looking at if he contracts is no business is to shut down. This is a guy who put his heart and soul, his dreams, into starting that business, into making something of it, into creating an enterprise that was his in Port Moody -- a place where his kids work, a place where a whole lot of people work who probably wouldn't find work elsewhere. It's a starter job for many of them, but it's a place to start.

Do you know that in British Columbia today we have the highest student unemployment rate of any province in Canada? That's another pathetic number, another number the government should be ashamed of. It's no wonder the Premier won't talk about youth unemployment, student unemployment in British Columbia. It's so high -- record levels. What's going on? In a province where it used to be that when you got out of university you were guaranteed a job, now students not only wait until the very last minute to graduate because they know that there won't be a job waiting for them at the end of the graduation ceremony, not only do they drag out their education as long as they possibly can, but while they're there, they can't even get student summer jobs anymore. The people that are getting the student summer jobs are the people that used to be in full-time employment but have been shoved out of that because of the state of the contracting economy. Those people are taking up the part-time jobs, the student summer jobs, so there's nothing left for people who have little experience and can't demonstrate a long-term commitment to stay at the workplace.

Student debt levels are rising at a frightening rate, and those are the two reasons. So not only do we have students staying in school longer because there's no job waiting for them at the end of their graduation ceremony, but when they're there, they can't get a summer job, so they have to incur more debt. The Premier says he's doing a good thing for young people by freezing tuition. For a lot of students, that's

[ Page 10021 ]

When I look in this chamber or when I go to any event in my constituency, I can look around and see people whose families have been in British Columbia for five generations and people who have only been here for five weeks. Why do people come? Because they believe that this is the land of opportunity. That is why people have flooded to British Columbia for a hundred, two hundred years. This province represents for people a chance to fulfil their potential, to make something of themselves, to create something for themselves that they wouldn't have been able to create somewhere else in the world, to make a life not just for themselves but for their children, a life where their children can be healthy and happy and can be guaranteed a future. That's what this province has represented for people for 150 years.

Now what's happening in British Columbia? People aren't coming here anymore. British Columbia experienced the first major out-migration in a long time. Our population actually fell and Alberta's grew. Why is British Columbia's population falling instead of rising? Why isn't this the same province where people used to flood in to create opportunity, to create a future for themselves? Why isn't it like that anymore?

I'll tell you, hon. Speaker. It's because this is no longer the land of opportunity for people. It is no longer a place where people can say: "If I go there, my dreams will be fulfilled. By the sweat of my own brow, I will be able to create something for myself, to make something for my family." This is no longer that kind of place. The reason it is no longer that kind of place is because of where this government has taken us: seven years of deficit budgets; seven years of out-of-control, ballooning debt; seven years of governments trying to rebalance the Labour Code so that it tips the scales in favour of one side and not the other; seven years of overregulation, adding layer upon layer of red tape until it strangled small and medium-sized business; seven years of increasing payroll taxes, increasing fees, increasing licence costs; seven years of red tape. That is what this government has done to British Columbia. That has taken us from number one in Canada to number ten, from the top of the heap to the bottom of the heap.

Members on the government side proudly stand up and spout their misinformation about it: "Oh, we're not number ten; we're really number five." If the members of the government are going to stand up and dispute these statistics -- which, by the way, are quite correct -- and if they're going to make up their own statistics, grab them out of the blue and introduce them to the Legislature. . . . Well, come on. Why make it five? Why not make it four or three? Why not say we're number one? If you're going to make it up, why not go all the way? If you're just going to pull a number out of the air, why not go all the way? Why not say we're number one? If you're going to make up a number like five, why not say number one? We're not number one; we're not number five. We're number ten in Canada.

These members of the government, rather than going all the way and saying that we're number one. . . . If they're going to pull a number out of the hat. . . . Rather than saying we're number one, they will proudly stand up and say: "We're number five." And they're happy that's where we are. They're happy that even by their own baked statistics, we've fallen by five. We've fallen from number one -- in their view, when they cooked the books -- to number five. That's disgraceful! How can government members be happy that we've given up our number one place in Canada, that their own government has driven us from our number one place in Canada? How can they be happy about that? How can they be satisfied to even be number five? I'm not satisfied.

The government has to turn this around. This economy has been sliding and sliding deeper into recession. Now we're on the brink of a recession, and the government is prepared, with this labour legislation, to just push us over the edge. The members of the government should know that the TD Bank has come out this year with their forecast for economic growth. Do you know what it is? It's zero-point-zero percent; zero-point-zero is the economic growth forecast for British Columbia. Next year, it's 0.5, and it will be 1.5 in the year 2000. According to the TD, this is by far the worst forecast for any Canadian province. Newfoundland is doing better than British Columbia -- Newfoundland, a province where the cod fishery collapsed, where we in British Columbia are used to believing that things could never get better, where everything is always bleak and dismal and where the future holds nothing for Canadians. It's a province British Columbians would look at and say: "Boy, I'm glad I don't live there." Well, where are they today? They're ahead of British Columbia. This government has put us in a position where we can't even compete with Newfoundland, a province beset by problems.

[8:45]

This government isn't full of separatists, but they've done the same thing. In fact, they've done it worse. Our economic growth in British Columbia is forecast to be lower than the economic growth in Quebec. And why? Part of it must be uncertainty. Part of it must be the uncertainty that's brought on by a government that changes its budget forecasts by the day, a government that blames its budget deficits on the weather. There's uncertainty in British Columbia and in small business. They don't know where they're going to get hit from next.

It's the uncertainty that comes with a government that says it won't touch the Labour Code and then brings massive changes -- not once, but twice. The uncertainty comes with a government that says they're on your side, and when they get into government, what do they do? They give us the highest marginal tax rates in North America. What do they do? They

[ Page 10022 ]

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point.

R. Coleman: There seems to be a lack of members in the House, and I call a quorum.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing three times as many government members as there are opposition members. . . . I will, however, call a quorum.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

Deputy Speaker: The member can continue.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate the member calling quorum. It's nice to have an audience in the House when I speak. The government members. . . . It's nice to sit on the opposition side and see some members on the government side who can hear this message, because it's important that the government hears this message. I know it is easy, after sitting for 22 hours -- almost 23 hours -- to make light of some of these issues, but we can't afford to do that. British Columbians can't afford to do that.

Let's look at where we are economically in British Columbia. Where are housing starts in British Columbia? They've fallen dramatically in the last year. Housing starts, in an industry that represents $16 billion a year. . . . What it means when housing starts fall is that that industry is sustaining a body blow that it can't overcome. It's a $16 billion industry. Housing starts are down. Who works in the housing industry? Well, the building trades. So what will this bill do for them by destablizing the economy? What will it do for the building trades, for the workers in those trades? What it will mean is quite simple: it will mean fewer jobs in the construction industry. It will mean that this $16 billion industry continues to decline, that we continue to see lower and lower housing starts in British Columbia. That's what it will mean.

When the housing starts in B.C. go down, when the building trades have nowhere to work, what does that mean? It means that there will be fewer jobs. With fewer jobs there will be -- and I have said this again and again -- fewer union jobs too. The first prerequisite for unionizing a workforce is having a workforce. Even the NDP can't unionize people who don't have jobs. Well, actually that's not true. They can't unionize jobs that don't exist. Even the NDP can't do that. When the economy is taking the body blow that it has been, when the economy is hurting the way that it is, it is irresponsible for this government to bring in legislation that will make it worse, that will only make the problem worse and drive investment out of British Columbia and across the border to Alberta. That's what this government is risking.

I would urge the members of the government to carefully consider that point. Look at where we are with student unemployment. Look at where we are with housing starts in British Columbia. Look at the statistics on economic growth and unemployment across the board. Look at the towns in British Columbia that have shut down. Look at where the mining industry is. Look at where the forest industry is. Look at what you've already done to the housing industry, the construction industry. Look at those statistics, and make your decision about how you will vote on this legislation.

This is your last opportunity to make a choice about whether or not you will drive the last nail in the coffin of this economy, about whether you are prepared to push this economy over the brink into recession, about whether you are prepared to bear responsibility for that action and about whether you are prepared to wear that on your shoulders when you go home to your communities and see people who are unemployed, when you find that your neighbours can't find work and when you find that their children have had to move to Alberta because there are no jobs in British Columbia. You on the government side will have to take responsibility for that when you stand up and make your choice about how you will vote on Bill 26. That is the issue here. This isn't about. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. With that, I move adjournment of the debate.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Hon. members, we'll come to order. The motion before us is adjournment of the debate.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 12
C. Clark	Farrell-Collins	Reid
Coell	Whittred	Nettleton
Coleman	Hansen	Barisoff
Dalton	Krueger	McKinnon

 

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

[9:00]

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to now speak on second reading of Bill 26, which is my first opportunity to speak on second reading. It gives me the opportunity to sort of touch on the discussions that have taken place over the last few weeks with regards to this vote, this bill, as we bring it down to a vote that will be taken on second reading in this chamber this morning. First of all, I'd like to say, from my position on this side of the House as the official opposition Whip, how proud I am of the members of the official opposition of their disciplined manner and the thoughtfulness of the debate over the last three weeks. I think that if, hopefully, the government has listened, which I doubt. . . . But the fact of the matter is that our members have

[ Page 10023 ]

I grew up in Penticton, British Columbia. I was born in Nelson. I grew up in a different economy than exists in British Columbia today, and so did my family. I came from a great family. I had two great parents, and I had. . . . There were six children in my family.

In those days there were certain opportunities that were available to us as young people with regards to education and what have you. Those were there because of the opportunities within the economy. I don't think those days were intrusive with regulation, red tape and taxation, as they are in this province today. In my family today, out of the six siblings, there's a PhD in political science, a PhD in engineering, one with a degree in special education, one with a degree in forestry and another one that has a degree in education. The reason I mention that is because there was not one student loan taken out by any of those children in a single-income family. The reason there wasn't one student loan in a single-income family is because there were youth job opportunities when we were growing up in Penticton for us to be able to pay for our education by having summer jobs. If you look at our economy today in British Columbia, we don't have that situation. Any piece of legislation that purports to or has any opportunity. . . . I will get into how it is affecting the economy and the loss of investment in a few minutes with some examples. It comes into this economy today. . . .

If that further frustrates the opportunities for our youth -- in addition to our families and our hardworking adults in this province -- and frustrates their opportunity for jobs, then we're making a grave mistake by sending investment out of this province and scaring it away. Now, if you think about it, in 1977, 1 percent of bankruptcies in this country had a student loan attached to them. In 1996 over 30 percent of bankruptcies in this country had student loans attached to them. What that tells you is that you have an entire generation that you're bringing through an education system today that is going to be financially strapped when they come out of university. Not only are they financially strapped, but they are entering into a provincial economy -- here, at least -- where they're going to find that the job opportunities and the career opportunities don't exist either. They don't exist here, because of a number of factors relative to the economy, including intrusive regulation, intrusive laws, red tape and costly government regulations, high taxation and a number of other factors that affect the economy, including security of tenure.

I have a son and a daughter, and they're not so lucky. My daughter will come through university without a student loan, but only because of the assistance that we as a family have been able to give her. But their job opportunities are not the same. My son is actually leaving on Sunday for Wainwright, Alberta, and the military reserves. That's what he did to get a summer job. He couldn't find a summer job in British Columbia. He looked, and the opportunities just didn't exist for him at 17 years of age. That's not good, and it's not good simply because what we are doing is selling out our children. When we sell out our children, we sell out our future. When we sell out our future, it's not good for anybody.

Now, hon. Speaker, there was something else about Penticton that was interesting when I was growing up there as a child and when we came out of high school, and that was the exodus of graduates from high school from that community to other communities, either in the lower mainland or in Alberta -- particularly, in those days, in the lower mainland. Part of the exodus was for educational purposes, and the other part of the exodus was because of opportunities that didn't exist. I was fortunate enough to go to Okanagan College in Kelowna back in the early seventies. We did have some regional colleges in those days. But that exodus led to a community that lost a lot of its people. Because the community itself didn't have that large a base of career opportunities within it, most students didn't return to that community and ended up elsewhere.

Today we have a province that's somewhat like Penticton was in those days. Today we have a province where people are leaving the province in order to find careers and opportunities, because they don't exist here. We have a province that is experiencing a high rate of unemployment. We have a province that's on the verge of, if not into, a recession. We have a province that's experiencing zero percent growth in its economy and an out-migration of people. None of this is of any value to any of us. No matter what partisan lines you wish to draw, it's not of any value to anybody in this House or this province that our economy is having difficulty and that this is happening.

We all knew this some time ago. If we didn't know this, we were fools. If you were in your own community last fall or last summer or in your ridings last spring, you would have known that there was a downturn in the British Columbia economy. Then, when Bill 44 hit this House last spring, there was an outcry from the business community and from other sectors of the economy, saying: "Whoa! We can't afford Bill 44. We can't have this kind of intrusive labour legislation come into our economy, because we're already in trouble." At that time, believe it or not, the government listened and decided to go out and have some consultation. But unfortunately, it had no evaluation. Now we have Bill 26, and Bill 26 is here at a worse time than Bill 44 was a year ago, in an economy in which, frankly, we can't afford this type of legislation.

The legislation that we're dealing with here today has had a lot of rhetorical discussion. . . . Well, it's had good discussion from this side of the House, and it's had rhetorical catcalls from the other side of the House, because of the lack of debate from the other side of the House on the legislation. The legislation is about the construction industry in the ICI sector, they would have you believe. However, if you think about it, in the ICI sector there's a crossover into the residential construction sector, and in those two sectors we have a variety of union relationships.

So I wanted, first of all, to touch on the fact that I've received a number of letters from various unions in British Columbia: the Cement Masons, the Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, the labourers, the journeymen and apprentices of plumbers and the Sheet Metal Workers. I just want to bring that to your attention because in not one single letter on file that I've received has any one of the craft unions or any one in union leadership lobbied me or asked me to support sectoral bargaining in the industry. As a matter of fact, not one of them has asked for changes to the Labour Code.

They didn't ask for changes to the Labour Code, but I'll tell you, what they did ask for is some recognition of the different trade concerns within their industry: that we would look into things as far as tightening regulations on CO2 gas in the ozone layer when decommissioning refrigeration systems, how wages and overtime are being audited by the Labour Relations Board and Employment Standards Tribunal with regard to the cement industry, and remember that there were some compliance difficulties with the Building Code with regard to the leaky-condo issue.

[ Page 10024 ]

But I can tell you what they do want, because if you go one step further, past the letterhead, and you start talking to the rank-and-file people involved in construction on the labour side. . . . First of all, they want a job. And if they want a job, that means they need an economic climate where jobs are created. You don't have that when you have a situation where you know of millions of dollars in construction money that's not going ahead in this province, because people have said: "We have too much tax, too much red tape and costly regulations, and now we have labour legislation that will be imbalanced. I'm leaving your province, and I'm going to invest my money somewhere else. Call me when you get yourselves straightened away, because I'm not going there."

We don't have jobs when financial institutions are red-lining our province, saying: "We will not lend money to major projects in that province because we don't like its economic climate." They're quietly reacting to what's going on, with their feet. They're simply not investing here. We don't have jobs when there's no economic activity. So it would make no difference at all to any of these people that want work what type of labour legislation you bring in. With this piece of labour legislation, if you ask yourself questions about what it does, the one thing it doesn't do is create a job. What we need right now in this province is jobs.

Other things that are of concern about this legislation. . . . It's a broad brush, because obviously, in the three weeks and then in consultations with industry and labour, and for people that have been involved in the industry and labour for many years. . . . There are a number of issues that will have to be canvassed in committee. But some of those are examples of situations where one of the reactions within the industry itself is that small contractors will have no voice at the bargaining table, simply because they will be beholden to the larger contractor that holds their contract. The cost of the building trades at the job site will still not have solved the old-age problem with regards to cooperation between the organizations, the various unions on the job site, so that we can have efficiency of construction and efficiency on the job site.

It won't deal with the fact that one of the craft unions, the carpenters, is now also a wall-to-wall union which represents and brings other unions in to do jobs in a package. There is also a very big concern with regard to the way jurisdictional assignment plans will be handled in the future. One of the biggest costs of jobs many years ago was the jurisdictional disputes that were taking place on job sites. The information from both industry and labour is that with the jurisdictional assignment plans, that job loss was down and that system was working. But now the LRB is going to have some say in how those units are set up. We'll find out what's going to happen to the jurisdictional assignment discussions during committee stage of this debate, but certainly the industry has a great deal of concern about that.

[9:15]

The other concern is that we've basically lost the major contractors that were here before in this province, the large companies that we had. Most of them have left. They are large, international companies, and if you talk to them, they say they're not coming back, no matter what we do here. They say that this is just not a good place for them to do business. The other situation that we're going to create with this legislation, as we move into some of the certifications that are going to be required for things like renovations or water-proofing. . . . There are companies out there now that are voluntarily certifying. They're not certifying with the building trades unions; they're certifying with unions like the IWA or what have you. We will be ending up with some discussions and concerns relative to the back-and-forth within the industry -- who has what jurisdiction in what area.

Those are issues that the industry and labour are telling us that they have with how this legislation will be applied. In addition to that, when you go to the person that's the actual worker in the field, that individual wants some other questions answered. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn't deal with it, but their concerns are for their future: (1) their jobs and (2) their pensions -- how they are being invested and how they are being handled. One of the comments I got from one of the labourers was that their pension fund lost millions of dollars and that they had no input into how that pension fund was handled. It looks like it's going to affect their pension by 50 percent. Can you imagine having somebody invest your pension to the level where you lost up to 50 percent of your pensionable income because of the way it was invested? They want some regulation and controls on those funds. They want some input as to how they're being handled, and they want to make sure that the organization that's doing the actuarials and the investments is doing it correctly. Obviously, if you overinvest in one sector and it starts to cause some discomfort for the people that have put the money in, then there's something wrong. What's wrong is that we are sitting with a situation where the worker, the employee or the union or non-union person, is the person that isn't getting the benefits they have asked for.

The important thing to realize is that we've lost 48,000 jobs in the housing construction industry alone since 1993. We have a downturn in this industry. When investors start to walk away with their money, which they are doing, we will not have any construction industry here to speak of. Then we'll have a bill that will be intrusive to future growth or to reigniting the economy. People will see the bill, see how we do business in this province, and they'll walk. If you look at the importance of this labour legislation and you think about what's going on. . . .

Interjection.

R. Coleman: Where's the importance of this compared to my friend who's waiting for heart surgery? I have a friend

[ Page 10025 ]

I think what we have to do is get back to basics here and recognize that we already had a labour climate that was peaceful, where people were getting along, and that we didn't need to tinker with it. We've said that. As a matter of fact, the people who gave the advice to the government themselves -- small, medium- and large-sized businesses -- said: "Don't fiddle with the Labour Code. Don't mess with it. It's the last thing we need right now. We have an economy in trouble. We're in a recession." So what do we do? We fiddle with the Labour Code and ignore that fact, and we see investment going out of the province.

I've said in previous speeches that I know of $100 million worth of investment that is not going ahead in construction in this province. It won't go ahead because that money is being put elsewhere. And if you ask them directly, they'll give you the same answer. They say that a result of this bill is an imbalance in the labour laws. They'll tell you that the personal income tax and the business taxes are too high in this province, that the red tape and the costly government regulations are too difficult for them to deal with, and that they have a real concern about the future economy of the province because of the instability that exists for security of tenure and for some other related issues that the province has to deal with.

What we have is a situation of an outflow of people. An outflow of people usually comes from a number of factors, but I think the major factor is that if people don't believe that they can be successful in an economy, they're going to invest their money somewhere else. If there's no optimism in that economy, they're certainly not going to invest here. If they see the opportunities elsewhere, they flee. In an international economy, which is where we are today, that can happen so quickly, simply because of the loss of confidence in the economy.

It's really frustrating to be a native British Columbian who has lived in Alberta during a boom and seen the boom go away and then come back to British Columbia. I made my home here with my family, and in the last seven years I have seen capital spending in British Columbia decline. As that declines, there are fewer hotels built, there are fewer condos built, there's a smaller industrial base built; and as that declines, the jobs decline. That's only happening in two other provinces: Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I don't like comparisons between provinces. I don't want to discuss today how many jobs have been created in Alberta. What I want to discuss is how many jobs have been lost in British Columbia. In January alone, it was 19,000. That's 19,000 of our citizens out of work. If that's the case, it's wrong. We and this government have no business wasting the taxpayers' time and money bringing in a piece of legislation that is going to make that situation worse, and that's what's happening.

Our taxes in this province, and this legislation combined with that, do not make investors around the globe want to invest here. And they don't invest here. They're telling us they won't invest here. If they're not going to invest here, you're not going to create a stable, vibrant economy. If you don't have a stable, vibrant economy, whether it be union or non-union, craft union versus wall-to-wall union or any other type of union or interrelationship between business and labour or whatever you want to call it, it won't matter, because there won't be any work for them to deal with because the economy is going in the tank. The reason it's going in the tank is because we have lost security of tenure here. We have lost the ability to realize that government is here to serve the people -- government service.

Recently I phoned one of the agencies of government, and the voice mail said. . . . I hate voice mail, by the way. The voice mail for the department said that they would return the call, hopefully, within seven days. What kind of customer service would that be if you're an investor in this province who has a piece of land and wants to deal with a particular ministry, where you have to get some application in to find out what you have to do to deal with it, and you won't get a call back for seven days? That same department had an application in front of it that wasn't responded to, with a letter acknowledging receipt, for three months. For three months, just the receipt of the letter saying: "How do I apply. . . ?" It took three months to get a reply back. If we can't get to doing business for the people of the province, that's what you call a situation where we have costly government regulations and too much red tape.

All of this is affected. All of these things become endemic as a result of different pieces of legislation that we bring forward. In the case of Bill 26, it has been brought forward to this House without anybody being able to show me what economic impact studies were done, what kind of impact this will have on the economy or what impact it will have on the relationship between business and labour, and between investment and business and labour in the province. Without those, it's absolutely irresponsible to bring forward a piece of legislation in hard economic times, when you don't know what the impact of your legislation is going to be.

I don't understand why this government doesn't want to listen to British Columbians. It doesn't listen. If you remember Bill 44 from last year, after tremendous pressure from all corners of British Columbia, the Premier said that he was withdrawing the bill because consultation was not broad enough before he brought it into the chamber. If you look at the consultation this year and the studies on economic impact, it wasn't done this time around either. So why would you go against what the Premier had to say last year and bring in a piece of legislation that you haven't done due diligence on again this year?

One of the interesting things you hear while this legislation is going forward -- because we hear that it's not really that dramatic a change, according to the minister -- is that Alberta's got this. It's interesting that every time somebody says something about the economy of Alberta, the government has a quick come-back relative to the comment on that economy. But as soon as they want to make a comparison of labour legislation to Alberta, it's okay. The interesting thing about this is that what they don't say is that it's not the same.

I had two members of the building trades in my office awhile back, and we had a lengthy discussion about the history of labour law and craft unions and how the union movement manages itself in British Columbia. I asked them a question, because they were using the government's line about it being the same as Alberta and that this piece of

[ Page 10026 ]

It's time that this government got a clear message, and that message was sent by members of business in this province and by members of the opposition: "Don't fiddle with the Labour Code." Listen, you're affecting the future of the province; you're affecting the economy; you're affecting investment in this province, and it's not right. We need fairness in British Columbia labour laws, to provide balance in the workplace. Bill 26 doesn't do that. We need to put a stop to damage being caused to the B.C. economy. Bill 26 doesn't do that. We need to get the B.C. economy moving again. Bill 26 doesn't do that. We must send a message to B.C. businesses and the international investment community that B.C. is supportive of the people who create jobs. Bill 26 doesn't do that. If it doesn't meet the litmus test of those four points, it's no good; it's just bad. That's a real problem.

Once again, indifferent to consultation, proper analysis and proper thought, we're bringing in legislation that is damaging to the British Columbia economy, because the government of British Columbia just doesn't have the foresight to realize what they're doing to the jobs and the future of British Columbians. What you're doing to them is destroying them. You're destroying them because you just won't listen. That's what the last three weeks is about. Listen and figure out that the true point of what's going on here is that Bill 26 is damaging to the British Columbia economy.

[9:30]

Quite frankly, this bill is not all about who in the building trades wants it, who in the other unions doesn't want it, or who in the CLRA wants it and who doesn't want it. What this bill is about, and the real impact it's going to have on the people of British Columbia, is the impact it's going to have on the economy. This bill is about the economy of British Columbia. It is one more factor that is going to weigh as a burden on the shoulders of the people of this province for the next number of years.

As I said earlier this morning -- although I didn't get a chance to finish my line of thought -- I've stood here at various times over the last seven years on various pieces of legislation, and members on this side, members of the opposition, have warned this government about the impacts of various pieces of legislation. The members of the government have told us each and every time: "It's not that bad. It really isn't going to have any negative impact on the economy. Don't worry about it. It will actually improve the economy. It will actually create jobs." In every single one of those instances, the opposition has been proved correct, and the economy of British Columbia, as a result of tens if not hundreds of various policy decisions by the New Democrat socialist government, has been burdened. The economy of British Columbia continues, day after day, to be loaded down with ridiculous, overburdensome regulations.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says: "Give me some." Let's talk about the Forest Practices Code the government brought in. It was actually supposed to create jobs. There were going to be more jobs in the forests. There were going to be more opportunities in the forests, because it was going to improve the environment. What happened?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Human Resources says it created jobs. She should talk to some of the forest workers that are on the welfare rolls that she signs the cheques for and ask them what they think about what the Forest Practices Code did for the economy of British Columbia. In fact, the impact of the Forest Practices Code -- the statutes and the regulations which stood about that high, if you stacked them up -- was so bad that the government themselves had to go back and rip it apart and start over. The minister says: "Tell me some; name some." Coming from a community that's dependent on the forest as his is, you would think that he would understand that. But apparently he doesn't.

Let's look at the facts about what has happened to B.C.'s economy and at the state of B.C.'s economy today. We have stagnant GDP growth. In fact, we're slipping into a recession. A little over three or four months ago, the government was projecting 0.9 percent growth, I think. They said that they were being very conservative, because a lot of the private sector organizations that predict GDP in this province were predicting 1.5 percent, or in that range. Last week the Toronto-Dominion Bank came out with its update on B.C.'s economy. It is projecting zero percent growth for this year, well behind every other jurisdiction in the country, and 0.5 percent for next year. We don't even know how bad next year is going to get. If the trend for this year is any indication, we'll have a recession this year and next year. In year 3 they are projecting 1.5 percent growth.

I'd like to quote from that report, because I think it gives people a clear indication of the kinds of problems we have in this province. It says:

". . .prospects for British Columbia's economy grow dimmer. Although the forecast calls for no growth in 1998, it is more likely that the B.C. economy will actually contract this year" -- that's a recession. "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."

[ Page 10027 ]

But that's not all. Unemployment continues to skyrocket in the province, particularly amongst young people and students. Last week we just got new statistics on student unemployment in the province that said it was almost 23 percent. Twenty-three percent of the students that are out there looking for work can't find anything. That doesn't even mention the hundreds and thousands of them that have given up even trying. Almost half of the young people in that age bracket aren't even looking for work; they haven't even entered the job market.

I know that the government likes to brag about its tuition freeze, but I can tell you that when I went to university, if I wasn't working, it didn't matter how cold the tuition was -- it didn't matter if it was frozen solid. I couldn't pay it, because I didn't have a job. So the tuition freeze is a nice thing, but if you don't have a job, you can't pay it no matter what it is. When you have a 23 percent unemployment rate amongst young people in this province, that is a tragedy. For the government to be spending money on advertising and telling them that everything is wonderful and that they're creating 17,000 new jobs for young people in British Columbia is a cruel hoax on those young people that know exactly how bad it is. They know it, because they feel it. They feel it themselves; their friends feel it. They know how bad it is out there; they know how hard it is to find work.

That's directly related to this piece of legislation, because one of the traditional areas for young people to find jobs in and for students to find summer employment in is the construction industry. That's what this bill is all about: the construction industry. I can tell you that there isn't one thing in this piece of legislation that is going to ensure that one more young person in the province finds employment in the construction industry -- not one. I challenge the minister when he gets up to show how this piece of legislation is going to create more opportunities for students to get employment in the construction sector. I challenge him to do that, because he can't do it.

Last year British Columbia was the only province in Canada that actually lost jobs. There were fewer jobs in British Columbia at the end of 1997 than there were at the beginning of 1997. That's another reality check for the government.

For the first time in about 20 years, we're actually having more people move out of British Columbia than move in to British Columbia. If the Minister of Labour, along with his colleagues, can't get that signal. . . . If that doesn't register with them on the economic Richter scale, I don't know what does. People are leaving B.C. -- predominantly young people -- because there are opportunities elsewhere. I personally have had two of my closest friends. . . . One's about to move to Toronto, and one moved to Saskatchewan. In the last number of years, I've had three or four other close friends that have gone back east to look for employment because they couldn't find it here. These are highly educated young people who cannot find work in the province of British Columbia anywhere close to what they can find in other jurisdictions.

I see the Minister of Human Resources shaking her head; she's aghast that I would even suggest that, hon. Speaker. Well, that is the reality; that's what is happening. All the minister has to do is look at the Statistics Canada. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: These are all Statistics Canada figures. If she thinks that StatsCan has been taken over by some right-wing corporate conspiracy, and that allows her to be comfortable with her economic policies, then maybe she needs more help than I can offer her in this House today. Maybe I'm not qualified professionally to provide the advice that she might need; perhaps she should look elsewhere.

There is another significant economic indicator, which is directly tied to the construction industry, that shows us just how badly our economy is performing. There has been a significant drop-off in housing starts. Now, I know the Minister of Labour will stand up and say: "This has nothing to do with residential construction." But he hasn't clarified that yet. If you go just about anyplace in British Columbia, particularly if you go into my riding, and you walk down Broadway or Cambie or Granville and see the new construction that's going up. . . . It's commercial on the main floor, perhaps some office space on the second floor, and then above that it's residential. Now, we haven't yet heard exactly from the minister. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the minister tells us that it's not what's being said out there. But we're hearing other things from other people. If the minister wants to assure this House that no construction of a mixed type will end up being classified under the ICI sector, I will be happy to hear that.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would take back what I said if he can confirm that that won't happen. If he can definitively say in this House in his summary speech that no residential construction will fall within the ICI sector as a result of the types of things I just talked about, I will be cheering that, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, I think I've been pretty clear. It will be interesting to hear.

If there's even one residential unit that ends up having the price of its product affected by the increased costs as a result of Bill 26, then we are having an effect on that key indicator of the economy in British Columbia. The minister should understand that.

In 1997 we saw a virtual crash -- and it continues in 1998 -- in consumer confidence in British Columbia. If you talk to consumers, if you do the research -- Angus Reid has done some research on it, and other economic people have done research on it and found indicators -- it shows that consumer confidence in B.C. is crashing. It's nowhere near what it was two years ago -- not even close. So there's another key indicator of how poorly our economy is performing. When people are leaving the province, when they're unemployed, when they can't find work, when they can't build homes or aren't willing to build homes, when retail sales drop off, when manufacturing exports drop off, it indicates a drop in consumer confidence -- it indicates a drop in the performance of the economy. That's what this bill is all about.

Another indicator from Statistics Canada, a foreign investment indicator, a key indicator: British Columbia makes up 13 percent of Canada's economy; in 1996 we received 5.6 percent of the foreign investment. I don't have the figures up to date for today, but I can only guess that they've become

[ Page 10028 ]

Those aren't my statistics, contrary to the conspiracy theory of the Minister of Human Resources. They aren't mine, and I didn't make them up. Those come from Statistics Canada and other very credible sources.

One has to ask oneself -- and the government should be asking themselves, and I challenge the Minister of Labour, when he summarizes his speech, to tell me and this House -- how Bill 26 is going to benefit the economy of British Columbia. How many new jobs is it going to create? How many young people are going to be employed as a result of Bill 26? Where is the growth going to happen as a result of Bill 26? Are the housing starts going to turn around? Is our economy going to turn around? Is consumer confidence going turn around? Is there anything at all in this piece of legislation that's going to improve the state of our economy in British Columbia? I think not. In fact, I expect that there will not be a change.

[9:45]

The capital construction, the capital costs of those projects, will be affected directly by Bill 26. Bill 26 will drive up the inefficiencies and the costs of construction in the ICI sector, and that will affect directly the costs of those projects and the decisions that people make where they're going to build that paper mill. Are they going to build it on the Alberta side of the border or on the British Columbia side? Are they going to build their new pulp mill in Alberta, or are they going to open it in British Columbia? It's not the only factor, but it's a significant factor.

The minister looks at me and shakes his head. He can't understand how that can be possible. All you have to do is look at what's happened. Look at the evolution of the industry over the last little while, the industrial commercial and institutional construction sector. The building trades, as a result of archaic and inefficient structures and inflexibility in their collective agreement, have been losing market share -- a significant reduction in market share. They can't compete, because their costs are too high; they are too inefficient. The non-union sector and the alternative union sectors are the ones that are outcompeting the building trades. That's why the CLRA is so upset: because they are getting killed in the marketplace. They can't compete, because their labour costs are so high.

It's not just the dollar wages. In fact, that's not the big part. It's the inefficiencies inherent in a vertically separated craft trades collective agreement on a project. You've got a collective agreement for the carpenters and one for the plumbers. The plumber can't hammer a nail, and the carpenter can't lift up a piece of pipe. Even if he's going to trip over

it, he can't touch it. Those kinds of things are ridiculous. That creates inefficiencies and a lack of competitiveness. That's why they're losing market share; that's why they can't compete.

As heated as it became as a result of the building trades' actions, the Port Alberni strike was clearly an example of that, of a desperate construction consortium or association of unions desperately trying to hold on to market share. MacMillan Bloedel had said: "We can't afford to build this project under building trades collective agreements. It's too inefficient. We can't afford to build it. If we become inefficient, we price ourselves out of the market, and it costs too much." They chose -- as they have a right to do -- to go to another supplier. They went to another bidder and took their bid, because it was lower, because they were more efficient and because they could build the project at a lower cost.

All heck broke loose. The construction unions -- the building trades unions -- quite frankly, performed disgracefully in Port Alberni. There was violence on the picket line. People were injured; people were helicoptered out of there for medical attention. We raised the issue that the guy who was in charge of the picket line now has a job with the Labour Relations Board, I believe -- oh no, the employment standards branch. He's going to be out enforcing employment standards. The government said it was the height of McCarthyism to question somebody with that record being in charge of enforcing employment standards.

An Hon. Member: What record?

G. Farrell-Collins: The record of running the picket line where violence was orchestrated and occurred as a result. Somebody has to take responsibility for that. Who takes responsibility for that? The Minister of Labour shakes his head: it's not their fault. Who swung the pipe wrench, hon. Speaker? Who was it?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says we're against workers. Well, the guy who got hit in the head with a wrench was a worker too. He had a right to be working, he had a right to be safe, and he had a right to go work and earn income to pay for food and clothes for his kids, just like the guy who wielded the pipe wrench. This government has failed time and time again to stand up for all workers in British Columbia, and it continues to take sides.

We've got, in this case, a piece of legislation that, no matter how you look at it, is an economic bill. It's a bill that will affect the economy of British Columbia. You don't have to ask me; you don't have to believe me. The Minister of Human Resources -- I know she never believes a word I say. . . . All she has to do is look at what Mr. Ready said. Look at what he said: "Here are the things you can do, but we're not going to comment on whether or not it's the right thing to do, given the economic climate." To me that's a warning; that's a suggestion; that's a bit of advice to the government -- to think about what the impact of the legislation might be.

I've just given you a look at a whole bunch of indicators -- a whole series of indicators -- on how the economy is performing in British Columbia. It's not performing very well. It's the worst economy, relative to GDP growth, by far in the entire country -- let alone comparing it to our competitors south of the border. If you look at unemployment, GDP, private sector investment, foreign investment, housing starts,

[ Page 10029 ]

What does the government bring in? Does it bring in a piece of legislation to make things work better, to make our economy more efficient, to create jobs for young people? No. Its marquee piece of legislation is to entrench antiquated collective agreements that are inefficient and uncompetitive and that are driving that sector out of that market. If the government brings in this piece of legislation, it will drive the entire industrial, commercial and institutional sector out of the competitive market in the northwest part of North America.

That's what the bill's about. The minister will get up and tell us: "It's a modest piece of legislation. All it does is make a few changes here and there. All it does is take care of some problems that everybody says we have. It's a modest piece of legislation." Hon. Speaker, the minister tells us it's modest.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I've read the bill. I was the Labour critic for years. I know as much about this piece of legislation as the minister does. I would argue that I know more about it, because I have taken into consideration the economic climate of this province and the people of this province, and the difficult straits they're in. I've measured the impact of this piece of legislation against all of those indicators, and I've come up with the assessment -- as have all members of the opposition and a good majority of the public -- that this legislation is the wrong legislation at the wrong time. It's going to destroy jobs in this province; it's going to further damage the economy. It's one more stick to beat the economy of British Columbia with, and we're all going to suffer as a result of the misguided attempt by that minister to deliver on a backroom election promise to a bunch of trade unions. We're all going to pay the price, hon. Speaker.

I look at an interesting document -- the "B.C. Economic Update -- Vancouver Island-Coast Edition" that the government has put out. I think it was the member for Matsqui who said that if you landed here from another planet, and this was handed to you as a brochure as you walked off the spaceship at the front steps of the Legislature -- as you were trying to decipher and translate how to say "Take me to your leader. . . ." If you had to read this, you would think that you had landed in the most vibrant economy in the world. You would think that the economy was booming. You would think that the young people had thousands of jobs, that jobs were raining from heaven. In fact, you'd probably get back on your spaceship and go back to your planet and bring all the young people to British Columbia and find them work. This could be out of "The X-Files," it's that bizarre. It should say on the front: "The truth is out there." It's not in here, but the truth might be out there somewhere. It sure as heck isn't in this piece of legislation, and it certainly isn't in this. . .

An Hon. Member: Piece of propaganda.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . .propaganda, this brochure.

When you look at the piece of legislation that's before us, you have to look at it as a piece of economic legislation, because that's what it is. Every signal for all those foreign investors and all those private sector investors, all the people that are deciding where they're going to bring their money and invest. . . . All the signals contained in this legislation and in the myriad of other bills and regulations which this government has brought forward in the last seven years indicate one thing: that this government really doesn't care about investment. It doesn't think for a minute that the private sector has a meaningful role to play in the economy, and it doesn't believe for a minute that entrepreneurship, private enterprise or free enterprise in British Columbia have any role to play. They talk the lines, because they know that when they do focus groups and polling and argument-testing, they have to say those kinds of things. But everything in every piece of legislation and every regulation they've ever brought forward has indicated just the opposite; it has done just the opposite. For over seven years, hundreds of times members on this side of the House have stood up and advised the government that what they were doing to the economy of British Columbia was one more negative thing. Every time they've chuckled and humphed and hurrahed. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Here's the former minister -- what was he the minister of? -- of Labour, the former Minister of Education, the former Minister of Environment. In fact, I think he's the only minister in the history of the British Commonwealth to be kicked out of cabinet twice. He's a recordholder. I hear him shouting that we're wrong. What he should do is get on an airplane -- quite frankly, I'll pay for the plane ticket -- fly to Ottawa and spend an afternoon at Statistics Canada and have all those people with their slide rules and computers explain to him, to the double-ex-minister -- pretty soon it will be triple-ex, if he ever gets back into cabinet -- what the impact of decisions and vote after vote is. He's on the record time after time supporting significant legislation, regulations and policy changes that have damaged the economy of British Columbia.

Do you know what the legacy of this government is going to be when it's finally turfed from office? It's going to be that this is the socialist party that destroyed the economy of British Columbia and that destroyed jobs in the province. It will be a cold day somewhere very low on the planet before they ever elect a B.C. NDP government again. It will be the last socialist government in the history of this province, and it's exactly what they have coming to them. It'll be a good day for the people of British Columbia when it finally happens.

The Speaker: Seeing no further debaters on the one side, I will ask the Minister of Labour to close debate on second reading of Bill 26.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, after listening to the speech from the member opposite, I'm almost feeling recharged. I have a little more energy than I thought I would after having been up all night, so I want to thank the member for that.

[10:00]

It is a straightforward piece of legislation. Alas, the members opposite seem incapable of accepting that. Two points, briefly, about what the member said. Regarding residential construction, I wanted to nail down precisely what he was asking me, to see if he would in fact eat a little crow or

[ Page 10030 ]

I also want to make very clear again that the bill will not dictate that any construction has to be built by building trades unions. That is simply not the case. Consumers of construction will continue to decide who builds on the basis of cost and on the basis of the quality of construction. It can be building trades unions; it can be wall-to-wall unions; it can be non-union. We haven't taken away that choice; we haven't imposed anything.

To the regular statements about the sky falling and all of that, a theme to which I want to refer again, let me just give one little statistic. Members opposite want to keep talking about the construction industry and about housing. Let me give them one little statistic. B.C. Stats, hot off the press: "New-home construction activity in British Columbia increased in June. Housing starts. . .rose 16.7 percent from the previous month to 24,500. On a national level, urban starts slipped 4.6 percent. . . ." How interesting! You know what? We've got a few other indicators like that which I'll be happy to share with the members.

I'm going to try and summarize, if I might, the basic contentions that the members opposite presented and then respond ever so briefly. The basic arguments that we have heard are as follows: the bill does not create jobs; the bill does not encourage investment -- indeed, they argue, it will have the opposite effect. They further argue that the bill tilts the balance in favour of the big unions, etc., and that it's a reward to one's union pals. I note that those are the basic arguments. I note as well, though, that you can read this entire long, protracted debate, and you'll have real difficulty finding something. What you'll have real difficulty finding, Madam Speaker, is any reference to the specifics of the bill -- just about none at all.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, except that members opposite want to draw conclusions about what this bill will do -- with the exception, to his credit, of the critic. Through the Chair, I think you had about five hours on this bill, so you were bound to get lucky at some point.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Right, eight hours. I think the law of averages says at some point you'd have to talk about the substance of the bill. In any event, for the most part you don't find it there. It's simply not there.

Let me then deal with one of the points: what is there? What is the debate? First of all, let me emphasize, regarding what the bill is and isn't, that this bill is an amendment to existing legislation -- right? It's nothing new; it's not a whole brand-new program. It's an amendment to existing legislation. The legislation is called the Labour Code. The primary purpose of the Labour Code, if you look at the legislation, is "to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions, as the freely chosen representatives of employees." That's what it's about; that's the purpose of the Labour Code.

To answer the question about the bill not creating jobs and not stimulating investment, you're quite right: it doesn't. Nor should it. You know what? It also doesn't do anything about global warming, about illiteracy, about the spread of measles or something in damp climates. It does none of those things. It talks, rather, about fixing something in the Labour Code that has been perceived to be wrong in the mission of the Labour Code. That's what it's about.

It's also, you know -- in the same way as most bills introduced in this legislation that have nothing to do with investment -- has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Just an example: I picked up Orders of the Day, just for fun, to have a look at the bills on the order paper. What do I see? I see the Mental Health Amendment Act. Can it do anything for investment? I don't know. It's probably not going to help the economy. How about the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act: can it stimulate investment? How about the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act: will it do anything for it? Okay, how about the bills that have been presented by members opposite? How about the Uranium Moratorium Act? How about the Domestic Violence Prevention Act? How about The Parental Responsibility Act? None of those apparently stimulate the economy. Now, are we going to assail them for that? Are we going to stand up and say: "Isn't it disgusting that somebody talked about The Parental Responsibility Act and didn't do an economic study and didn't find out what the impact would be on our economy? Outrageous!" But that's the leap that members opposite are asking us to make.

You know, I have said a number of times to members opposite that when I hear these statements, it is the Chicken Little syndrome: the sky is falling. The best response I heard from any member opposite was this one; it was short, sweet and absolutely accurate. I said to somebody, "The sky is falling," and the person said: "The minister accuses us of saying the sky is falling. But the sky is falling." That's the perspective; that's what they believe. They believe the sky is falling, whatever the evidence may be.

You know, the question is whether that constant iteration of "The sky is falling, and things are awful, and it's a disaster. . . ." The question I would pose is whether that's a responsible position to take. You know what? I don't think it is. Rather than my arguing that at some length, because I know members opposite will be patiently sitting as I do that, let me quote a former colleague of theirs. I'm talking about the former leader of the Liberal Party, who spoke very well in this chamber at the beginning of second reading debate. He said as follows: "To stand in the Legislative Assembly. . .and put up speaker after speaker to tell the world -- and that's who's going to be looking at this debate -- how terrible a place British Columbia is to invest right now, how terrible an opportunity any investor might have here, how everybody ought to go to Alberta or to Quebec or some other jurisdiction outside of B.C., is just downright irresponsible." He's right.

I said I was going to be brief, so I'm going to just touch on each of these points, as I say, quickly. The other argument: it tilts the balance, they say. Two points: they want to talk about it tilting the balance, and they want to say that the existing Labour Code is working very well, so why are you playing around with it? But if they want to argue that the existing

[ Page 10031 ]

I also want to note. . . . Look at what we have done. Look at what government has done in an effort to try and give stimulus to this economy. Members opposite don't like it. They think that this is somehow a token gesture on our part, but I would suggest that government has done a number of things to demonstrate that it wants to produce a climate more conducive and more friendly to business. We've done that, and members opposite continue to suggest that government's attitude to business is somehow hostility, suspicion or outright denial of the business's validity, or some such thing.

Let me make the point that over three years, the B.C. government is providing $150 million in direct tax relief for British Columbia businesses. That's a commitment that's been made. Similarly, we have made some major changes to the Forest Practices Code and to how we do business in this province in the resource sector to give relief to business when it says it needs it. We've done that. Similarly, in the oil and gas sector, we have been responsive to their needs.

We have done things in terms of improving even the labour climate -- like employment standards. We've talked about avoiding that circumstance in which we have standards that, quite frankly, are asking too much and perhaps are not always appropriate to lay on, say, modern developing economies like the high-tech sector. We've made a number of those ventures to try to demonstrate that we want to welcome responsible investment in this province. We need that investment. Nobody has any illusions about that.

I want to make this point: how is it that when we, as this government, make one small change to the Labour Code, we are perceived to be anti-business, yet those people over there -- I could dredge through the record, and believe me, I have done a fair bit of it -- can take a position that is anti-union and anti-worker? Frankly, I'm scandalized at the positions I'm hearing. Have you heard the vocabulary? "Union bosses, union goons" -- have you heard all that stuff? The worker-whacker and others are in full stride. This is the game.

I won't get off track, because I do want to cover a few of these. The other point was that this is a reward to one's pals. Well, let's start with this proposition: if in fact we maintain a competitive environment in the construction industry so that non-union firms and traditional union firms, wall-to-wallers, non-traditional union firms and craft unions are, all of them, competing for the same market, and nobody has an advantage but it's fair competition, how then can you say this is a reward to unions?

How can you do that? Except to say -- and here I will stand proudly to say -- that, in the Labour Code, workers are supposed to be protected and are supposed to be given the right to belong to a union and to sign collective agreements. We believe that. We think that's important. When you discover in the ICI craft union sector that because of the nature of construction, because of the nature of the job site, the workers are not able to get a collective agreement, you fix the problem. If that's pro-union, if that's rewarding your friends, then I am damned proud to be doing so.

While we're on the subject of rewarding your pals, I believe it was the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast who pointed out that ICBA donated $100,000 to the Libs in the last campaign. I believe it's the case that $40,000 went from ICBA to the Libs in the last two years. I believe that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain was in fact the recipient of $1,000 -- and $1,000 more than the Leader of the Opposition got. "Watch out, Leader of the Opposition" -- right?

That's okay. There's nothing wrong with that; there's nothing wrong, because the nature of the democratic system and political parties is that you should get support from your friends. But don't have the gall, the hypocrisy, to stand here and say that this legislation is rewarding our friends when the people who are making the accusation are leaping through hoops and doing various other gyrations and gymnastics to do everything they can to keep Phil and Suromitra happy. Let's understand that.

[10:15]

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Oh, for goodness' sake.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, will you take your place, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure that, as a. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . .former Speaker, the Minister of Labour knows that what he just did is unparliamentary in the extreme, and I ask him to withdraw his comments.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm struggling to find something in what I said that was unparliamentary. Of course, because I respect the rules of this House, if there was anything like that, I will cheerfully withdraw it.

Another example of what I would suggest is simply irresponsible. . . . I'm quoting now from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said: "B.C. residents can expect housing starts to drop by 7,000 units throughout the province because of this bill." Now, where could one possibly pull that figure from? I'm familiar with most of the studies. I've seen what has been written. I've seen the so-called studies from UDI and others. Where could one get that number? That seems to be an example of the Chicken Little syndrome in action.

Let me give a real example or two, if I might. I know I can't use props, but there's a big rally on today, and it says:

[ Page 10032 ]

You know, that is laughable, except that -- guess what. That campaign has gone out, and it has literally talked to the mom-and-pop grocery stores. They've done that, and we get little folks without much knowledge of this complex stuff sending in letters -- faxed letters, form letters -- saying: "Please don't take away our rights." I'm suggesting that's irresponsible in the same way that the $10,000 two-page ads that have been running around the province are also just a little irresponsible. "Help stop Bill 26 so your business won't be next." Oh, be careful!

What's this based on? This is based on nothing more than the fact that this looks at one sector of the construction industry -- a subset of a subset, as I've referred to before. Members opposite, as has been pointed out by a few commentators, were looking for the holy war. They wanted to find the great example of some radical transformation in labour legislation. They couldn't find it, so they said: "Well, what the heck. We've got our lines, so we may as well use the same lines for this rather minor piece of legislation." That's the shame; that's the irresponsibility.

Members opposite have a kind of triad they like to use. They like to talk about the problems of taxes, red tape and security of tenure. Security of tenure is the latest one they've slipped in during the last day or so. I just want to touch on that briefly. What I want to ask the members -- and I do this in all sincerity -- is what kind of tax regime they advocate. Is it the case that they believe we should in fact have something like a tax regime that effectively says we will welcome investment on its own terms and with nothing else -- no other stipulations, no other requirements, no other safeguards?

Do we want, for example -- back to the Alberta example we had a moment ago -- the Alberta model for pulp mills and greenhouse gases? I don't think B.C. does. I don't think the fact that Alberta is saying that they do not intend to conform to the federal plans regarding emissions is acceptable in B.C. I think that we in this province say we want that kind of regulation, and we want the tax regime that enables us to support that kind of environmental protection and regulation. That's what I think B.C. wants, and that's what I think is preferable.

What about red tape? Do you know where the discussion about red tape takes us? Occupational health and safety. I sat in this House -- and stood in this House -- for quite some hours on Bill 14, and I think we had a pretty good debate. I'll give the member for Vancouver-Quilchena his due, but I heard a heck of a lot of other comments out there about red tape that quite frankly scared me deeply, because we're talking about an unacceptable, frightening rate of accident, injury and death in the workplace. We said we're going to do something about that, and they call it red tape. That's outrageous, it seems to me. What do they advocate? I'm not sure, but what I detect I don't like.

Let me conclude by just saying this: I think our legislation represents a balanced approach. I truly do. We did not make it mandatory for all ICI to be craft-union. It can be wall-to-wall union; it can be non-traditional union; and it can be absolutely non-union. We left that option available. We left the competitive marketplace available. What, then, is the fuss? It's sad that the opposition in its zeal, I guess, to want the war, is doing what I think is irresponsible: namely, the same people who are saying we're having trouble attracting investment to this province are doing everything that most of us would say is imaginable to tell people why they shouldn't invest in this province. That, it seems to me, is something that they're going to have to live with.

I think our legislation is balanced. I think it's fair. I think it's absolutely legitimate and acceptable. It's an amendment to the Labour Code that's long overdue and acceptable and is not going to have a negative economic impact in this province, in my considered opinion. I'm sorry that the opposition is more committed to having a holy war than they are to actually looking at the legislation.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

[10:30]

YEAS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Hartley	Sihota	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Janssen
	G. Wilson

 

NAYS -- 28
Sanders	C. Clark	Farrell-Collins
de Jong	Plant	Abbott
Reid	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Whittred	Anderson
Nettleton	Penner	Weisbeck
Hawkins	Coleman	Stephens
Hansen	Thorpe	Symons
van Dongen	Barisoff	Dalton
Masi	Krueger	McKinnon
	J. Wilson

Bill 26, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

[ Page 10033 ]

The foster care budget is up by $20 million. The contracted-resource budget is down by $15 million; that's my understanding, based on the record of debates that we've had so far. Further, I understand that the ministry is proposing to save $4.5 million in that budget by virtue of introducing 62 new guardianship workers. Can the minister tell us where the rest of the saving in that sector is going to come from?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not sure quite what your question was there, hon. member. Are you asking about. . . ? What is the reduction that you're asking for? I'm not sure what numbers you're thinking about.

C. Clark: The contracted resources, as opposed to the. . . . The foster care budget is up by $20 million. The other budget for children in care in the contracted sector outside of foster care is the budget number that I'm talking about when I talk about the area where there's $15 million less budgeted. That's the portion of the budget. So it's the contracted children-in-care sector minus foster care.

Hon. L. Boone: Okay. The decrease in expenditures that we're talking about is $16.4 million. I've already gone through these numbers with you before. I'll read them to you again. There's an $8.97 million reduction in contracted-resource expenditures. The new guardianship workers will enable us to return children more quickly to parents and, for CICs who are continuing-custody wards, to relocate relatives who can assume guardianship and provide safe and permanent care for them. We will also increase the number of specialized levels 1 to 3 foster homes and reduce the number of contract resources. The admission rate for zero to ten years old is lower than for older children. These younger children will need to be placed in foster homes. This will allow us to reduce the number of days in care of higher-costing contracted staff resources.

We will be saving $5.6 million in the adoption of 240 children. We plan a special initiative to adopt approximately 240 children and youth in 1998-99. There's a $1.89 million reduction in guardianship costs; they're expected to decline by reducing the length of stay in care, which reduces the cost of services to children in care. And $4.26 million -- that's an increase that will be coming from the federal special allowance. I've gone through these figures with you before. Those are the dollars that we have.

C. Clark: I guess at the heart of my question. . . . It's not really the money, is it? It's the children and what's going to happen to those people who are getting moved around within the system. And will there be money for them? That's the nub of any discussion in these debates on estimates.

From what I can gather from the Hansard Blues, the minister said that the savings would be achieved in the contracted sector -- and I'm talking about the contracted sector outside of foster care, essentially highly specialized care -- by transferring 115 children out of that sector and into the levelled foster care sector. What's going to happen to the about 315 others? The minister said that she expects to see a total reduction of 432 in the number of children in contracted resources. That would be the total reduction that she talked about. She told us that 115 of those children would be transferred into the levelled foster care system. What's going to happen to the other 315?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm having some difficulty following your questions here, hon. member, but I said the contracted-resources expenditures and new guardianship workers will enable us to return children more quickly to parents. We will increase the number of specialized levels 1 to 3 foster homes and reduce the number of contracted-resource beds. The admission rate for zero-to-ten-year-olds is lower; this will allow us to save some dollars.

We plan to initiate and adopt approximately 240 children and youth in 1998-99. Most of these are special needs children, currently placed in either special needs family care or special needs contracted resources. We anticipate placing 93 from family care, with a reduction of expenditures of $.87 million, and 123 from contracted resources, with a reduction in expenditures of $4.75 million. An additional 24 children, who are not in special needs homes, will also be adopted. Savings related to these children are included in the $8.97 million initiative.

Now, if the member wants me to give exact numbers. . . . I can't give those, because these are anticipated numbers, as we guesstimate where people will be moving and who the children coming into our resources will be. These are estimates, and that's what I'm doing: I'm giving you estimates of the number of children that we expect that we can move into other resources. I can't give you any further numbers than this, so I would suggest that we move on to something else.

[10:45]

The question is. . . . The minister said there were going to be 432 children moving out of the contracted-care sector; there are going to be fewer than those projected for this year. . . . I assume that the ministry, when it makes its projections, determines where they think children are going to be in the system. If the ministry projects that there are going to be 432 fewer children in the contracted-care, highly specialized sector -- these are children with big behavioural problems and other needs. . . . If there are going to be 432 fewer in the system and the minister can further tell us that 115 of those are projected to go into the foster care system, the ministry officials must have some projections about where in the system the rest of those children will go.

Maybe the minister could tell me that the total 315 reduction will be in fewer hours spent for each child who is already in the system, or she might tell me that 100 of those are expected to be adopted out. I don't know what the answer is, but those are the kinds of projections I assume the ministry must have made.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm just going to give you some numbers. I've given them to you before, and I'll give them to you again. In foster care this year we have 1,180 in regular care, and we anticipate next year that there will be 1,212. In restricted care this year we have 896; next year, 1,339. In level 1 specialized care, 1,502; next year, 1,676. In level 2 specialized care, 1,602; next year, 1,762. In level 3 specialized care, 551; next year, 711. This is where we anticipate the children will go.

C. Clark: Could the minister clarify for us whether the numbers that she's given me include the growth in the foster

[ Page 10034 ]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: So the minister is telling us as well, I understand -- with about a $15 million cut in the contracted resource sector -- that she will be cutting contracts to group homes. Can the minister tell us where she expects those cuts to come from and how far along the ministry is in planning those?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I can't.

C. Clark: So how did the ministry come up with that number for this year's budget, then?

Hon. L. Boone: We've already been through this, hon. Chair.

C. Clark: No, we haven't been through this. We haven't talked about the cuts to group homes and to specialized care homes in British Columbia. We haven't talked about that at all. The minister has talked about the fact that there will be a cut, but it's already in this year's budget, and we are already into the fiscal year. If the ministry hasn't planned or hasn't started negotiating with those group homes or hasn't figured out where those cuts are going to come from, it's hard to understand how the savings would be realized at the end of the year. Has the ministry, at this stage, already entered into negotiations to revise or cut any contracts with contractors in this sector?

Hon. L. Boone: We've gone through this ad nauseam. We have advised the member that we will be removing people from the contracted resource sector into the foster parent sector. That just means that they won't be billing us for those things. That doesn't mean that we will be reducing their contracts or any of those things but that they will not be billing us for services that they no longer render. It's like all other contracted sectors out there.

C. Clark: Are those contractors aware yet that the services the minister will be requiring of them will be greatly reduced?

Hon. L. Boone: They are independent contractors. Some of them are private societies, and some of them are private business people who deal with the growth or decrease in the number of children in care as a common occurrence. This is nothing new. They had increases last year because we had more children coming in. They'll have decreases this year because we are trying to move some children outside of that, into other areas. This is nothing new. They shift their services, as services are required.

C. Clark: The minister likes to characterize this as a small change, but I imagine that for the contractors out there this is a substantial change. Earlier in our debates the minister was quite happy to characterize this as a substantial change -- as a substantial money saving for the ministry. She pointed out that while the ministry spends somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000 per child in the specialized care sector, it's $20,000 per child, or thereabouts, in the foster care sector. Those numbers are ballpark figures, but you're talking about a $25,000-to-$30,000 cut per child in these contractors' yearly budgets. They'd have staffing requirements that would be different. The nature of their accommodations will be different. There's a whole host of things that are quite different in the contracted care sector.

I'm not suggesting we get into an argument about whether they can do this or not. What I'm asking is whether the ministry has informed these contractors. . . . I imagine that if one home has got two or three children in it, you're talking about a cut of 60 percent for their budget. When is the ministry planning to inform these contractors that these cuts are going to be made?

Hon. L. Boone: The member likes. . . . I can see where you are going on this: you're going to suddenly say that everybody is going to be all upset because their contracts are not as rich as they were last year. Well, I'd be really happy if their contracts were totally eliminated, because that would mean that we didn't have those children in care; surely that's our goal. These individuals recognize that we have a responsibility to provide the proper level of care for those children and that we will do so within our parameters.

Last year many groups out there had individuals in satellite homes, because they had too many for their own facility. They will not be contracting with those satellite homes to provide those services. Just as we had an increase last year, this year they will have to live with that decrease. We have a responsibility to make sure that the children in our care are placed in the proper resources, and we will be doing so to the best of our ability.

C. Clark: What the minister is talking about is transferring children from higher-needs care -- care that's directed at higher-needs children who have very significant problems -- into homes where they will get less intensive care. I don't want to get into a big philosophical debate about whether that's appropriate. I suspect that in many cases it will turn out not to be appropriate. I suspect that this whole budget exercise is not going to ensure that children are in the most appropriate care situations. It's amazing to suggest that 400 children are currently in specialized care homes who don't need to be there -- that they're in highly specialized care situations, and they can really be in a much less intensive situation. That's what the minister is suggesting, and I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about that. I feel fairly strongly that she's wrong, but I'm not going to get into a debate about it.

My question, though, is about the contractors. The minister isn't talking about children leaving care. We're not talking about children getting out of the care of the government altogether. We're talking about the ministry going to contractors, demanding that they change the type of care they're delivering -- not only that they change it but that they reduce it -- and saying that the ministry will reduce the amount of money they receive for each child in their care. That's what's going on here -- right? The ministry said that they're going to transfer at least 115 children from these highly specialized homes into foster care homes. The minister then indicated that rather than finding new contractors, they're going to get the old contractors to change the kind of care they provide so that they're just a foster care home.

[ Page 10035 ]

C. Clark: The minister says she didn't say that, so maybe I'll let her get up and clarify for me.

Hon. L. Boone: The member likes to take a little bit of information and switch it around. I never said that we were going to ask the contractors to provide different care. I clearly stated that we would be moving those children from the contracted resources into foster care, where it's appropriate. We will not be moving children if it's not appropriate. But we are going to be moving those children from contracted resources. And I have never said that we are reducing the amount that those contracted resources would get per child. I have never said that in this House. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Now, we have gone over this for four or five hours ad nauseam. If the member wants to move on to something else, I wish she would, because we are not going to get any further on this. I am telling you quite clearly that we will do the best we can to move those children out of those resources and into foster care. We are putting on a drive to get foster care. We will deal with those contracted resources when in fact we start to move those children, or we will not place children in them. But we are not going to start discussions with resources out there right now, when we don't know which children will be in their care or where they should be placed. This is not a science where we can say that X number of children are going to be moved from one particular group home and placed someplace else. We don't know what children are going to be there five months from now, two months from now -- or even next month. We are talking about human beings. We're talking about a volatile situation here, and we will deal with that as the situation comes up.

C. Clark: The ministry does know, or at least knows enough to guess. They're guessing that 430-odd fewer children will be in these resources. They're making a concerted effort. This is a concerted policy change on the part of the ministry to try and move children out of the contracted-care sector, because it costs the ministry more money. Okay, that's the choice the ministry has made. That is the new policy direction of the Ministry for Children and Families: shift children out of the contracted-care sector into the foster care sector.

All right, but that means that there is going to be a substantial change in the structure of the contracted sector. It's going to mean that there are fewer people required to provide specialized care and more required to provide foster care. Well, let's go there, then. The ministry has said, on the one hand: "We know that we want more foster parents. We know that we're going to have more foster children in the system, so let's recruit more foster parents." So the ministry has gone out and is at least pretending to actively pursue a new policy in that direction.

[11:00]

Can the minister tell us what communications she's had with people in the contracted-care sector to tell them that their contracts are going to be dramatically reduced, by $15 million, and that they are likely to not have contracts in the coming year? If she had hopes to meet her budget expectations, she's going to have to stop cutting the cheques sometime.

Hon. L. Boone: We haven't even started the foster parent recruitment program. That starts in the fall, and we will be talking with our contractors when contract renewals come up and we start to deal with them. It's on an ongoing basis. We have kids coming into care; we have kids coming out of care. We will be moving them into the appropriate resources and trying to make sure that we have them in those resources, as we have more foster parents to make sure that they're there. We went through this before. I would urge the member to move on to something else, because this is getting repetitious.

C. Clark: Does the minister have any time line for when she hopes to achieve this change of 432 children from one sector to the other? I suspect that some of them would have to start being transferred already in order to meet that target, given that we're a third of the way into the fiscal year now. Or is the ministry hoping to achieve most of that number in the last three or six months of this fiscal year?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, I hope you indulge me in saying that I'm not repetitious, but I can't help but be repetitious when I get the same questions asked me.

The children come in and out of care. We will be moving them into care as we find appropriate resources, but we will not be moving children until we have those appropriate resources for them. Obviously our time line is to have those numbers there by the end of the year. If we find appropriate resources earlier, we will move them earlier; if we don't, we won't. I can tell the member that we will not be moving children into resources until we have appropriate resources to move them into.

C. Clark: Clearly the minister doesn't want to answer the question. Maybe her officials want to hand her some new pieces of paper so that she can answer the question at some stage. I'll leave it at that. The minister doesn't want to answer the question.

I think, though, that there's a fair reason for contractors in British Columbia to be quite concerned about their future and about their future with this ministry. The ministry is quite clearly planning some major changes in that sector and has failed to inform anyone in that sector that the axe is about to fall. It's irresponsible to treat your partners that way. These people are partners of the ministry who have chosen to deliver a service on behalf of government, and it's irresponsible to treat them in a way that puts their businesses and their futures in jeopardy. The ministry at least owes them a little more respect than they have offered them so far. Where in this budget, now that the budget for the contracted-care sector has been chopped by about $15 million, is the budget for ensuring that group homes are accountable and that standards of quality are maintained?

Hon. L. Boone: The member doesn't seem to be able to comprehend that last year we had a sudden increase in chil-

[ Page 10036 ]

If the member is unable to comprehend this, I suggest that she just goes back and reads this again, because I would be saying the same thing to you at a later date. I have said this four or five times. We will not be placing children in inappropriate care. We will not be reducing the dollars that are given to these contracted services. They will be receiving the same amount of money to provide the services that they're doing. They will probably have similar numbers to what they had last year. This is not the axe falling. I know the member always likes to raise fears out there and get everybody's hackles up and get everybody concerned. This is not the axe falling on these people, hon. member. This is merely getting us back to what we were before we suddenly had this influx of children coming into the system. We will be making sure that children are provided with the best possible care that we can within the system that we have.

C. Clark: Well, if I do go back and check the Blues and find out that the minister is saying the same thing today that she said last week and that she'll say next week, it'll be the first time that's happened. When I go back and check Hansard, almost every time the numbers are different. Almost every single time we get some different, new interpretation of where the savings are going to come from, where the money's going to be found, how the children are going to be switched around and what the total numbers are. It's constantly changing.

I can appreciate that this is a ministry where predicting is difficult, but I also appreciate the fact that this ministry needs to set some goals and some standards. Maybe they won't meet them and maybe they will, but the fact is that the minister's numbers don't have any reason to change every day, every week -- which is what they seem to do. When I go through Hansard, what I'm trying to do is square what the minister says one day with the next day, because it changes so frequently. If the minister wants to make a commitment today to saying the same thing today that she's going to say next week, terrific. It'll be a nice change from the way these estimates have been going.

The minister has said that children in group care come in and out of group care, just like they do in foster care. That is not my understanding of the way the system works in group care. My understanding of the way group homes work is that children in there are seriously needy. They are high-need children and they don't move in and out as frequently as children in the foster care system. Maybe the minister could tell us how often children move in and out of the group care system, as opposed to children in the foster care system, and whether she's seen a trend that would lead her to believe that there are going to be more moving out of the system this year than there have been in years past.

S. Hawkins: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today, visiting -- it's a very pleasant surprise -- are constituents of mine: Rita and Basil Skodon, with little Alexandra. Rita's mom, Mrs. Molly Hein, is also visiting with them. I understand they were on Saltspring Island and decided to make a tour of the Legislature. I bet they didn't know that we were sitting 24 hours, through the night. Anyway, I ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: We do in fact have people coming in and out of care. The court system sometimes determines it -- orders and all these various things. If you want to know how many children have come in and out of the system over the past year, I'll have to get that number for you, because I don't have those numbers here. I guess I've got some figures here. The 1997-98 admissions were 7,699, and discharges were 5,786. So there are children that come into the system and then go out of the system, as determined by the courts and other determinations.

C. Clark: My question was specifically about the contracted-care sector. That's what the minister has been talking about: the shift -- a shift of 430 children from one system into the other. My question was, specifically: can she give us some numbers that will demonstrate that the children move in and out of the contracted-resource sector faster or just as quickly as they do in the regular and levelled foster care sector?

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I told you that I would get that information for you. We don't have those breakdowns.

C. Clark: I wanted to be specific, because I was quite sure the minister didn't understand my question the first time. I'm glad she gets it the second time.

Earlier, too, I asked about the budget for group care homes and how much money the ministry has budgeted for quality assurance in those homes.

Hon. L. Boone: Those are determined by the director's office and by the regional operating office.

C. Clark: How does the ministry check?

Hon. L. Boone: The Ministry of Health does a review of licensing, under the licensing department, once a year. The director's office will be doing the audits. That's once every three years. Then, if there are allegations or if special circumstances come up where somebody suggests that a home should be reviewed, we would be doing that on a one-on basis.

C. Clark: Didn't there used to be something called provincial review teams in the ministry? What's the status of that?

Hon. L. Boone: Those are in place, and they monitor for the community living sector.

C. Clark: So the ministry does go out and do spot checks, I take it, of the sector. Or is it just done on sort of a three-year rotation on a regular basis?

Hon. L. Boone: Each home has a resource worker. We also have managers that would be in those homes on a regular basis to do the quality assurance. We will, as I said, not just do spot checks. The Ministry of Health reviews for programs and

[ Page 10037 ]

C. Clark: Well, there are checks and balances in there, but apparently not enough. We saw the report from the government that recently came out, which pointed out some very, very serious problems in the care system for handicapped, mentally challenged people and physically handicapped people. I'm wondering if the minister has identified how those problems occurred.

[11:15]

C. Clark: I don't mean to cause any confusion for the minister's officials. I will not stray into the community living sector at this stage, because I know that we had an agreement that we wouldn't touch that yet. I do want to stick with the area that we were talking about, though, in terms of quality assurance. How much has the ministry budgeted to ensure that the facilities that are meeting her clients' needs meet those standards?

Hon. L. Boone: There is $1.1 million for the audit program, and there is $250,000 budgeted for the one-off reviews. I don't know how much is budgeted in the Ministry of Health.

C. Clark: Just so we can be clear, what facilities will the one-off reviews be looking at?

Hon. L. Boone: On anything that is reported -- reportable circumstances. If somebody reports that there is a problem at a contracted resource. . . . Those are the areas that we would be going into.

C. Clark: Are specialized staff assigned to this project?

Hon. L. Boone: There are a number of different ways that this is done. The director's office has six staff who do some of these reviews. We also have regional staff who go in and do performance reviews, and as I say, there are probably around 20 in that area out in the regions who do performance reviews as and when required. In addition, if there is a problem, the facility operator is mandated by law to advise us of this, and the Ministry of Health goes in under the community care licensing review, with our staff as well, to do a review. As I said, this is not something that is not done; there are a number of different individuals out there who do inspect, who do go in and do reviews to make sure that our facilities are operating in the best interests of the clients.

Now, there are some that you hear about, and of course, it's like everything else: you always hear the bad news; you don't hear about the good ones out there. I would say that the majority of our operators, whether it be in the community living sector -- and we'll get into that later on -- or here, are operating in a good manner. It's like everything else: it's the bad apple that you hear about.

C. Clark: Could the minister characterize for us the nature of the complaints that have been investigated by her staff? I suspect the ministry must track those, just like the children's commissioner does, by the nature of the complaint.

Hon. L. Boone: If there's a death of a child in care or known to the ministry, critical injury to a child in care or known to the ministry, serious incident involving children in care or known to the ministry, complaints to the children's commissioner, alleged breaches of rights of children in care, guardianship matters impacting the safety and well-being of children in care, matters of services to young adults who were formerly children in care of the ministry, all litigation matters against the ministry involving claims of negligence or malpractice, a client concern brought to the minister's attention, and cases where concern that the mandate of Children and Families and the child services act may not have been met. . . .

C. Clark: Could the minister give us a percentage on each of those, exactly the way the children's commissioner classifies her information, or give us a number on each of them, so we can get a sense of the number and types of complaints that come in?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll have to get that information for you.

C. Clark: I would appreciate getting that information. I hear a lot not just from people who complain about inadequate care situations, but also from caregivers who say that they've been falsely accused or unfairly investigated, or that there's been a failure on the ministry's part to follow due process. That's why I'm interested in those numbers.

The method and the ministry's approach to quality assurance -- has that changed over the last year; is that something that's evolved and undergone an overhaul? I understand that it may be significantly different from the way it looked one or two years ago.

Hon. L. Boone: The licensing provisions are the same. Since the new ministry came into being, the regional operations and performance management division has had responsibility for quality assurance within the ministry. As I say, we've got the regional people out there doing these things. Many of the regional operating agencies have a quality assurance manager who coordinates regional activities around quality assurance -- that's new. The regular audits are also new, as we talked about previously.

C. Clark: Does the minister have any idea if the number of investigations that are being undertaken by her ministry are up or down, this year over last? Further, could she tell us whether the number of investigations that result in some action by the ministry against the contractor have increased or decreased?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have the data from the previous year, as it was not gathered. I think we've made it quite clear that our information-gathering system was very inadequate in the past. We have since put in systems and are tracking information a lot better. The information we have for this year is that there was a total of 155 investigations -- 59 of them with contracted services and 96 with foster care. Out of those, 48 had some substantiated allegations.

C. Clark: Can the minister tell us how many of those investigations have ended up in the court system?

[ Page 10038 ]

C. Clark: One of the things that I touched on briefly earlier was the provincial review team. I recall the minister saying that that would lead us into the community living sector, which I know she doesn't have the staff here to discuss yet. In a general way she may have the staff here to discuss the philosophy of this, at the moment. It's my understanding that the provincial review team was a service that was provided to the ministry on contract and is no longer being provided. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: We have a contractor in place who is providing services for the provincial review team. As I said, this is under the continuing-care area. So if you want to move into that whole area, then I'd suggest that we let these people go. There has been no drop of services there, and any changes that are taking place in that will be done at the community living sector table. We made a commitment to them when we ended the contract restructuring.

[11:30]

Hon. L. Boone: Just in community living.

C. Clark: Well, I'll certainly get to that later. This is a unique monitoring service that has shut down because of the ministry's drive to reorganize the contracted sector, which they now say they've abandoned. It seems to me to be a substantial loss of the ministry's ability to assure that quality standards are met in the ministry, so I'll certainly get back to that later. I'll understand if the minister doesn't have her officials here to discuss that.

Before we break for lunch, I want to talk just a little bit about the standards in foster care. I know the ministry is revamping its standards of care. Can the minister tell us how far along she is with that, and when she expects that process to be completed?

Hon. L. Boone: Before we get on to that, I just want to make sure that the member understands that there has been no dropping of services there. There is a contractor who is providing the review team work for the community living sector. There have not been any services dropped there. I would not like her to think that this area is void and that there's nobody providing those services. There is a contractor providing the services for the provincial review team.

C. Clark: Again, I don't want to stray too far into this, but can the minister tell us the name of the contractor? I assume that they've just replaced Hillkeep Services. Could she confirm that this is what has happened in this case and maybe give us the name of the replacement contractor?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we don't have that staff here, but we will get that name for you.

C. Clark: Well, I'll get back to my question about standards of care in the foster system. Could the minister tell us where the ministry is with developing those, and when they expect them to be completed?

Hon. L. Boone: We had guidelines out there. The director has informed me that he has just signed off on the final. . . . We will have a new standards document, hopefully, printed and ready to be distributed by the end of July -- well, printed anyway.

C. Clark: Has the ministry secured the agreement of the B.C. foster parents' association to the new standards of care?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: Do the new standards of care include making foster homes subject to more of the regulations under the Workers Compensation Act?

Hon. L. Boone: You're going to have to wait until we actually release the standards. I said they would be released on July 31. We've been getting feedback on them for the past few months. We've done considerable consultation, but I'm not going to pre-release the document at this particular time.

C. Clark: Well, maybe we can go back to the old document that came out when the ministry brought forward a new contract, which was so offensive to foster parents that they refused to sign it. Some of them even left the system because it was so offensive. The way the old foster parent contract was structured, it treated foster parents like they were employees of the ministry, not just employees of the ministry but government workers -- that they should be subject to all the rules and regulations that other government workers are subject to. One of those rules and regulations that the ministry put into the contract was to make foster parents subject to the Workers Compensation Board regulations.

Has the ministry determined whether or not that is appropriate? Have they costed out or done any kind of an analysis of the cost impact of making foster parents subject to the ever-expanding purview of the WCB?

Hon. L. Boone: All foster parents who employ anyone in any capacity for any length of time are considered employers. Under the Workers Compensation Act, an employer who is not registered with the Workers Compensation Board at the time of an injury is liable to pay the cost of compensation. So they are considered employers. The Workers Compensation Board provides an exemption for 15 working hours per week of child care. However, foster parents are considered ineligible for this exemption, because they are provided with a source of revenue to look after children. The Workers Compensation Board offers protection for residential employers, and in return, employers are expected to register with the board and pay employer assessments.

C. Clark: The old contract that the ministry brought out suggested that foster parents should not just treat their employees differently but that they should also change their workplace substantially in order to make it comply with Workers Compensation Board regulations. It was my understanding that foster parents had been exempt for whatever reason -- whether just by non-enforcement or by purpose -- from some of the WCB regulations that apply to other employers, because the nature of the workplace is so different.

[ Page 10039 ]

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have the option to say whether or not someone is covered by the WCB. We are covered by the WCB act the same as everybody else. We are currently working with WCB to gain foster parents the exemption for those who have only 15 working hours per week of child care. We are working to try to get that exemption for our foster parents, but that is not a decision made by this ministry. That is a decision that would be made by the WCB.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

C. Clark: So the ministry is negotiating with the WCB to have foster parents exempted from some parts of the act. Could the minister advise us what topics are under negotiation and when they expect those negotiations to be completed?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't tell you when it's going to be completed. But the Workers Compensation Board, as I said earlier, provides an exemption of 15 working hours per week for child care. Currently foster parents are considered ineligible for this exemption, because they're provided with a source of revenue to look after those children. We are working in consultation with the WCB to try and gain that exemption for our foster parents, so that they can get the same exemption of 15 working hours per week of child care. I can't say when it's going to be completed. I mean, negotiations are negotiations.

C. Clark: Is that the only topic that's under negotiation with the WCB? The reason I ask is because it's my understanding -- I'd appreciate it if the minister could clarify this for me -- that the scope of the WCB regulations applicable today to foster parents is broader than it was a year or two years ago. Maybe the minister could clarify for me whether or not that's correct. If it is indeed correct, then I'm surprised to find out that the ministry is negotiating only on this very narrow issue with the WCB. It appears to me that more issues should be topics of discussion.

Hon. L. Boone: The director's staff and legal services are discussing this with the WCB. I'll check into this and get more information for the member.

C. Clark: Yes, I'd appreciate getting the information. Foster parents are quite concerned about it.

Can the minister tell us what the legal status of foster parents is with the WCB at this point, while the negotiations are ongoing?

Hon. L. Boone: Only those foster parents who employ somebody would be considered as employers under the Workers Compensation Act. Those regs were changed last year. They would have to comply with the regs, but we would have to check into that and find out what the status is right now. Most of them had not opted into WCB earlier on, when they had that option. We'll just have to see exactly what's going on with them.

C. Clark: From what I can gather -- and I hope the minister will be able to clarify this for me -- the government changed the regulations to require that foster parents opt into the system as employers. Is that correct? Maybe I should make the question a little broader. Maybe she could clarify the nature of those regulations and what they changed, and maybe she could tell us which ministry or whether. . . . I assume that they were regulations pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: The Workers Compensation Board, an independent body, changed the regulations. They were generic regulations, not specific to foster parents. But foster parents were captured within those regulations. Right now we are working with foster parents to try and make sure that the current regulations fit them, and we will continue to do so.

C. Clark: If the Workers Compensation Board changed the regulations over a year ago and if they've been negatively affecting foster parents since then, did the ministry enter into negotiations with the WCB when the new regulations came into force? Or was there even any consultation between the ministry and the WCB about the impact that those might have on foster parents?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not aware that the WCB contacted the ministry to find out how that would affect foster parents.

C. Clark: When did the ministry enter into negotiations with the WCB?

Hon. L. Boone: These discussions and negotiations started last year at various levels when these regulations came in. So far we have not been successful at getting them to give us the exemptions. But as I said, the ministry staff and Attorney General's ministry are continuing to have discussions with the WCB.

[11:45]

So I would hope that the ministry would redouble its efforts. It doesn't appear that the ministry has been putting a great deal of energy into these negotiations. It doesn't appear that the ministry got down to the negotiations until well after the regulations were brought in. I think we can infer from the lack of progress that attention isn't being paid in particular to this issue. If I can raise it on behalf of foster parents, there it is. The ministry should try and get to work, redouble its efforts and try to find some success at this, because it is a really significant problem for foster parents. That's one of the reasons that foster parents raise when they suggest that they're not prepared to foster or that they might not be prepared to enter the system in the first place. We need to remove those obstacles as much as possible.

The ministry has talked about training foster parents, for example. The minister made an announcement that there was

[ Page 10040 ]

Hon. L. Boone: While they're getting the information for me, I just want to, because you've got a little bit of misinformation there. . . . I've stated quite clearly that foster parents are not included under the WCB unless they employ someone. If you're just a foster parent, and you don't employ someone, you are not considered to be under the WCB. We are currently working with the foster parents' association.

It's a bit offhand to say that the ministry is not working hard. I mean, it's not easy sometimes to change the regulations, but we are working as hard as we can. We are also working with the foster parents' association in our discussion on the new contracts to see how we can deal with some of their concerns, in terms of trying to meet them if there are additional costs that are incurred by them under the WCB. But a foster parent is not considered an employer unless they employ somebody. So if there's just a foster parent home that doesn't employ someone, then that person would not be considered an employer.

As to the foster parent training, the status right now is that the ministry and the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations are updating the pre-service orientation curriculum and expanding the orientation to 18 hours of training. The revised pre-service orientation is required training for all prospective foster parents. The ministry and the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations are working together to develop and implement a basic training program of 50 hours' duration. It is required training for all foster parents who have a family care home agreement with the ministry. We expect to have this in place by the fall.

C. Clark: Well, I think it's important to recognize, too, that many, many foster parents do employ someone. They employ respite caregivers, babysitters and speech therapists. There's a whole range of people that are likely to be employed by a foster parent to do a whole number of things, particularly foster parents who have more than one child in their home, because they simply don't have the time to be able to manage all the children 24 hours a day -- like any regular parent would employ people.

Because of the number of high-needs children that are in the system -- children that have fetal alcohol syndrome, drug-addicted children, children who have special needs like occupational therapy and speech therapy -- those parents do need to hire someone. There's a high number of those children in the system; therefore there's a high number of foster parents who qualify as employers. It's important to recognize that we're not talking about just a small number -- a tiny percentage of the total foster care system -- when we talk about people that would be affected by the onerous WCB regulations.

Last year in estimates, the minister said the same thing, that the ministry was planning 18 to 20 hours of training for regular family care and that there would be a level 2 for specialized family care; she didn't indicate how many hours that would be. The minister has indicated that it would be 50 hours. So how does this new training program differ from the last training program that the minister announced or at least referred to in estimates last year?

Hon. L. Boone: Last year there was a plan to do some training. That was put on hold until we got the recommendations from the task force. The recommendations from the task force went far beyond what was planned. So the plans for training right now are far beyond what was planned last year.

I just want to clarify, though, that the speech therapists, occupational therapists and all of those individuals that you talk about are not employed by the foster parents. They are employed by the ministry, so they are not considered employees of the foster parents. Respite care, yes, that would be. But specialized therapists are considered employees of the ministry.

C. Clark: We're kind of having a debate within a debate here. I talk to a lot of foster parents who say they employ people outside the funding that's provided by the ministry, because they don't won't want to wait on the wait-list, or they want to make sure the resource is appropriate -- there are all kinds of reasons that foster parents employ other people. But I can tell the minister that probably a lot of foster parents -- obviously many more than the ministry is aware of -- are employers for children with special needs. I mean, Tim Murphy is an example of someone who employs someone at his own expense to provide therapy for his child; there's just one example. But there are a lot of foster parents who are in that situation out there.

The minister did say, though, that this training program for foster parents is substantially different from the one that was planned and then put on hold last year. Could she tell us how it's different?

Hon. L. Boone: The previous plan was not going to be mandatory; this is mandatory. It's 50 hours, so it is a substantial increase in training.

Noting the hour -- and all my colleagues are advising me of this -- I'd like to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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