[ Page 9909 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery are the parents of a constituent of mine. Mr. John McInnis has his parents visiting from Edmonton today. They are Mac and Tilly McInnis, and I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

B. McKinnon: I am pleased to introduce to the House today two friends of mine. My very good friend Judy Taylor is from Qualicum Beach, and her sister Pamela Patton is from Victoria. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House Brian and Lori Chanski, who are here visiting from Cranbrook, in my riding. Their two children, Kelly and Trevor, are also here. Not only is it their first time visiting us here in the Legislature, it is also their first time visiting Victoria. I would ask the House to please give them a hearty welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: Visiting us in the gallery today is Brian Greer, QC. He is the chief legislative counsel with the Ministry of Attorney General. More importantly, Brian is accompanied by his daughter Suzanne Henwood-Greer, who is a grade 12 student at St. Michael's University School in Victoria. I'd ask the House to make them both feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to welcome Hugh Watson to the House. He is a member of the South Fraser regional health board, where he serves as the treasurer. I would like the House to please make him very welcome.

S. Orcherton: It's indeed a pleasure to get up today and welcome someone back to these precincts who has been sorely missed for some time. On the heels of achieving some modest gains for both him and the folks that he works with, I'd ask the House to welcome Mr. Keith Baldrey back to this assembly and chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, our focus is on the floor. I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today Nona Saunders, president of the Condominium Home Owners Association of B.C., and Alvin Myhre, past president of the association. Both of them have been working very hard on the leaky-condo issue. I would ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I'd like to have you welcome some family and friends of mine who are here in the gallery today. My grandchildren, Danielle Brewin Graham and Iain Brewin Graham, are here from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and my nephew Simon Morley. They're here to enjoy and learn about the House. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

FRBC HIRING OF MLA'S CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANT

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to correct the record, some $600 million was spent last year. This year $500 million was spent, and most of it was on employing displaced forest workers. No funds have flowed to employ the former constituency assistant.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, it is my understanding that there was a contract signed on June 1 for services, if and when required, for community consultation purposes.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: Every member of this House should be concerned about the turn of events that resulted in the contract with Mr. Schneider. FRBC is to support displaced forest workers, not displaced NDP hacks. This deal reeks of pork-barrel politics. Will the minister table in this House today the contract between Mr. Schneider and FRBC?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, there are lots of accusations about who FRBC hires and does business with. Let me inform the House that former non-NDP Forests ministers have been hired from time to time, and there are lots of people in communities, based on their qualifications and their abilities. . . . FRBC hires people of all political stripes to do its contract work.

G. Plant: I want to get this right. Mr. Schneider loses his job, and by some sort of miracle, a job becomes available at FRBC. It sounds to me like the most amazing stroke of luck. FRBC must have been searching high and low to find someone for this job who had Mr. Schneider's qualifications. My question to the Minister of Forests is this: how many other people applied for the job that Mr. Schneider got?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I understand FRBC's procedure, sometimes people contact them about jobs; sometimes they directly solicit people. In this case -- and FRBC can confirm this -- it was not a job.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, the opposition is trying to make the point that he landed a cushy job. There was no

[ Page 9910 ]

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: The next thing the Minister of Forests is going to be saying is that Mr. Schneider was never relieved of his duties; he was just redistributed.

I want to see if I understand the process that was followed in respect of Mr. Schneider. This contract: was it subject to a normal competition in which other bids were sought? Or was it a direct award by FRBC, subject to the usual tendering guidelines? Or was it some new third alternative, which is what happens when you decide to turn a Crown corporation into the largest slush fund in the province? How was it that the decision was made to hire Mr. Schneider?

[2:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

C. Clark: What a coincidence! Thousands of displaced forest workers in British Columbia can't make their mortgage payments, can't get jobs in this province, and meanwhile an NDP hack gets fired from his job, and suddenly one opens up at FRBC. What an amazing coincidence! We do know that the member for Comox Valley played some role in getting her former assistant a job. Can the minister tell us what representations the member for Comox Valley made to make sure that her disgraced former staffer kept his job on the public payroll?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information that I have from Forest Renewal B.C. is that they checked the references. After doing a reference check, they decided to enter into a contract. When it was later revealed that as a former constituency assistant, Mr. Schneider had written some phony letters, he was no longer deemed appropriate to do the work that was contracted for, which was community liaison work. His contract was terminated. Just to repeat, hon. Speaker, there were no moneys paid to Mr. Schneider; therefore he couldn't have denied employment to any displaced forest worker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: I'll ask a similar question. Hopefully, the minister can answer this one. We know that the member for Comox Valley went out of her way to try and make sure that her former assistant kept his job at the public trough. We know that despite his unethical conduct, she wrote a letter of recommendation. We also now know that she phoned FRBC, trying to get him a job. Can the minister tell us how many times the member for Comox Valley phoned FRBC trying to make sure that her employee stayed on the public payroll, so he'd keep his mouth shut during her recall campaign?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member makes allegations. It's not for me to check how many times an MLA phones; it is for me to check whether or not Forest Renewal B.C. follows. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .appropriate procedure and whether the people are qualified. I asked FRBC about their hiring procedure and the process. When I asked about it, early in the morning after it was revealed to me, I was told that they had taken steps to terminate a contract that hadn't even been actioned.

C. Hansen: What is clear is that this minister is not upset about the unethical behaviour that took place; he's clearly not upset about the fact that FRBC went out of its way to create a contract when needed. What he's upset about is that they got caught.

We understand that Mr. Schneider has put his name on the list to be a substitute teacher in the fall, an on-call teacher. Will the minister confirm that part of the backroom deal with Mr. Schneider is that his income will be topped up to meet what he was earning as a constituency assistant, over and above what he gets as an on-call teacher?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I cannot speak to. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, please come to order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I cannot speak to financial arrangements between any MLA and their constituency staff. What I can speak to is the appropriateness of a contract that FRBC might let. I do not, on a day-by-day basis, get involved in the hiring and firing at Forest Renewal B.C. It's for their staff and the board to oversee that. But as the minister responsible and as a board member of FRBC, I asked what I think were the appropriate questions as to how this happened and what they'd done about it. I was told that the information that you're using, the basis for your allegations, was not disclosed during the hiring contract negotiation period. When it became known to Forest Renewal, they then took steps.

I hope that I would be the last to know, sometimes, a lot of the details of hiring and firing. I didn't ask questions about hiring former Socred cabinet ministers, for example, to do good work for us -- and they have done good work in forest communities. People are hired based on some area of expertise. The recent information that was revealed showed that the person wouldn't be able to do the job -- that is, have the

[ Page 9911 ]

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: This minister totally ignored my question and went off on another tangent. So let me try a different tack here. Hon. Speaker, the minister has been very careful to say that no funds flowed from FRBC to Mr. Schneider. But will he confirm that Mr. Schneider has in fact submitted an invoice to FRBC and that the only reason that funds haven't flowed is because that invoice had not yet been paid?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I can't confirm that, because I'm not aware of that fact.

R. Neufeld: My question is also to the Minister of Forests. It's certainly the year -- it seems to be -- for letter-writing campaigns. We in the opposition understand that there was an outstanding letter of recommendation written by the member for Comox Valley for her previous constituency assistant. Will the Minister of Forests please table in the House that outstanding letter of recommendation, so that we can all see it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I will give consideration to that request. I would say, though, that it's my understanding -- just so it's perfectly clear and a matter of public record -- that it was a general letter of reference to whom it may concern, which was subsequently used. It was dated sometime in April and was used at the time of the application to Forest Renewal by this individual in mid-May.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: This question is also to the minister. The letter was written in April, obviously after the member for Comox Valley knew that her constituency assistant had written phony letters to the editors of two newspapers in her constituency and had in fact misled the people in her constituency. Can the Minister of Forests tell us. . . ? Because he said earlier that there was no money and there is no job or that there is money and there was a job, everybody is a bit confused. Can the minister tell us how much money Mr. Schneider would have received had he been hired and paid?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is my information that people are used on an as-needed basis. I don't know how much we could have used his services. But we have people up and down the province who are in similar situations -- a standing service contract that says: "We will pay you so much when we use you." It's my understanding that it's $21 an hour, not. . . . Anyway, it's my understanding that the contract terms were similar to what we have used for many others from time to time when we're setting up major events and announcements in communities.

We expect people to have good knowledge and the trust of local communities. In this case, it's very clear that when the information was revealed, he would no longer be suitable -- not qualified. Had that been known at the time, it would have been my position then that it wouldn't have been suitable for him to have been hired. But this came up later, and when it was known, FRBC took action.

G. Farrell-Collins: We know that the member for Comox Valley wrote a reference letter; we know that the member for Comox Valley phoned FRBC on behalf of the individual. My question for the Minister of Forests is this: who called FRBC from the Premier's Office, and how many times, in negotiating and arranging this contract with this individual, so he would keep his mouth shut during the recall campaign?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Since my office was not involved in that, I don't know the answer to that. But it is an appropriate question to ask of the officials in FRBC who are responsible for conducting hiring and negotiating contracts.

Orders of the Day

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

I recognize now the hon. member for Matsqui to begin the debate on the main motion, second reading of Bill 26.

M. de Jong: It's ironic that some three weeks after the debate on this particular bill commenced, I am only now rising to address this legislation at second reading stage. That's a good thing, because I think it gives me an opportunity to at long last address, in very philosophical and more general terms, how I think the debate around this bill has developed. To this point, of course, I have been, by necessity, much more constrained because of the rules that govern this House with respect to speaking to particular amendments and reinstatement motions that were very relevant as a result of events that took place in the House.

[2:30]

Nonetheless, that is not our purpose here today. Our purpose is to address the provisions of Bill 26. I want to begin by providing some context for the debate that is taking place and will take place over the next little bit. It's no secret that insofar as second reading debate is concerned, many members on the opposition side have provided remarks to this House and to the public that are watching. I know that the government is carefully tracking those speakers, and it will be no secret to them that the number of members on this side of the House who are left to make second reading remarks is steadily shrinking. I suppose it would not be a stretch for me to suggest that the government and particularly the minister are pleased about that in light of how the debate has gone.

It is still something of a mystery to me that members of the government side are so reluctant to engage in many facets of this debate for a piece of legislation that they, on the one hand, would have us believe they feel very passionately about and, on the other hand, dismiss as being an empty piece of

[ Page 9912 ]

Let us look back. There will be people watching and reading these debates who have perhaps missed the first three weeks. I want to review with them and for them how we find ourselves at this point. The Minister of Labour, with the responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs, tabled this motion. I didn't have a chance to confront him with it during his Aboriginal Affairs estimates, but at one point in the weeks leading into this session, I noticed an article arise out of his local media in the Nanaimo area where he suggested that this might very much be the -- I won't use his name -- the member for Nanaimo's show, in light of what was anticipated around the issue of labour legislation and ongoing discussions that may give rise to a Nisga'a treaty. That, to some extent, has been the case over the last couple of weeks.

Happily, we had an opportunity to deal with another matter which is on the minister's plate, that being the aboriginal issues. I say that only to emphasize that it should not be lost on members and members of the public that in addition to this bill, there are important pieces of legislation that need to be dealt with, that should be dealt with, by this House. I am compelled to say that it is largely as a result of the manner in which the government and, more particularly, the Government House Leader have managed or mismanaged the affairs of this House that we find ourselves in this position today when, amidst this debate, there are a whole host of other legislative initiatives that remain on hold. It is a function of management; it is a function of the government having the foresight to plan more effectively and to make more efficient use of time in this chamber. Right from the outset, I have to say that in measuring whether the government has done that successfully, the answer is a resounding no. The Government House Leader has failed miserably insofar as one major component of her job.

It all dates back to the manner in which this House is convened. At the end of the month of March we had some opportunity, during the course of this debate around Bill 26, to talk about those aspects of legislative management and House management. I won't presume to get into them in more detail here except to say that I'm getting a little bit tired of government backbenchers coming and whispering to me about how angry and upset they are with the manner in which the Government House Leader has mismanaged the affairs of this House. If they have those complaints, they should take them to the Government House Leader.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I see them rise in unison: "Not I, not I. Would I deign to do such a thing?" No amount of denial on the part of these government members. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. The member has the floor.

M. de Jong: Well, hon. Speaker, I distinctly heard the Minister of Labour accuse me of lying, and I'll ask him to withdraw that remark.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I didn't hear anything. I didn't hear any exchange of that nature, so at this point we'll have to leave it be. You have the floor. . . .

M. de Jong: I think it's clear that members of the government are uncomfortable and frustrated with the manner in which this debate has unfolded. That's too bad. They have no one to blame but themselves, and they have no one to blame but the Government House Leader. It is not lost on us or on those who watch these debates that the Government House Leader has done a miserable job in guiding this and other pieces of legislation through the chamber this session. Our purpose here today is to consider the ramifications of how they have mismanaged the introduction and debate of Bill 26 and the ramifications that the passage of Bill 26 would have for British Columbians.

I'm pretty pleased with the way the debate has gone, because I think that for the first time British Columbians are really getting a sense of the fundamental differences that separate members of the NDP bench from members of the official opposition. It has not been easy, because very few government members have dared to involve themselves in this debate. I think back to that day some three weeks ago when the Minister of Labour stood in the House and introduced Bill 26, which was the result of massaging Bill 44 after those days last year when it was unceremoniously dumped as a result of both the opposition within this House and the opposition that grew in volume in the private sector. The government retreated and then spent an entire year trying to develop a strategy around which they could reintroduce some legislation that would go some distance in fulfilling the obligation they believed they had with respect to Mr. Georgetti and his friends at the B.C. Federation of Labour.

The minister brought the product of that work to this House, after having spent a year paving the way for its introduction, and began debate on that bill, as I recall, the next day. Even more unusually, hon. Speaker. . . .

Interjection

M. de Jong: Well, I hear the minister again minimizing the significance of the legislation itself. In fairness, I need to pay tribute to the minister's attempts to remain on that message, which I know his NDP spin doctors crafted for him in the months and weeks leading up to the introduction of his legislation. "If you just keep saying that it's not an important piece of legislation, Mr. Minister, if you just keep saying it's not going to have a negative impact on the people and the economy of British Columbia, if you just keep saying there's nothing to be afraid of, maybe a couple of people will believe you."

That has been the strategy that this minister has tried to follow, and I think the thing that disappoints him most of all is that few of his backbenchers have the temerity to follow him in trying to spin that message with the aggressiveness that he and a couple of his cabinet ministers have tried during the course of second reading debate.

Hon. Speaker, as you listen to the minister make those comments. . . . What's truly interesting is to read the minister's comments when he introduced the bill and commenced second reading and then to compare those comments about the modesty of this bill -- that this bill will be remembered forever as the modest bill from the modest minister -- dismissing any concerns anyone could possibly have about the NDP's latest attempt to tinker with labour legislation in this province. And don't they have a tremendous record in that respect? Haven't their past attempts been met with tremendously positive results? Let's not get into the fact that businesses and investment capital are fleeing this province. Let's not get into the fact that when it comes to articulating

[ Page 9913 ]

So you compare the comments of the minister when he began second reading of this minimizing, modest bill with the absolute tenacity. . . . You know, the Minister of Labour has some skill in this chamber in terms of debating and leading debate. You compare his opening comments with the tenacity with which he purported to resuscitate a bill that was declared dead, that was flatlined on the legislative order paper. . . . You can almost visualize him reading his remarks during that debate. You can see the minister, with the bill in front of him, pounding away at its chest and saying: "Come back to life; come back to life. My government cannot survive without you. Our legislative session depends on your survival." This for a bill that has "nothing in it" and does "nothing"?

An Hon. Member: It's just modest.

M. de Jong: A modest bill from a modest minister.

That has left not just me puzzled but also British Columbians provincewide puzzled. Are they looking for the hidden agenda? Are they asking themselves: is there something more here than meets the eye? Absolutely -- that's what they're asking themselves.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The member for Burnaby North has to ask me whether anyone is talking about it. Well, maybe he should talk to his own constituents and read his local newspaper, and he would know that British Columbians are suspicious. They're more than suspicious. They are opposed, opposed, opposed.

[2:45]

Let's go back to Burnaby, because I was there on the weekend. I drove through Burnaby and I saw the "For Lease" signs. I saw the papered-over signs on the shops. People have left this province. When you see a commercial building that has brown paper in the windows and a sign that says "For Lease," do you know what that shop represents? It represents at least three lost jobs, three families that might otherwise be earning a living but aren't. For that member from Burnaby North to come into this House today and pose that question -- "Who cares? No one. . . ."

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I don't want to misconstrue his remarks. The statement he made to me across the floor, hon. Speaker, is that no one is concerned.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, he draws a distinction between "no one is concerned" and "no one is talking about it." Well, they're talking about it and they are concerned. If he doesn't realize that, then it's time for him to open up his ears, because, by golly, they are concerned, and they are talking about it. All he needs to do is drive around his constituency to see how concerned they are. I'm disappointed in the extreme that even in the midst of these partisan debates -- and this has been a very partisan debate -- the member would choose to make comments of that sort in this House. I think he does a disservice to his constituents, and I think it shows a certain contempt for the people that live in the constituency of Burnaby North who are without work, without jobs.

I think this debate has been good insofar as providing members with an opportunity to articulate their thoughts on some pretty fundamental issues. I think the differences that exist between that side of the House and this side of the House have become abundantly clear during this debate. I was cut off in an earlier debate on a point that I wanted to make, which I think I'll return to now. That is the fact that there are a whole host of British Columbians -- in fact, a majority of British Columbians -- who are employed, who earn their living in jobs that may or may not involve membership in an organized trade union. That doesn't make them better; it doesn't make them worse. It makes them different. Most of them are happy about it. Some of them aren't, and some of them will take steps in the future to change that.

But I think, in listening to some of the comments that we have heard from the government benches, we do a disservice to those British Columbians whose living is earned by virtue of their involvement in sectors of the economy that don't necessarily have the organized labour component that other sectors of the economy have. I think we do a disservice to those British Columbians by somehow portraying them as being less worthy -- and I take real exception to that. We heard those comments, and we've heard that sentiment expressed from those few government members who have dared to involve themselves in this debate.

I only have to look at the experience of my own family and my own father, who chose to come to this country in 1955 to work hard. He came here because he believed if he came to British Columbia, if he got some education and if he worked hard, he could provide for his family. And if he wanted to, he could start his own small business, a one-man company. He could go out and earn some money, and if he worked hard and was good at it, he could profit by that hard work. When you listen to the comments of some of the members of the government side, you begin to understand that for them, my father represented something of an aberration. My father has somehow violated that most fundamental notion that they hold so dear, that the objective of every worker should be to garner membership in an organized trade union and take it from there. Well, a lot of people don't do that. That doesn't make them better; it doesn't make them worse; it makes them different.

I have been particularly disappointed to see the extent to which members of the government bench want to paint this in ideological terms, in a very negative ideological light, but it really goes to the root of what they are all about, and I want to respond.

I want to respond to that so there's no doubt that we, on this side of the House, believe that British Columbians who work hard, who risk their life savings, who believe they have

[ Page 9914 ]

So I think this debate has been good. I think this debate has been good about drawing out some of the differences and demonstrating what it is that separates us from the government benches. I think the other aspect to this that has puzzled me most of all is that when the minister stood up early in the debate, and several of his colleagues who have dared to participate -- and really added nothing beyond the spin lines they've been handed by the NDP spin doctors -- that this is. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The minister laughs, but even from this side of the House you can see the little script that. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: If the minister is suggesting that over the course of the past three weeks, members of the opposition have been offering scripted speeches, then I am flattered in the extreme. I am truly flattered that he would bestow upon this opposition that amount of regard for our organizational skills. Hon. Speaker, I accept that ringing condemnation from the minister with great delight.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: This might not be the best day for a member of the government to talk about creative writing. [Applause.]

Hon. D. Lovick: The people who brought you Warren Betanko. Ta-da: there you are, guys.

An Hon. Member: Well, we didn't hire him.

Hon. D. Lovick: He was recruited by your leader.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, we, of course, are on Bill 26. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

M. de Jong: We are on Bill 26, and as I have said in the past, I will endeavour to remind the minister and his colleagues. . . . Quite frankly, I'm getting a little bit tired of government members trying to divert the conversation from Bill 26 itself. It's time that members of this House focused a little bit on the legislation and stopped trying to draw peripheral. . . .

To come back to bill itself, it would have occurred to me that a government reeling from economic news and reports that border on the devastating. . . . To be fair, I'm sure they aren't purposely setting out to commit political hara-kiri, but I would have thought that at a minimum the government would have conducted some manner of analysis, some review, that might have questioned their approach and their competence in the proposition that this legislation will have no further negative impact on the provincial economy.

Now, we reject that. We on this side of the House reject that proposition on the strength of reports that we have seen from a whole host of sources. I have to assume that at a minimum the government would have wanted to be in a position to say: "Look, this is the legislative package we are introducing, and for the following reasons and on the strength of the following authorities, we believe that we can enact this legislation. We can give it effect, and there will be no further negative economic impacts that flow to British Columbians."

We asked very early on whether the government undertook that pretty rudimentary exercise; apparently they didn't. They apparently either didn't feel the need. . . . I rather suspect they anticipated the answer they would get from just about any source, and they didn't want to hear that response. I rather suspect that the minister and the Premier and the Finance minister knew that if they asked the question of any legitimate expert about what impact this legislation would have in both the short-term and the long-term, they knew what the response would be. In a word, it would be devastating, and they didn't want to hear that.

Instead, they called together Mr. Georgetti and a few of their friends and decided to move ahead with legislation that we know is going to have that devastating impact. I think that in light of what we know the impacts of this bill are going to be, the opposition needs to make one more attempt to convince this government that there is a better course, a better option, available to it. I'm going to give the government that option, and I know that -- perhaps not today, perhaps not even tomorrow, but in the weeks, months and years to come -- they'll be grateful to me. They'll be grateful to the opposition.

It is with that in mind that I want to move an amendment to the motion, that amendment to read:

[To delete all the words after "that" and substitute therefore the following: This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26) intituled Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence in the provincial economy.]

On the amendment.

M. de Jong: That comes as rather a surprise to me, but I happily. . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I promise the minister that if he has duties that take him elsewhere, I will provide him with a bound copy of my remarks on the amendment, because I know he will want to draw on those remarks in formulating a response. I fully expect he will want to participate in this ongoing debate. For those people watching from the gallery and perhaps from the comfort of their own homes, I think it's important that we articulate just what it is that has happened over these past three weeks and what is happening again here today, which is

[ Page 9915 ]

[3:00]

The opposition rejects this legislation. I think it puzzles many members of the government benches that they would be confronted by as vigorous an opposition and as vigorous a debate as has taken place here over the last three weeks. But that is what happens when the government thumbs its nose at the people of British Columbia, not just with one piece of legislation but with bill after bill. Hon. Speaker, the feeling has been growing steadily in this province and in this opposition that it's time to draw a line in the sand and to say to this government: "You shall not cross it."

That's what's happening here today. We are saying to this government that we are opposed and will utilize every tool at our disposal to try and prevent them from doing what they seem intent upon doing -- that is, further harm to the economy of British Columbia. We asked them -- we asked the member for Burnaby North, the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the ministers -- to show us the evidence: "Show us those reports that say that you can do what you want to do with Bill 26, and you won't be sending the wrong signals out to private sector investors, because we haven't seen it."

We've seen the reports from small business organizations. We've seen reports from the chamber of commerce. What does the chamber of commerce in Burnaby North say about this legislation? What do they say about the effect this is going to have on attracting business to British Columbia and, more particularly, to Burnaby? That's a very specific question. The member, who was happy to chastise me for some of my comments a few moments ago, doesn't want to respond. What is his chamber of commerce -- a collection of small business people committed to hiring, employing and, yes, making a few bucks for themselves -- saying about Bill 26? We know what they're saying: they're opposed.

Now, if the member says they're wrong, let him say why. Let the member for Burnaby North stand up in this very public chamber and say why all of those members of his local chamber of commerce are wrong -- the people who have to fill out the forms, the people who have to pay the taxes, who go home worrying at night whether they're going to have enough money in the till to pay their employees. Those are the people who reject what the Minister of Labour is saying and say that this bill is going to have a negative impact, that this bill is going to send the wrong signals. They're saying: "If I had a choice, I would leave British Columbia."

Well, the member says they're wrong, and he doesn't want to deal with that issue. He doesn't want to engage them in that debate. Quite frankly, when it comes to relying upon the word of the people that make this provincial economy go -- that is, the small business person -- and when it comes to accepting what they have to say about the impact legislation is going to have versus accepting what the minister, a member of the cabinet or a member of the NDP back bench has to say, I know whose word I prefer; I know who I am inclined to believe. That is what has been frustrating for me in a debate that I'm otherwise very pleased has taken place over the past three weeks.

I have been puzzled, as well, by the government's apparent lack of understanding about why we have been so vigorous in our opposition. They say: "This modest bill from the modest minister is not worthy of this amount of attention, this amount of debate." But let's put those comments from the minister in some sort of context. On the eve of the introduction of this bill and shortly after its introduction, the Premier made known his real intentions. The Premier said he wanted Bill 44; he wanted the whole Nanaimo bar; he wanted to go back to 1997. It was his preference to come back with all that was included in Bill 44. He couldn't get away with that this session, but we shouldn't kid ourselves. One of the reasons British Columbians are rising up and encouraging the opposition to do all they can to stop the passage of Bill 26 is that they know what the Premier's intentions are. They know that it's an incremental thing with the Premier; it's death by 1,000 cuts with the Premier. He couldn't get away with Bill 44 in 1997; he didn't think he could get away with Bill 44 in 1998. "So let's do it stage by stage. Let's try Bill 26 this year, then we'll come back with a Bill 26, 1999."

Well, we've seen through the Premier's game. More importantly, British Columbians have seen through the Premier's game. It's what this government and this Premier are planning for the future that is particularly worrisome. We shouldn't be under any illusions.

No amount of denial on the part of the Minister of Labour -- when he says that this isn't sectoral bargaining -- changes the fact that this is sectoral bargaining. If you ask the Premier of British Columbia today what his preference would be, he would tell you -- if he was going to be honest, for a change -- that his preference is that there be sectoral bargaining expanded across the provincial economy. That's what this Premier would say if he was being honest. He's a clever politician, and he knows he's not going to get away with it, but that's where he's going; that's what this is all about. The government doesn't want to talk about that, and the little spindoctor notes that they have in front of them when they do dare to involve themselves in this debate say: "For heaven's sake, say two things: 'It's a modest bill, and it's not sectoral bargaining. There's nothing in the bill, and if there is anything, the one thing that's not in there is sectoral bargaining.' " But it is. No amount of denial on the part of the Minister of Labour changes that fact. No amount of denial from the Minister of Human Resources changes that fact. They're a very talented bunch when it comes to reading spindoctor notes.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The minister says: "You've read from the same speech." Again, I'm flattered in the extreme, and it suggests to me that the minister either hasn't been listening very carefully or that we've been even more effective than I thought possible. If that's the case, I know how the minister will vote with respect to the amendment we're presently debating: she'll accept it; she'll endorse it.

Interjection.

[ Page 9916 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

M. de Jong: This is going to shock you, Mr. Speaker, but from her last remarks I am left with the impression that I have more work to do with respect to this minister -- that my work here is not yet done. I accept that challenge, and I think to myself: if only I could convince one member of the NDP, one member of the socialist government we presently have in British Columbia, to accept it and speak out on behalf of the British Columbians that reside in their constituencies, acknowledging the damage this legislation is going to do, my life in politics will have been fulfilled; it really will have.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe if you promise to retire, they'll do it.

M. de Jong: My colleague the Opposition House Leader suggests a proposition that I will dwell on -- I'm not ruling it out. Fortunately, there will be time in this debate for me to return to that. When I look across at the government benches, I am pessimistic, quite frankly, about my chances of convincing the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I am pessimistic about my chances of changing the mind and convincing the Minister of Human Resources to see the proper course. Perhaps similarly, I do not harbour much hope that the Minister of Women's Equality will recognize the damage that the passage of this legislation will have for women whom she is charged with a responsibility for representing.

Perhaps it is because I visited there so recently, but when I look across the House and see the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke here and know that there are members of his constituency -- be it in Golden, in Revelstoke or in Kimberley -- who are located so close to the Alberta border and who are seeing firsthand the devastating impact that this government's policies are having on their lives. . . .

You know, while I was watching the World Cup final on Sunday, I had the newspaper, the weekend Vancouver Province in front of me, and the headline "Why More B.C. Families are Fleeing to Alberta." Well, if they're fleeing, they drive through the hometown of the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke -- right through there. He sees the U-Haul trailers, the MacCosham Van Lines trucks, the Allied Van Lines trucks; they're all going in one direction. I ask myself: does he ask himself why? Does he ever stop to ponder why it is that all the furniture is going in one direction? Does he ever ask himself that question? I think the member was formerly a train man; I think that's what he did before he got into politics. Even on the CPR the trains run in two directions, usually.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Perhaps my words are having their intended effect.

So I ask the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke to speak out for those people in Golden, Invermere and Revelstoke whose shops are being closed, who are being put out of work, who see the prospects of continued employment in the forestry sector steadily declining. There is denial. It has an impact right through the economy, and no amount of denial on the part of the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke will change that.

I got calls from two people in Golden. They asked me: has their member spoken on this bill? Has their member made it clear to the Legislative Assembly what's happening in Golden? They're asking me because they can't get an answer and a response from the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke. I think their silence. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: It speaks volumes.

[3:15]

Those are questions that they will have to answer in the days and weeks to come as we continue with this debate. There are other components to this debate that have mystified me somewhat. Opposition members -- not just me but many of colleagues; they've all spoken at least a couple of times now with respect to this legislation -- have raised the issue of a secret ballot. I would have thought that some members of the government benches would have wanted to confront that issue head-on, yet they avoid it like the plague. It's not a particularly complicated issue. The question that is posed is: why would the government steadfastly refuse to apply the principle of a secret ballot to labour relations in this province?

Maybe we need to step back. Maybe as we, as members of this assembly, become embroiled in this debate -- and I've said that I think it's good and has been a very worthwhile exercise for a whole bunch of reasons -- we have to step back and ask ourselves what the government is so opposed to. I can think of so many examples that we, all of us, are confronted with in our day-to-day lives and in our lives prior to entering politics, where that very fundamental notion of a secret ballot has been employed without any difficulty. Many of the members in this chamber have been members of parent advisory councils. They elect executives; they do it with a secret ballot, most of them. If there's a contested issue before them, they do it with a secret ballot.

Minor sports organizations employ a secret ballot if there is going to be a contested election of executives into office, or on very important issues that they are confronted with. Hospital boards. . . . Any number of local community organizations employ the secret ballot. They do so for a whole bunch of reasons, but most of all to preserve that notion of freedom of action that is so important if these societies and agencies are going to be able to function properly.

Why doesn't that logic apply to the field of labour relations?

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Minister of Intergovernmental Relations says: "Why doesn't it apply in the Legislature?" I don't have any doubt that members of the government caucus would like to have that luxury with this bill. I have no doubt that when it comes time to answer to their constituents for the action they are about to take in this House, they'd like to be able to hide and say any number of things about how they voted.

But the notion of accountability that we accept as being elected members of this chamber, I would suggest, is far

[ Page 9917 ]

Surely we want to preserve the maximum freedom of action for employees who are confronted by the decision of whether to accept or reject a contract or certification as a collective bargaining organization. Surely that is something that is worthy of consideration and protection, but it is dismissed with such a cavalier attitude on the part of these members, these NDP backbenchers and cabinet ministers, the few who have participated in this debate, that I am left wondering: what is so evil? What is so evil about adopting that as the basis upon which these negotiations, these certification votes, should take place? We've not heard a response.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The Minister of Human Resources says: "It's not in the bill." Well, if we believed the Minister of Labour, there's nothing in the bill. That's what he said, and I think that's what she said. I can't remember if she spoke or not, but the Minister of Labour said that there's nothing in this bill. If her criteria for what is debatable within the realm of labour relations is what's in the bill, then that's a self-defeating argument, because the Minister of Labour says there's nothing in the bill.

As I look at the reports that appear daily in newspapers, as I look at the economic analysis -- we had another one last week from the TD Bank. . . . Now, we know that the government is fond of doing business with the TD Bank -- and has done so on a number of occasions. I think in one case not too long ago, they were litigation partners in court on a deal that, quite frankly, did no favours for small business people, small enterprise, in northwestern British Columbia. So the government has a certain amount of regard for the TD Bank. Well, the TD Bank says we're on the verge of a full-blown recession. If it projects any growth at all for the provincial economy, it is so nominal as to be insignificant.

The Deputy Premier has presented himself in the past as a much more able commentator on economic matters and business than the banks. "What do they know?" I think that was his response when confronted with their criticism of what government is doing. "What do they know?" That was his response when he was confronted by prognostications about the economic performance for the coming year. With the greatest respect, I think that they know a darned sight more than he does. His track record isn't very good, and the track record of this government is deplorable.

Yet they continue along, and people are fed up. They are fed up with a government that is content and intent upon following an ideological agenda in the face of all economic sense. They should well be fed up. We sit in this chamber, we collect our paycheques, we go home on the weekends, and life isn't too bad. This is a pretty good gig. I enjoy what I do, but I've got a job -- at least until the next election.

But that's not the case for British Columbians who have to live with the impact of this legislation and other measures that this government has introduced over the past number of years that have had the devastating impact on British Columbia's economy and that have taken us from first to worst in Canada. You don't hear that from government members either. But the people sitting and watching at home know it's true. Only members of this cabinet, only members of this government, would deny the validity of Statistics Canada figures that show capital -- not just capital, not just investment capital. . . . But if you don't believe that, they show people leaving B.C. It's been years since we have been confronted by the hard reality that the dream, for growing numbers of people, no longer exists in British Columbia. They're seeking the dream elsewhere. I'm sorry to say that that will be a legacy this government leaves -- a legacy that says to people: "Find your dreams elsewhere." Only the Minister of Human Resources could take pride in such a legacy. I suppose that she. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The member speaking consistently imputes motive and puts words in the mouths of members on this side. He has just done that with me, and I would ask him to not only withdraw but to cease and desist doing that. Quite frankly, it violates the rules of this House, and I really think the member can do better than that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. Did the hon. member intend to impute improper motives to any members of the House?

M. de Jong: I certainly didn't, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Then it might be quite simple to withdraw any perceived comments.

M. de Jong: I certainly didn't intend to impugn any member's motives. To the extent that that may have occurred, I gladly withdraw the remarks, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

M. de Jong: I think I heard the Minister of Human Resources say that she was angry with me. Well, I am angry with her.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I said no such thing.

M. de Jong: Well, hon. Speaker, I'm more than angry with her. I'm. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, point of order. That is precisely the problem. The member opposite stands up, makes it up and wants people to believe it. I would suggest that if he's going to make it up, he do it about himself and not about other members of this House.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Matsqui may wish to clarify his remarks.

M. de Jong: Well, hon. Speaker, the minister looks pretty angry to me. To the extent that I can, I will make it clear to the House that I didn't wish to impugn the minister's motives -- or anger or anything else. I'll try to move on, but I. . . .

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, perhaps you would take your seat. The Chair would just comment that it would appear that

[ Page 9918 ]

M. de Jong: In fairness, there's nothing new about the incompetence of the Minister of Human Resources or the anger that flows from it, so maybe it is time that I move on.

[3:30]

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I'm having some difficulty. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Could members on both sides come to order -- including ministers -- so that we can carry on with some reasonable debate here.

M. de Jong: That's all I've ever wanted, hon. Speaker -- reasoned debate. To the extent that the government seems unwilling to engage in that reasoned debate, to the extent that government members have been incapable of focusing on the issues before us and have gone off. . . . To the extent that the few of them who have entered into the debate have been incapable of addressing the fundamental issue here, which is the economic future of British Columbia, I feel compelled to draw their attention to those facts.

The Minister of Women's Equality seems disturbed that I would make reference to a publication produced by her government. Well, I've got news for the Minister of Women's Equality: it's the people of British Columbia who paid for this little gem; it's the people of British Columbia who, through their hard-earned tax dollars, are funding the production of propaganda that has nothing to do with the reality of what's taking place in British Columbia. Imagine how you'd feel if you came home after being told that your company is relocating to Alberta and you don't have a job, and you get this piece of garbage on your coffee table that says: "Everything is great in British Columbia. We've never had it so good."

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Yeah, people are mad in British Columbia, and they deserve to be mad -- and I'm angry. If the Minister of Women's Equality has difficulty understanding that, then maybe she should be paying attention to what's going on in British Columbia. When you get this kind of garbage, it's enough to make you sick.

Listen to what the government is doing for you, hon. Speaker: ". . . $275 million in direct tax cuts for consumers." Well, I suppose that would be good news if it hadn't been for the fact that it was this government that increased taxes to consumers by hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. "Oh, we're thrilled! Thank you. We are not worthy. You're cutting the taxes that you've more than tripled. We are not worthy." If the Minister of Women's Equality has trouble with that math, I hope that's not what she taught before she got into politics.

This is about acknowledging the harm that this government has done to British Columbians. This is about acknowledging the fact that if passed, this legislation is going to do more harm to British Columbians. If the Minister of Women's Equality feels so confident of her ability to defend this legislation, then let her do so. Let her talk to the people in Surrey-Green Timbers that she's supposed to represent. Let her tell those people who are sitting there without jobs and who drive through the Fleetwood area just to the east of her and see the boarded-up buildings on the Fraser Highway and the small businesses that are no longer in effect. . . . Surely she sees them. Or is she just able to ignore them? Has it just become so commonplace to her that she thinks nothing of it? Or maybe she does what she does to members of this House: turns her back on them and ignores them.

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. The member can continue, but the conduct of members within the House is not a permissible subject for debate.

M. de Jong: Beyond any comment I might offer with respect to the debate itself, I find the conduct of the government, with respect to the management of the economy and the management of public affairs issues that bear upon the economy, to be deplorable. But you know, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what I think. For the moment, at least, I've got a job, and that distinguishes me from a whole bunch of British Columbians. The only thing I have to worry about is a looming election, and quite frankly, I welcome that job review. But there are British Columbians in growing numbers out there who are confronted by an uncertainty around their ability to provide for their families -- which this government refuses to acknowledge; and even worse, by virtue of the introduction of this legislation, they are taking steps that are going to make things worse.

Let us as legislators ask ourselves. Let us on this side of the House ask the government members: if our opposition to this bill puzzles you, if the vigour with which we have engaged in this debate puzzles you, and if the question you are asking me and your own government House Leader is, "How much and how long?" the answer is: as long as it takes to bring the views of British Columbians to this chamber, to say to this government that enough is enough.

That is a phrase that the government has heard before. It's a phrase they'll hear again. If the Minister of Women's Equality doesn't want to hear it, too bad for her. If the member for Burnaby North doesn't want to hear it, too bad for him. If the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke is in denial and doesn't want to hear what his constituents are saying, too bad for him. There's a day when they'll have to listen. There's a day when those constituents that they have abandoned, and for whom they have shown such contempt, are going to have a day of reckoning -- and all we can hope for, all they can hope for, is that that day will be sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, this opposition is going to do what it's been doing for the last three weeks with respect to Bill 26. We are going to oppose it; we are going to take every step we can to present obstacles and opposition to a bill that is going to

[ Page 9919 ]

B. Penner: I support the amendment my colleague from Matsqui just put before this Legislature. The purpose of the amendment is to halt Bill 26 in its tracks. The reason we want to halt Bill 26 in its tracks is to prevent any further damage to the B.C. economy. That begs the question: "Has there been any damage at all done by the NDP government to the B.C. economy?" I say that there has been a tremendous amount of damage done to the B.C. economy because of successive policies of this NDP government.

Let's take a look at some recent statistics that I think shed some light on the state of the B.C. economy. Last week we had from the Toronto-Dominion Bank economics division a report that predicted that B.C. will have the worst economy in Canada for the next three years: dead last, in terms of economic performance for the next three years. That's disgraceful, and that's simply not acceptable.

In many ways, what the TD Bank said last week simply confirms what people have been saying for months: B.C. is in a recession due to the economic mismanagement of the NDP. The bank is forecasting economic growth for this year of zero percent in British Columbia, and that is a recession by most definitions. It's important to note that the TD Bank has been more optimistic than many B.C.-based financial institutions in predicting the health of the B.C. economy, so it's quite possible that in fact the economy in British Columbia will shrink and deteriorate further, as we continue to suffer at the hands of this NDP government.

I think it's instructive to compare our projected economic health to the health of provinces across Canada. As I've stated, we've been ranked dead last out of the ten provinces. The province leading Canada in terms of economic growth this year is Newfoundland, with 5 percent economic growth projected for 1998; in the No. 2 position is the province of Ontario, at 4.5 percent projected economic growth; No. 3 is Alberta, at 4.1 percent; No. 4 is Manitoba, at 3.7 percent projected growth for this year; in the No. 5 position is the province of Saskatchewan, at 3.4 percent.

I think many people are surprised British Columbia is doing so poorly, particularly compared to provinces which have traditionally been considered have-not provinces. It wasn't that long ago that more people were leaving Saskatchewan than were arriving. That trend is reversed. There are now more people leaving British Columbia than entering it, and there are more people going to Saskatchewan than leaving it. We've traded places, and for all of the wrong reasons.

I should point out that the average for all of Canada, for the interest of listeners, is 3.3 percent. In the No. 6 position is the province of Nova Scotia, at 3 percent projected growth for this year. Even the province of Quebec, with all of the uncertainty around separation and their separatist government, has a projected economic growth this year of 2.9 percent. Just behind them is the tiny province of Prince Edward Island -- tiny in size, perhaps, but great in spirit -- with 2.3 percent projected economic growth.

There's very little for this NDP government to be proud about when they look back and see how they've handled the B.C. economy. When they took over B.C. in 1991, we had the fastest-growing economy in Canada, and we had the lowest debt per capita of any province. That isn't the way it is today. They've managed to increase the provincial debt from $17 billion to over $31 billion -- a dramatic increase. A lot of that increase took place while B.C. was still growing and our economy was strong. Now our economy is getting weaker. According to the TD Bank last week, we're facing a recession. The NDP has painted us into a corner. They've driven our debt up, so when we face a recession, we'll have less room to manoeuvre in terms of stimulating the economy of our province.

If they really believed in Keynesian economics, they would have been paying down the debt during the good years instead of boxing us in further with more debt, higher taxes and more regulations. This year alone, B.C. will pay $2.4 billion to service the provincial debt; that is a huge amount of money. That $2.4 billion is just a one-year cost; that's what we're paying every year. Just think what you could do every year, hon. Speaker, with $2.4 billion. You could build a lot of hospitals, complete a lot of highways and make life a lot better for many students in our province. Bill 26 needs to be stopped now, before the damage to our province gets any worse.

[3:45]

Further on, the report says: "Canada's job situation has shown a dramatic improvement, with more than a half a million jobs added in the last two years alone." But what has happened in British Columbia? The contrast could not be any more clear. We've lost jobs between January 1997 and January 1998. We were the only province in Canada to lose jobs in that period. This year the TD Bank is forecasting further job losses for British Columbia. In fact, last Friday Statistics Canada released its monthly update on unemployment figures for the country. Those statistics revealed that there were 1,000 fewer British Columbians working last month than in the previous month. So the jobs are continuing to disappear from British Columbia, while the rest of Canada has seen dramatic job growth over the last two years -- 500,000 jobs in total.

Here's what the TD Bank had to say about British Columbia in their quarterly economic forecast:

"Although the forecast calls for no growth in 1998 it is more likely that the B.C. economy will actually contract this year. In recent months, merchandise exports, manufacturing shipments and retail sales in the province have fallen below year-earlier levels, and job growth 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."

You don't have to look very far to find confirmation in real-life stories of what is said by Statistics Canada in the figures that they released last Friday. In fact, yesterday, in the Province newspaper, there was a front-page story with the headline: "Why More B.C. Families Are Fleeing to Alberta." I think it's instructive, when we consider this amendment put

[ Page 9920 ]

"British Columbia's economy has been pushed to the lip of a recession, and the province is now losing more people to Alberta and Ontario -- especially Alberta -- than it is luring from the rest of Canada. This is a stunning and worrying turnaround, because losing people to other provinces is unusual for B.C., unlike the chronically depressed Atlantic provinces and the politically plagued Quebec. The province's business community says there's more than the Asian crisis behind our economic woes. They blame high taxes and what they claim are the anti-business, pro-labour policies of [the Premier's] NDP government."

That article goes on to describe the closure of Finning Canada's corporate head office in Vancouver, where it was located for 65 years. The company spokesman, Vin Coyne, said that the deciding factor was "the growing cost of doing business in the lower mainland and a stifling government bureaucracy." How many jobs does Finning's move from Vancouver to Edmonton mean for the people of Alberta? According to the Province newspaper, 180 jobs will be going to Alberta because Finning Canada gave up fighting the bureaucracy and high taxes of this NDP government.

We recently learned that Finning is not alone. In 1997, 107 businesses left British Columbia for Alberta. The year before, the number was even higher. It's a steady trend of jobs, investment and businesses leaving our province for a place where, frankly, I don't think the climate is as pleasant. According to the Province newspaper article, again on page A16: "Corporate chiefs said they find it quicker, easier and less costly to do business under Premier Ralph Klein's conservative government. Individuals moving to Alberta from B.C. say housing is as good but cheaper, taxes take less of their income, and they spend less time commuting to work."

On page A17 there's more of this story about people leaving British Columbia due to the dismal state of our economy. The headline on that page is "Taxes, Jobs, Houses Lure Vancouverites to Alberta." It's mentioned there that of the 65,000 new arrivals in the province of Alberta in 1996, fully one-third were from British Columbia. More than 20,000 left British Columbia in 1996 to go to Alberta. Again, as indicated on that page of the newspaper, taxes in Alberta play a significant role in attracting people from British Columbia. I'm reading from the article again, a little further down: "When Ralph Klein took over as Premier in 1993, he inherited a provincial debt of $35 billion. Today it is down to $14.4 billion. Throw in the $12.3 billion stashed in the heritage fund, and Alberta's just about debt-free."

According to Edmonton mayor, Bill Smith: "[The Premier] has to be careful" -- he's referring to our Premier of B.C. -- "that he doesn't tax himself out of business." Well, that is something we've been saying for the last seven years in B.C., but the government has not been listening.

You know, we often hear about the companies that have left British Columbia. It's less often that we hear about businesses that decided not to come to B.C. and employ British Columbians. Yet in the Province article yesterday, there is mention of a business that could have located in New Westminster but decided not to because of B.C.'s economic policies. I'm quoting here again from that article:

"When John Yuel, president of Saskatoon's PIC Investment Group was looking to expand operations, it seemed natural to add to an existing chemical plant in New Westminster. Instead, the $4 million plant will be built in Edmonton. Yuel is blunt about the reasons. A compelling one was a consultant's report that labour and service costs would be 10 to 12 percent higher in B.C. He says B.C. risks 'ignoring the realities of a competitive global economy. That's fine if you want to see your standard of living decline.' "

I was looking recently at a list of companies that we do know have chosen to leave British Columbia and take jobs with them. Frankly, it's an overwhelming litany of job loss, and is directly related to the policies of this NDP government. I'll read a partial list. In November 1997, Nalley's potato chips announced their closure, resulting in a loss of 75 full-time jobs and another 75 seasonal part-time jobs. Also in November 1997, Lipton foods closed their Puritan meat plant operations and moved to Quebec, resulting in a loss of 75 jobs. In December 1996, Intercontinental Packers, located in Vancouver, shut down their operations and moved those operations, including 350 jobs, to Saskatchewan. Also in December 1996, Dairyworld, more commonly known as Dairyland, moved their operations to Saskatchewan, with 350 jobs. They also closed their ice cream plant in Burnaby, their flagship ice cream plant in British Columbia, with 68 well-paying jobs.

That's not the end of this sorry list. In November 1996, Lucerne shut down their ice cream plant in British Columbia, laying off 17 employees. They also shut down a jam and jelly plant in Burnaby, where 80 employees were laid off in September 1996. They shut down an egg-processing plant in Langley, and there were major layoffs there in August 1996. Foremost shut down a plant in May of 1996, with a resulting loss of 45 to 50 jobs. A cheese-cutting and -packaging plant in Abbotsford went to Calgary, taking with it 20 to 25 jobs. The Daybreak egg-grading plant, a facility in Abbotsford, closed in 1996. Vanderpol's also shut down. Vegetable- and fruit-processing plants, one with 500 jobs and another with 350 jobs, left the province. In July 1994, Lucerne Foods closed a bread plant in Vancouver, putting 89 people out of work.

In September 1993, Pillsbury closed their fruit and vegetable plant in Chilliwack -- my constituency -- putting 350 people out of work in my community. I know many people who worked at that plant. It was a very sad day for our community when that facility closed permanently. Chilliwack has called itself "The Green Heart of British Columbia" for a long time, in reference to the strong agricultural component of our local economy. But without the local processing plants available to take the produce grown in our community, there's less opportunity for farmers to make a living.

There are further job losses, and I could go on. When I totalled up the number of jobs lost, just in the list I've described, the number I came up with was 2,459 jobs. Think of that: 2,459 jobs lost, and those are just the ones we know about. Again, this is in addition to the number of jobs that were not created because investors chose a different place to do business, due to the hostile attitude of this NDP government.

Coming from Chilliwack as I do, I take a particular interest in the agricultural industry. I'd like to quote from a study done by Foodwest Resources Ltd.'s Robin Smith, who's an

[ Page 9921 ]

I can't stress this point to any excessive amount. Without local processing facilities available to take their produce, our farmers are left in a very difficult position. I know that in my community there used to be three raspberry-processing facilities. That meant that local farmers had an opportunity to shop around, to get the best price they could for the raspberries they grew on their farms. There are now no raspberry-processing facilities in Chilliwack. What has happened? Fewer farmers are growing raspberries. In fact, it's fairly rare to see raspberry fields today. That's the direct result of processing facilities finding their costs and taxes going higher and the labour policies under the NDP government becoming more restrictive. When it came time for Pillsbury foods to consider where they were going to invest more money, they decided not to invest it in British Columbia. They closed their plant in British Columbia and, as I indicated, threw 350 people out of work. That's a very significant impact for a community the size of Chilliwack. I would suggest that the loss of 2,459 jobs is a very significant loss for the province of British Columbia.

I think the Minister of Finance had a flicker of reality when she said on June 3: "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." That's what she said, and she's a member of this cabinet that is supporting Bill 26. If the minister actually meant her words on June 3, then she should support our amendment to suspend passage of Bill 26. It's the very controversy around the bill that discourages investment in job creation in British Columbia. It's not the right signal to send at a time when our economy is in last place in Canada.

[4:00]

We have the reverse situation here in British Columbia. According to B.C. Stats, in a government publication dated June e26, 1998, average weekly earnings in British Columbia dipped to minus 0.2 percent in the past year, while in Alberta average earnings rose 0.7 percent. In the Yukon and Ontario, they continue to have the highest weekly earnings in the country. In B.C. we're seeing our demand for labour decreasing, and that's putting downward pressure on wage rates in our province. At the end of the day, even those workers lucky enough to have a job are finding that their paycheques are getting smaller. For those workers unfortunate enough not to have a job, they're faced with the prospect of having to leave the province in order to find employment, and many of them are doing so.

Last October I made a short trip to Dallas, Texas. I went with a number of friends that I've known since high school. We'd often talked about going to watch a football game in Dallas, and I'm happy to say that we did that last October. In the airport itself, I couldn't even get out of that facility without somebody asking me to apply for a job. That's how strong their demand is for labour in Texas. As I was attempting to rent a car for myself and my two friends, the sales representative at the desk handed me a brochure. I asked her what this was for, and she said: "Well, this brochure lists the various job and career opportunities available with our rent-a-car company." I asked her if she was handing out this brochure to everyone, and she said: "Yes, basically I'm told to give it to anyone who appears to be within a certain age category and is reasonably well groomed." I suppose in some way I must have met that qualification.

The important point here, hon. Speaker, is that the businesses are actively going out and approaching people, asking them to please apply to work for them, because they need the labour. The supply of labour is that short, because the economy is that strong. It's that simple. Starting positions included a car-detailing position at $8.50 an hour, plus benefits. Mind you, that's in U.S. dollars, so I suppose in Canadian dollars that would be the equivalent of $10 or $11 per hour, plus a full benefits package.

Hon. Speaker, the key to helping workers in British Columbia is to make sure that the economy is strong, so that the demand for their labour is strong.

Again, according to the government's own B.C. Stats, dated June 26, 1998, the number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries in British Columbia increased by 2.3 percent in April. Nationally, the number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries declined by 1.9 percent at the same time. So while the economy in the rest of Canada is growing and jobs are being created and there's more and more demand for labour, in B.C. the opposite thing has happened. And it's only hurting the workers and their families. According to the same B.C. Stats report, income has dropped in B.C. from $42,000 to $37,700 during the period from the 1980s to the present. That's after taking into account the effects of inflation and taxes. Inflation hasn't been very great during that period of time, but the average family has faced a tax increase of $2,300 per year. That has made their lives incredibly more difficult, and a loss of income from $42,000 to $37,700 is a major bite out of anyone's paycheque. We simply cannot move forward with more harmful policies and expect the economy to get stronger.

There's another indication of how weak the economy in B.C. is in the July 3, 1998, B.C. Stats report printed by this very government. "Department store sales in B.C. were 5.4 percent lower in May than in the same month last year. Nationally, sales were up 5.9 percent, with increases in the rest of the country ranging from 2.4 percent in Newfoundland to 10 percent in Alberta." And what was the position in British Columbia? There was a decline of 5.4 percent.

By almost any measure, the economy in B.C. is on life support. We simply can't allow the NDP government to take any more actions to pull the plug on that life support system. Surely even they can read the publications put out by their own government, which indicate that the economy of B.C. is weakening. In case any of us didn't catch the trend, Statistics Canada announced recently that for the first time since the 1980s, B.C. had a net outflow of people to the rest of Canada,

[ Page 9922 ]

Further on in that publication of June 19, 1998 -- that's a B.C. Stats report -- it mentions: "Year to date, B.C. shipments were off 6.5 percent due to weaknesses in all three of B.C.'s major manufacturing sectors." Wood was down 17.1 percent; paper was down 10.3 percent; and food -- we've discussed at length the harmful impact their policies have had on the food-processing industry in B.C. -- was down 7.6 percent.

Our job in opposition is not simply to point out the error of the government's ways but also to offer solutions. We've done that. We've called for a significant cut in personal income tax and small business taxes to stimulate consumer spending, which will help create jobs. We've committed to eliminating red tape and costly government regulations, because we believe B.C. business has to become competitive again. We've put forward legislation -- not supported by the NDP -- that would require the government to abide by the simple fact of truth in budgeting. Instead of the government playing tricks with the books, the taxpayers need to know the true state of the finances in British Columbia.

We need to balance the budget and reduce the debt. We need to enact fair and balanced labour laws, rather than laws that are always skewed in one direction. We need to fight for B.C.'s fair share of federal tax dollars. We need to protect private property rights, to give more certainty to those we are asking to invest in our province in order to create jobs and wealth for the people that live here. We need to negotiate workable, affordable treaty settlements, because we're all going to have to live with the result, regardless of our ethnic origins. We must have a provincewide vote on the government's negotiating position for treaty settlements. We can't allow these treaties to be negotiated in secret. Finally, I believe we need better education and job training in B.C.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move adjournment of the debate until later today.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION ACT

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm pleased to present the Homeowner Protection Act. Through this legislation, we're implementing the Barrett commission's key recommendations to protect consumers, help affected homeowners and restore the basis for confidence in residential construction in British Columbia. The legislation will make strong warranty coverage on new homes mandatory: two years on materials and workmanship; five years on building-envelope defects, including water penetration; and ten years on structural integrity. Residential builders will be licensed and must meet standards set by government. The legislation will also establish a reconstruction program to provide zero-interest loans to homeowners in the greatest financial need because of construction defects.

For the information of the members, we have committed $75 million as bridge financing to get this program up and running as soon as possible while we work with the federal government and others to expand the program to $250 million. Our contribution will be paid back over time through a special assessment on residential builders. It will not cost the taxpayers any money.

Finally, the legislation will create an industry-funded homeowner protection office to manage the reconstruction program, oversee the licensing of residential builders, carry out research and education to improve construction quality in B.C., and provide single-window support and information for leaky-condo owners and homebuyers.

This legislation is about rebuilding: rebuilding defective buildings, rebuilding the lives of leaky-condo owners and rebuilding trust in the residential construction sector. I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

STRATA PROPERTY ACT

Hon. J. Kwan: On behalf of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, I'm pleased to introduce the new Strata Property Act, which will govern how condominiums in this province are created, owned and operated. Condominiums have become an increasingly significant form of property ownership for both residential and commercial uses. Condominium housing constitutes a major option for first-time buyers and is an important source of seniors housing and rental stock. Presently there are approximately 845,000 strata lots in the province.

The new Strata Property Act builds upon and improves the current Condominium Act without altering the fundamental scheme of condominium ownership. It is an important step in ensuring consumer protection in strata ownership. It forms part of the government's comprehensive response to the report of the Barrett commission on condominium construction, incorporating many of the commission's recommendations, which are intended to assist purchasers and owners in dealing with leaky-condo problems.

In addition to responding to the recommendations of the Barrett commission, this legislation is intended to accomplish three primary objectives.

First, the current act is extremely complex and can be difficult to understand. The act has been restructured and rewritten using plain language, and ambiguities and gaps in the legislation have been addressed to provide a more complete code for condominium development and governance.

Second, condominium legislation must balance the interests of various parties such as municipalities, developers, strata corporations and individual owners. The new act redefines and clarifies the rights and obligations of these parties.

[ Page 9923 ]

[4:15]

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Kwan: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26.

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

I. Chong: Like my colleagues before me, I'm pleased, as well, to rise and speak on the amendment to Bill 26. This amendment declines second reading to a bill which in principle risks further damage to investor confidence and the provincial economy. That is what we have been speaking to for almost the past four weeks.

As we all know, this particular piece of legislation was introduced to this House on June 17, and immediately thereafter it was brought forward for second reading the next morning at 10 a.m. I've tallied up the hours, and it is rather astounding that we've had to try to convince the members opposite that this bill is bad for the economy. After all these hours of debate -- more than 70 hours -- the members opposite have either failed to listen or refused to listen about the state of the economy. Member after member that has risen to speak in opposition to this bill has expressed their views through their constituents. Those have not been their views as the elected MLA, as an individual.

Hon. Speaker, if you were to look back at Hansard, you would see that members have been reading letters from their constituents and reading quotes from those who are best able to analyze the impacts of Bill 26. All of us here have a duty to serve the people who elected us and to consider the greater provincial interest, which is our provincial economy. What has happened is that those members have not heard us, because they have refused to listen to those other interests; rather, they have listened to the interests of their friends.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

I have looked at Hansard from some years gone by, in particular from 1987, when this government was in opposition. It's surprising, because they did some very similar things to what we are doing now in terms of opposing a particular piece of legislation. Back then it was Bill 19 that they opposed, and they spoke at length on that. This government was certainly forewarned about the fact that this side of the House would be opposing this legislation. They should have been very much aware of the kind of debate that would proceed and the amount of opposition that we would present, because they themselves did that some time ago.

I would like to quote the former Premier, their once leader. I know there are some members here who were not in that administration, and I'll forgive them for that. But they have since forgotten what their party stood for. When Mr. Harcourt spoke in opposition to Bill 19 on April 22, 1987, he basically opposed it because he did not believe in wide powers "to intrude into labour-management relations and arbitrarily to determine contracts without reference to the parties involved." If they believed that their former leader, the former Premier, believed in that, then surely nothing would have changed since that time. They would believe that there should not be this kind of intrusion into labour-management relations.

Yet through the introduction of Bill 26 we have just that; we have an intrusion into labour-management relations. The members opposite refuse to hear that labour-leaning legislation is currently shutting down this province and that no one is interested in risking additional funds in the business climate we currently have. In fact, they are looking to invest elsewhere. That's why we oppose Bill 26 in principle. We are looking at any means we can to stop this bill, even if it means a deferral. But this government has refused to allow the deferral. It has refused to allow the bill to be hoisted for six months. It has refused to allow it to be referred to a select standing committee. So it has left us no choice but to then offer this final amendment, which is to not give it second reading.

If they had acted on one of the two amendments that we proposed in these last few weeks, then we could have been at a different stage than we are today. We could be looking at working together cooperatively and listening to those parties who are most affected. We would be looking at the business community. We on both sides of this House have all said that those businesses are the job creators in this province. It is not the union management who are the job creators. They are there to provide the service and to supply the labour force, but we need the businesses to tell us what labour force they need. Then we need the union labour side to come on board and say: "How fast? How many? Over what period of time? Let's work out something that is beneficial to both of us." But it is not to say that labour management should come along and suggest that this how the economy is going to be run, because those who are prepared to invest their dollars here won't agree to that kind of procedural move by this government.

We've heard, as well, that Bill 26 may not, on its own merit, be the only piece of legislation that destroys this economy, and I will agree. However, when taken together collectively with all the other pieces of legislation that this government has introduced and with all the other policies that this government is putting forward, Bill 26 is causing harm and damage to our economy. It is collectively all these things that this government is doing, which members on that side of the House are supporting, that are causing harm to our provincial economy.

Also in 1987, I found some very interesting quotes, particularly from the now Minister of Labour. He was talking about Bill 19 and the intrusiveness that it would have. We are talking about the same thing: the intrusiveness Bill 26 would have in terms of our economy. The now Minister of Labour -- at that time he was an opposition member -- said about the government of the day: ". . .they are indeed on the wrong side intellectually, morally and economically." That was the Minister of Labour. He made those comments 11 years ago. He opposed what the government was doing. He felt that they were not on the right side when it came to being intellectually correct, morally correct or economically correct. Hon. Speaker, just imagine: he lumped that in, in his argument --

[ Page 9924 ]

He also indicated back in 1987, when they were opposing a piece of intrusive labour legislation, that he felt that no evidence whatsoever had been given in explaining the haste with which that particular piece of legislation was introduced. I ask the same question now of the government members and of the Minister of Labour: what evidence has been given that would explain the haste of Bill 26 being introduced, read a second time and forced through at this time? There has been no economic impact study done. An economic impact study, as I have stated on a number of occasions, would explain to us whether the haste of this particular piece of legislation warrants support. It's amazing that the members opposite would like to fabricate that there has been some information come forward that explains why this bill needs to be supported.

I'm also looking at a quote in which the Minister of Labour stated, back in 1987, that "government, by definition, also consists of an opposition." Well, that's great. I'm glad to see that he does agree with that. He also went on to state: ". . .an opposition. . .ought to be consulted and yes, perish the thought, even listened to sometimes." Well, we're suggesting the same thing. He recognizes that there should be an opposition, and that's exactly what we are. He recognizes that the opposition should be consulted. But, gosh, when the tables are turned, he seems to have forgotten that he believes that an opposition should be consulted. That consultation could have come in the form of a select standing committee discussion, or it could have come forward in terms of a hoist motion, which would have allowed time for public hearings and more debate on this very, very important issue. When the government suggests that there has been consultation and that there has been time, I would submit to them that they are incorrect. Only as a result of this opposition's diligence in getting this piece of legislation the attention that it needed in the last four weeks have we seen people, organizations and small businesses, in particular, come forward and express their views to us -- and the fact that they haven't been listened to. The work we have done as opposition has finally allowed people to recognize the impact that this may have on their businesses, their livelihood, their communities and the families that comprise the community.

If we are concerned about our communities and families, we should be looking at this bill in a different light. We should allow the time that is needed to look at this bill in a different light. But what we see is a government that wishes to push this forward as fast as possible and in all earnestness. I think that's a shame, because by pushing it forward this way it shows that they are adopting a bullying tactic that government currently has in terms of its ability to express its majority on just about every single piece of legislation. It's unfortunate, because what it means is that this government does not feel it was elected to serve the public. They seem to think that it's all about power, and that is not what it should be about. If it were about public service, our two other amendments, which were very friendly amendments, would have garnered the support they should have.

That's what this government did when it was in opposition. It attempted to garner support. Of course, it failed to do so at the time. In 1987 those government members in opposition at the time suggested that government members should stand up and support their particular piece of legislation. That's what members on this side of the House have been doing for the last few weeks. We have been asking for government members and backbenchers to stand up and give us the reasons they want to support this bill. In every single amendment, the government backbenchers have failed to speak up during those amendments. Those amendments, as I stated, were friendly ones. I want to know why they can't support a hoist motion. I would like to know why they can't support sending it to a select standing committee.

Interjections.

I. Chong: I hear members opposite say they've already explained it, but I haven't seen it. I haven't read it in Hansard. They've been absolutely silent on that issue. But we have consistently stated that this bill is damaging and needs saner heads to prevail when it comes to the intent of restoring our provincial economy.

The Minister of Labour, who was in opposition back in 1987, also stated this -- a particularly interesting quote: "For example, if you are talking about improving labour relations, you don't do that by threatening one side to the point that they hold mass rallies throughout the province." If he believed that 11 years ago, then surely he should believe that now, because we are seeing rallies being held throughout the province. We are hearing about business groups getting together and explaining to this government the importance of good labour relations and of improving labour relations. They are saying that you cannot threaten one side, either.

[4:30]

We have stated, as well, why we believe in principle that we need to decline to give this bill second reading. It's because of the further risk of damaging investor confidence, and that's been indicated to us very clearly over the last few weeks. Over the last few weeks, as a result of the second quarter of the calendar year having concluded at the end of June, a number of people are finally able to provide us with assessments because usually at the end of every month or of every quarter, people publish and issue reports.

We're getting reports from the TD Bank. We're getting reports from various organizations that are saying they're doing their own analyses of what's happening. These will come forward more and more quickly as the weeks progress. As of the end of June, all the statistics will come in and all these people will be able to take a look and provide a report or document stating where this economy is headed. Maybe that's why this was rushed through and introduced on June 17 -- because this government hoped they would be able to have it passed before the end of June, before all these reports would be commissioned and all the statistics compiled to allow us to see where this economy really is headed.

Certainly we have said that we know where we're headed, that we know this economy is getting further and further behind and that we are sliding faster and faster into a recession. Although the government members have refused to listen to us, we are finally able to have those outside independent people writing in and explaining just exactly what is happening.

We have stated that we are on the side of free enterprise, and that is not a bad thing to be. Being on the side of free

[ Page 9925 ]

All that governments do by interfering with that process is create an endless series of problems for those people -- the majority of small businesses -- who are trying to in fact make a profit, because nobody intends to lose money. As a result of introducing labour legislation that is one-sided and of increasing taxes and the regulatory burden, what it does is drive the small business sector out of this province.

Hon. Speaker, you've heard from many members on this side of the House about how many jobs and how many businesses have left this province. When we talk about a business that leaves this province, we are generally talking more than three, four or five jobs. Generally, there will be a dozen jobs, because there are direct jobs and there are indirect jobs. What it does to the community is start to whittle away at the very fragile stability that they once had. We are seeing that in our coastal communities and seeing it in the interior. The only thing that seems to be saving our economy at this point, as I've stated before, is the fact that we have a tourism industry at this time -- one that this government would like to take credit for but is really not entitled to take credit for.

Our tourism economy is there as a result of our resources and the people who work in that industry. But we do have to have people who work in that industry; we do have to have jobs in that industry. Those communities that cannot rely on tourism must rely on other kinds of jobs, and in so doing, they will need to have jobs. They need to have businesses that are willing to invest, and we are hearing that businesses are just not wishing to invest in this province. When the government chooses to ignore everyone else and just to work for and represent those who are their strongest supporters -- those being Ken Georgetti and his friends -- then what they are doing is saying to the constituents they represent and to the rest of the province that they really don't care where our economy is heading and that it's all right to be number ten in Canada in terms of our provincial growth.

I don't believe so, and members on this side of the House don't believe that we should accept being number ten in terms of our provincial economy. We were number one in 1991 when this NDP administration took over, and we're now number ten. I don't want to stay at number ten, and I want to do everything possible to help this government move us, back up to number one. Even if we don't get to number one, then I'll settle for number three. But we cannot do that, not with the kinds of policies this government is introducing and not with the kind of legislation that they introduce in haste.

Perhaps we do need labour legislation changes, but do we need that now? Why do we need them now? That is the question I have asked on a number of occasions.

Interjection.

I. Chong: I haven't heard when. I know that members opposite would suggest: when should it come in? Well, I don't know. I'm not the one who should make that decision. It should be those who are most affected. It should be the people that elected us to represent them, hon. Speaker. Those people have a bigger stake in our provincial economy than 75 members in this House. The 75 members in this House do not have a stake in our provincial economy as much as those 3.9 million other people in this province do. We have an obligation and duty to hear them out, because they know better. They're the ones who are creating the jobs and who deserve to be heard.

I can't understand, as I say, why the haste in rushing through this bill, because I know that if the government were willing to listen, it could provide an opportunity for the public to come forward. The Minister of Small Business, for example, on June 17 -- the same day that this bill was introduced -- immediately introduced another business task force, a bank merger task force where they're going to visit all these communities. I believe there are seven communities in total. Then they will allow for a report to come back at the end of September. Well, if the Small Business minister was so concerned about how a bank merger, which is national, would affect communities -- small communities -- and the provincial economy, then why is he not as concerned about Bill 26 and what it will do to the small business community? I think that both have merit. I applaud him, that he would like to hear from people discussing the bank merger, but I do not applaud him when he is silent about how Bill 26 will help our economy.

I do believe we need to have a sufficient number of hearings and to have a report of those findings, as to what can be done to improve our economy. I'm willing to hear. If labour legislation is needed, I'm willing to hear from those people as well. I believe we should do that. We should allow the people to bring forth those ideas first and foremost.

If the government is concerned about cost -- and I'm always very concerned about cost, as you know, coming from a financial background -- we should limit our cost. Well, hon. Speaker, another suggestion: why don't we set up a web site? Then people could e-mail their submissions and concerns. We would actually have workers who would be able to do that as well, workers and families who maybe already have been displaced as a result of this one-sided labour legislation. They, again, would add more credence to the argument that Bill 26 is detrimental to the economy and therefore not what this provincial economy needs at this time, because we just don't know what all the impacts of Bill 26 will be. We do know that some of the residents of this province have a better idea than the 75 members in this House do. We do know that we owe the people of this province at least that.

But unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be this government's agenda. So I ask: where is the government's report, its analysis, its evaluation of this legislation? I haven't heard where that economic impact study is, and I've asked for it, I think, on four or five occasions now, as I've been able to get up to speak to this piece of legislation. Where is that economic impact study? Well, anytime that you hear of very important information or legislation being introduced, you would think that an economic impact study would be introduced or some cost-benefit analysis be performed. I haven't seen that yet, because I guess what we'd find is that, yes, maybe the labour force would increase, or maybe it wouldn't, but the dues would increase. Perhaps that's what this government is looking for: dues for their labour friends. But let's count the number of jobs, and let's count the number of jobs that won't be appearing as a result.

The minister also stated that we shouldn't be concerned about this legislation, because it is so very minor and only affects the ICI sector; it only affects institutional, commercial and industrial development. But some of our small businesses are involved in institutional work, in commercial work and in industrial work. Someone who builds a small hotel to bring more tourism dollars into their community: that's commercial.

[ Page 9926 ]

We are talking about our provincial economy, and when we are talking about that, we need to ask questions of this government and its cabinet, its executive council. We have to ask whether interministerial discussions are taking place. In the two short years that I've been here -- this being my third session -- I have been appalled at the lack of interministerial discussions that take place. Even when legislation is introduced and we are permitted to have a briefing and we ask staff about interministerial types of discussions, they're very vague about those. They're very vague, because they themselves don't even really know. All they know is that everybody is aware that government has an intention to reduce red tape -- so they say -- and that there is an intention to get the economy moving. But really, every minister individually doesn't seem to know how the entire executive council is working towards the same end. What is happening is that the cabinet is working individually, and that doesn't work well in restoring our economy.

The Minister of Finance indicated that she had a three-year economic plan. Well, I would like her to bring that forward and see where, within that three-year economic plan, she has indicated the costs and benefits of labour legislation changes, where she has indicated the reduction of income taxes and how that will affect our economy, and what specifically needs to be amended or deleted in our regulatory burden. Then and only then -- when those three areas are properly addressed in her supposed economic plan -- will we be able to attach any kind of credence to what she has attempted to do, because I do believe that she is attempting to address some of these problems.

[4:45]

I say that we need to turn that around now. It means we need to work together, and I hope that members opposite will support this amendment.

K. Whittred: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment to the motion. This amendment suggests that we in this House decline to give second reading to Bill 26 because it would further damage investor confidence and the provincial economy.

This morning, as I was preparing to come to work at this House, I had the radio on. I suppose, as many of us did, I was listening to bits of a rather well-known hotliner. He had on another rather well-known newspaper columnist, whom he was interviewing. Anyway, the gist of their conversation this morning was around this debate -- in fact, around the absence of debate from both sides of this House regarding Bill 26. At some point in the conversation, they said that the Legislature is irrelevant. I was a little taken aback and thought: what a condemnation of both sides of this House that we have well-respected news commentators suggesting to the public, and perhaps the public agreeing, that we are in fact irrelevant.

I am reminded of years ago when I used to bring students to this Legislature. I know that from time to time, members joke about students coming to this chamber and being surprised, if not a little bit taken aback, by the behaviour they witness. I can recall sitting right up in the gallery with my students looking down below and then having to address their questions: "Why do people turn their back on the Speaker? Why does nobody listen? Why doesn't anybody pay attention? Does anybody care?" In that role in my life as a teacher, I had a responsibility to try to respond to those students' questions. These were not little wee students, either. They were nearly ready to graduate from high school. Sometimes those answers were a little bit difficult to come by.

Like my colleague, I would like to go back to some quotes that were taken from earlier Hansards. I am quoting now the present Labour minister, and this is from April of 1987:

"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, in substance, that this government is indeed prepared to do that listening."

There's one more quote I would like to read, because I think it also addresses this particular issue. This is from the now Minister for Children and Families. She said:

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

K. Whittred: I think a more pertinent question would be to the government: if this legislation is this important to their legislative agenda, to their legislative calendar, why will they not debate it? That is the question in my mind. What is there about the government's plan for this legislation that makes it so that they do not want to debate it? I wonder what answer they would give if they were speaking to some students today who might like an answer to that question. We are in a position where this kind of debate is a sad commentary on the political state of our province.

In the course of this debate, this side of the House has offered a number of solutions and suggestions. I think it goes without saying -- and perhaps it has been repetitive -- that we believe that the timing of this legislation is bad. We believe that it is bad for the economy, for some very simple reasons. Investor confidence is low. Investors do not want to take risks with this economy. Therefore the people who create jobs -- the people who build or expand small businesses -- are not going to invest more. The reason we think this is bad legislation is quite simple.

To that end, we have made a very reasonable suggestion. We suggested to the government: why not put this legislation

[ Page 9927 ]

We suggested that this six-month cooling-off period would be a time when the government might reflect. They might in fact do some of the analysis that we have thought was lacking. Remember what the Labour minister said before: the opposition does have some good ideas. It's right here in black and white. He says: ". . .perish the thought, even listened to. . . ." Imagine that: the opposition might be listened to.

We on this side of the House offered a second very reasonable proposal. We suggested that this be sent to a committee. What a revolutionary idea! This is probably the most important suggestion that anyone has discussed so far. Again, I'd like to point out what a government member said about this back in 1987. This is the present Minister for Children and Families speaking. She said: "The Labour Committee is an important committee." Did we all hear that? "The Labour Committee is an important committee." Surely the bill should go there. Surely this is something the committee should be looking at. Without them looking at it, what is the point of having that committee? That's precisely what we've been saying. What a novel idea! What is the purpose of committees if they're not to deal with bills and things of substance? What could be more important than this bill being sent to this committee to be looked at by all members of that committee, who are representative of both sides of the House?

It should be pointed out that even on committees, government members always have a majority, so I guess the same rule applies: they always win. But my experience with committees is that there is a little bit of a different atmosphere. I'd like to just chat about that for a moment, because I think it's really important. Somehow the common sense in all of us seems to come out a little bit more when we're sitting around a committee table than it does in this House, which is built purely on an adversarial model. In committees we seem to be able to get down to a freer exchange of ideas. Lo and behold, sometimes we even find that we have something in common.

For example, the whole concept of change is something that I have brought up in my other addresses on this particular bill, because I think it is so important. We are in a time of enormous technological change, which is impacting on the way we do business; it's impacting on the way that we work in the workplace and on many other things. I'm not sure that the legislation in Bill 26 deals with that change. It seems to me that what it actually does is entrench old ideas. It actually entrenches those things which are passed. I wonder if there isn't a way that people couldn't sit down and say: "Okay, what is your experience with this? How does it actually impact on the realities of the modern workplace?"

One of the barriers to finding solutions is that we try to solve very complex problems, and yet we utilize very few of the resources in this House. There are very intelligent and talented people on both sides of this House, and the only mechanism in this House that I can see for us to use those talents and to have a free exchange of ideas, regardless of what the outcome may be, is through the committee process, where everyone can have some input and where there is probably a greater chance of coming to some degree of consensus.

We live in an information age -- an age in which we are inundated with information. How we sort through that is one of the major problems we all have. There are two things we can do. We can become completely bogged down with all of this information, or we can utilize some sort of methodology to deal with it. Perhaps a committee is a way we can deal with it -- to refer these very complex matters to a committee. A committee is a source where we can invite experts. We can invite these very people that we're talking about to come and speak to the committee. Or we can go to the community and actually speak to the people in the community who are affected. I mean, the possibilities are absolutely endless.

[5:00]

Finally, we get to the third amendment, which is what we're speaking to today, and that is the idea that this bill damages investor confidence and therefore damages the economy of the province in a much more lasting manner. What do we know about the economy at this time? We know that the job creators in the province said: "Leave the Labour Code alone." They said: "Don't touch the Labour Code." Does that mean that they are against labour? Of course not. Every small business man or small business woman in the world knows that the workers, the employees in their business, are the most valuable people that small business has. What they're saying is that the economy is fragile, the economy is very delicate, the economy is like a fine piece of crystal that's about to topple off the mantelpiece, and they're saying: "Don't rock the boat right now. Let's leave it alone."

What has made this economy so fragile? Well, we believe that it's a good many of the policies of this government. Before 1991 B.C. was number one in economic growth. Now we're number ten. When you're number ten in economic growth, that means you don't want to make anything worse. You don't want to even risk making anything worse.

In terms of per capita growth, many, many people actually have less money in their pockets. Even though they perhaps are earning the same amount of money they did a few years ago, their aftertax income is less. This government is taking money out of people's pockets and taking away their buying power, adding again to the fragile nature of this economy -- an economy that should not be tampered with. This economy is not one we should do one single thing with, except try to make it healthier. We don't want to risk anything that's going to make it sicker. British Columbians' aftertax income declined by nearly 2 percent in 1996, and it declined by another 2.5 percent in 1997. This is just one more example of the fragile nature of the economy and another indication that says: "We should not tamper with this. We should not do anything that is going to upset or interfere with any kind of stimulus." Between January '97 and January '98 we lost 19,000 jobs. That is a lot of jobs, hon. Speaker.

When the economy is in this kind of shape -- when it is this shaky, when it is this unhealthy -- investor confidence is

[ Page 9928 ]

The minister on this bill has made the point over and over and over again: "Oh, these are just little changes; they're nothing." Well, we have trouble believing that. In the first place, if these were just little changes, if they were really nothing, why did the minister bring in second reading the day after the bill was introduced? That's really unusual. I've learned that generally, there's a pattern to things here. Generally, a bill is introduced, and then there's an interlude of several days. Sometimes it's two or three weeks between the time a bill is introduced and the time it comes up for second reading. But not in this case. So I have trouble believing that; I just can't believe that part of it.

The other part I really have trouble dealing with is this business of this bill only referring to the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. You know, I went out and drove around my riding. I went up and down virtually every street in an area where there is a lot of redevelopment going on. I couldn't find one building that was either industrial or commercial; every single, solitary building was both. So I have to wonder about the drafters of this legislation who claim that there is not a lot of overlap. What we on this side of the House find in our communities is that virtually all development today is a mixture of commercial and residential. If any members on the opposite side of the House wish to see empirical evidence of that, I invite them, the next time they are in Vancouver, to take the SeaBus across to the lower Lonsdale area, and have a really nice stroll around. You will see a great deal of development, and every single building has commercial on the street level with apartments above. I call that two uses, not one use.

Another role of the opposition. . . . We get back to some of my original premises about the role of opposition and the fact that the present Labour minister even admitted a few years ago that the opposition did in fact have a major role. We have not just criticized this government about the state of the economy; we have offered some very, very useful solutions for what we think would help to get the government back on track. We, of course, are advocating cutting personal income tax and small business taxes. I'm sure the members opposite are saying: "Gee, we did that in our budget." Yes, but you didn't go far enough.

Interjection.

K. Whittred: Yes, that's true: it hasn't really happened -- yet, anyway. Also, it doesn't go far enough to really do very much good.

However, I must confess that the government seemed to see that this economy did need some stimulus. If the government saw that this economy needed stimulus, again, that's another reason. . . . Why would they bring in a bill like Bill 26 which does the exact opposite of stimulating the economy? It's almost like the government doesn't know what to do. On the one hand, the government is saying that this economy needs stimulating. We have the Minister of Finance saying: "We're going to give individuals and small business a small tax cut. We're going to take away the tax on farm fuel." Okay, these are small concessions to stimulate the economy. But then they turn right around and remove every bit of good that's been done by that by bringing in this bill. It's like the Finance minister and the Labour minister don't talk to each other. It almost makes me wish that I could have been a fly on the wall when that meeting was held, because I feel there must have been some degree of disagreement among people.

On this side of the House we have also said that the economy must be stimulated by eliminating red tape and government regulations. Again, the government sort of said that and brought in a bill about it. But by the same token, they brought in another bill that talked about eliminating red tape and it had 87 pages of new regulations. Again, that doesn't make sense to us on this side that you're going to get away from red tape by bringing in 87 pages of new regulations. The logic of that escapes us on this side of the House.

We have also talked about fair and balanced labour laws. We on this side of the House believe in fair and balanced labour laws. In fact, we believe in the collective bargaining process; we do not believe that the government imposes a contract, as it has done in the education bill. But we're prepared to debate that at the appropriate time. That's going to be a very embarrassing position, I think, for a government that prides itself on its stand on labour relations. We on this side of the House believe that workers should have the right to vote secretly for certification. This is not the kind of thing that should be done over a beer in the local pub with somebody passing out memberships; it should be done in a businesslike manner.

This side of the House has not just sat back and criticized; we have in fact put forth a number of very reasonable proposals. I return to the original premise of my remarks today, which is that there is a job to be done by both sides of this House. After all of these hours of debate, I believe that this side of the House has done its job extremely well. I am extremely proud of the way we have been a fully constructive opposition on this matter. I am disappointed that the government members have not seen fit to defend their legislation.

[5:15]

The words "that the Bill, in principle" seem to refer to the basics of the bill, to an idea which, when in the affirmative, means that the idea is acceptable as far as the basics or the principles of the proposed bill might be. The amendment goes on to reference the issue of investor confidence. I'm interpreting that to mean trust or faith as held by investors -- locally, provincially and internationally. Of course, the economy -- the word that we often hear bandied about in this House and in these precincts -- may probably best be described as the system or the range of economic activity that exists within this province.

When the elements as I've portrayed them are rolled together forming the bill that's before us and the amendment portion of it, the basics of Bill 26 -- its overall intent -- seem to be suggesting that it will further damage the trust or the faith that the people have in risking the placement of their

[ Page 9929 ]

The basics of Bill 26 are stated in section 55.11. That section is entitled "Purposes," and I want to read those into the record. It states:

"In addition to the purposes referred to in section 2, the purposes of this Part are to

(a) achieve orderly collective bargaining in the construction industry,

(b) establish a labour relations environment conducive to skills development in the construction industry, and

(c) facilitate the implementation of multi-employer and multi-trade collective bargaining for craft bargaining units within ICI construction."

There's no reference made to the economy, to the investor or to the issues highlighted within the amendment. Perhaps it is just that silence which this bill has in these areas which has been the very reason for the prominence of the issue of investor confidence in the economy. Perhaps the fact that there is no reference made, perhaps the fact that they're silent, is what has prompted this amendment to be brought forward, to look at the issues which might be evident within this piece of legislation.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, I missed that. I'm sure it would have been helpful.

The bill's silence and its failure to consider these issues are exacerbated when set against the concerns expressed by the Kelleher-Lanyon panel. The government had the report, read the report and, I trust, used the report to draft their purposes and principles. Certainly the minister has made adequate and appropriate reference to that panel's report in terms of the bill, and they've reported the concerns and highlighted the report, which has been discussed a great deal in this House. The concerns, the criteria that were read and that led into it, provided many cautions, placed cautions repeatedly with respect to the recommendations and the basics of the foundation of Bill 26.

The panel stated: ". . .we consider [these] to be sensible changes for long-term stability of the construction industry. They are not based on the state of the economy at any particular point in time." Sensible for the stability of the construction industry -- the protection, the survival, the existence of the construction industry. But I suggest that when they say the words "not based on the state of the economy at any particular point in time," they are saying yes to the recommendations that are perhaps good, but the construction industry's survival may be contingent in some way and related in some way to what is happening with the economy. If the economy fails, if the state of the economy is such that its survival may be at risk, then I think the panel was suggesting that we in this House take heed. We have not looked at what this bill might do to the economy, and the panel clearly has said that. So they want us to beware. They're flying a red flag for us; they're saying: caution. Our sad economy may well be made worse by this bill. I think that was sage advice, and that was the reason they placed that in their recommendations. The recommendations have not as yet been accepted and included within this bill.

It seems to me that the recommendations suggest -- perhaps even implore us, as part of our due diligence -- that we check out the state of the economy and look at the risk which we may be imposing with this legislation. The latest, perhaps the newest, report I am aware of on the subject of the economy is the report from the Toronto-Dominion Bank dated July 1998. It stated that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year and for the next two years after that.

An Hon. Member: The worst?

G. Hogg: I'm reading from the Toronto-Dominion Bank's statement, and they're saying that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year and perhaps for the next two years. The Toronto-Dominion Bank is forecasting zero percent economic growth for this year, 0.5 percent for next year and only 1.5 percent in the year 2000. This is by far the worst forecast for any Canadian province. In addition, B.C. is the only province forecast to lose jobs in 1998. The graph, which the Toronto-Dominion Bank provides, shows a sorry scene for the province. They're showing real GDP growth for Canada to be averaging 3.3 percent. Newfoundland is the top at 5 percent; P.E.I., 2.3 percent -- it moves down -- Saskatchewan, 3.4 percent; Alberta, 4.1 percent; Ontario, 4.5 percent; and B.C. at zero growth.

I think that is the type of thing that was being referenced in the panel's report and suggestions, the type of thing which we must look at in terms of doing our due diligence with respect to this piece of legislation. These forecasts are truly discouraging. They are, I believe, exactly the type of thing we should be looking at when we're considering this amendment. That forecast comes on the heels of the well-documented, well-reported and often-repeated reality of today's economy in this province, giving cause for even greater concern and reason for giving greater attention and greater credence to the panel's cautions regarding the economy.

As I stated, they've been well reported, but they form the basis upon which we must look at this piece of legislation, this amendment. There are things like going from number one to number ten in economic growth, having the highest marginal income tax rate in North America, going from number one in job creation to number ten, and last year having a decline of some 19,000 jobs in British Columbia, the only province to actually lose jobs, while some provinces gained as many as 22,000 new jobs. From 1990 to 1997 government spending per capita rose faster in B.C. than in any other province in Canada. It grew by some 28 percent, while government spending in some provinces declined by as much as 17 percent. Housing starts are down by more than a half. Investment is the lowest in Canada, tied with Prince Edward Island. Some say it may be coincidence and may make reference to other factors, but it is clear that there must be something unique and distinct and different happening in this province for us to be so far out of sync with the other provinces of Canada.

[ Page 9930 ]

For investors looking at B.C. and its economy today, the picture they see is not a positive one. The first things they see are the high taxes and the regulations. If that's not enough, they start looking at other parts of this country to decide where they wish to place their dollars. These issues are not just issues that are coming from me or from a number of other people; they are held in common by the majority of British Columbians. At least, they're held in common if we are to believe two recent polls, one by Marktrend and one by McIntyre and Mustel. They have looked at it and have told us that those positions are held by the majority of British Columbians.

Unless we are able to accept this amendment, we may be looking at increasing construction costs by as much as 20 to 30 percent, and any concerns we had about investment or any possibility that it might be coming this way, any possibility that we might have of creating new jobs, would be put in greater jeopardy. Our opportunity for much-needed investment and much-needed growth would go awry.

I think it also bears repeating. . . . There are lots of schools of thought with respect to change. Certainly behaviorism is one of them, which believes that through operant conditioning -- reinforcement of issues and ideas and through repetition -- changes can occur. If we were so bold as to assume that we could do that by way of providing reinforcement and incentives in this House, we might in fact be able to effect change by reinforcing, repeating and rewarding. Those types of behaviours and activities, those types of policies and bills that we would see, could have the positive impact and the change we're looking to have with respect to the economy -- the type that is being suggested in this amendment.

If we assume that the minister and his criteria were to be adhered to, I think this amendment would find favour. While I don't think the amendment is perhaps the perfect answer to all that we've been looking at or talking about, it certainly starts to address a number of the concerns we have been expressing throughout the course of this debate. I harken back to the words the minister used when he was developing this bill, the words he used when he was responding to organizations and groups of people with respect to what he wanted to look at and wanted to have.

Certainly it seems to me that the minister responsible for this legislation is a good place to start with respect to the assumptions being made. He said that there were going to be five criteria for evaluating this legislation. This was stated in a letter that he sent prior to the legislation coming out, prior to the bill coming forward. The first of those criteria was that we must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplaces.

[5:30]

The minister's second criterion is that we must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected. I don't think this amendment addresses or touches on that issue, and therefore I remain silent on that one.

"Thirdly, we must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." That criterion, again, harkens back to the issues that we've just been discussing. It harkens back to the issue of stability. We know that the psyche of the investor is a very temperamental thing which is dictated by many, many different factors and events. But for us to be able to create a climate of stability which would encourage investment and create jobs, we need to have some degree of consistency. We need to have something that people are going to be able to look at and say: "Yes, this is a place where I'm comfortable placing my money and taking my opportunity to create jobs and create growth." I don't believe that this bill does that; however, I believe that this amendment will give us an opportunity to look at, to respond to and to address that.

The fourth criterion: "We must consult carefully with key stakeholders before making changes to laws, policies and practices." I agree that some consultation took place. The minister stated that it was the panel that in fact provided that type of input and addressed that type of criteria. But certainly there are many people who would say that they were not a part of that consultation process. In fact, those who did make submissions and were confident with those submissions, based on the minister's criterion that they would be evaluated against those criteria, are feeling that that did not happen.

The fifth criterion: "We must work to bring. . .labour and government together to address issues of common and public concern." That criterion is also one which has rung hollow with respect to the intent that I believe was expressed in the words in that letter.

I believe that the amendment which is being proposed is one which would give us an opportunity to go back to those fundamentals, those five criteria, which the minister wrote out, circulated and suggested were going to be the evaluative criteria for any piece of legislation. I certainly support the minister's criteria, but I believe that in the process, they have not addressed the issues before us. When we talk about change and our ability to look at pieces of legislation and to look at the options that we have with them, we start to look at and explore our personal values and the way that they relate to us and the way they're related and interpreted into legislation. I'm confident that those of us who are willing in this environment to do that and to look at the facts before us and at the cognitive responses we have to those will be satisfied that there is some ability for us to change this. There is some ability for us to effect the types of changes which the majority of people are telling us that this economy needs and that this province needs.

I believe that the evidence has been garnered by the minister's panel, using the minister's own criteria. Conse-

[ Page 9931 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I remember reading a statement some time ago by a politician from days gone by -- a statement which some would argue is very apt today and perhaps is even applicable in this House. The quote is: ". . .the government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

"If it moves, tax it." Hon. Speaker, the highest marginal income tax rate in North America, the corporate capital tax. . . . There are many, many more areas that we can go into to reference that. "If it keeps moving, regulate it." We've all heard the tales, particularly the FRBC tales, of red tape and regulations that allegedly stand some five feet high when piled. . . .

An Hon. Member: Six.

G. Hogg: Six feet high? They allegedly stand six feet high when piled on top of each other. And the third phrase within that quote is: ". . .if it stops moving, subsidize it." Well, we certainly have seen loans and subsidies coming forward in this province, be it Skeena Cellulose or, more recently, J.S. McMillan Fisheries. So, hon. Speaker, the plot, the statement, the phrase, the quote may well reflect some of the things we're seeing in this government. The government's view of the economy seems to have perhaps come from that quote. We all know that if it's in our riding and affects us individually, at least the subsidization part of it seems to be affected by the riding that the death seems to have come in.

Investor confidence has often been referenced by economists, accountants and financial experts. Investor confidence, through its reference, through its being analyzed not only just for today and not only for this province, has been analyzed in all capitalist economies, all areas where people have the opportunity to make investment, to take their dollars and their opportunities and go forward in an effort to create wealth and jobs. We know that the psyche of the investor, based on that information, can be very fickle. Whether it is based on rumour, assumption, reality or the moon -- whatever it may be assumed to be based on -- to put one's own hard-earned resources into an economy that is struggling, an economy which is projected to get worse, is indeed folly in the extreme. This motion responds to the concerns and the folly. It gives us the chance to attempt revival. To throw a sinking economy an anchor -- many would certainly argue that that's exactly what Bill 26 is -- would drive us down into a recession more quickly than may already be coming.

More news being released this week seems to reinforce the concern and the position that we've talked about. When we talk about student unemployment, we find that student unemployment in British Columbia is now the second-highest in Canada. The figures released July 10 by StatsCan show that B.C. has the second-highest unemployment rate in Canada. They said that B.C.'s unemployment rate for June stood at 22.9 percent. This is up more than 2.3 percentage points from the same month last year. Student unemployment that high, student unemployment in a situation where it's the students' optimism, it's the growth and future of this country coming from our students and their concerns being reflected. . . . Their inability to find employment is not based on anything they've done, not based on their not being prepared, but in fact is based on an economy and an environment that are not prepared to receive and respond to their types of concerns.

Not only do we talk about statistics, but we must also talk about the impact that these have on all of the real people that live out there. It's sometimes easy to divorce ourselves from the problems and realities being faced by families and by individuals, when we bury them in statistics. When we take those statistics aside and start to look more personally at the impact that the economy is having, we start to see the real human tragedies that are in existence. I make reference to a report written by Alan Ferguson, a reporter with a local newspaper, who's talked about that and has investigated on a personal level the type of impact these things are having. He states that the province's business community says that there's more than the Asian crisis behind our economic woes. He says that the business community is blaming high taxes and what they claim are anti-business, pro-labour policies of this government.

Reference has been made, even today, to Vin Coyne and Finning. References were made in days past to the issue of Finning Tractor and their decision to move from British Columbia. I know that in speaking with Vin Coyne, one of the persons referenced in that and someone I've known all my life told me that it wasn't just the factors of the economy that influenced their decision to move, but it was the approach that was being taken when dealing with different governments. When they approached local governments, he felt that Finning was being seen as an irritant, whereas when they approached the government of Alberta, they found that they were welcomed. They were seen as being a positive approach. . . . I think that when we look at some 107 businesses leaving B.C. for Alberta, we must look not just at the economy but at our approach and our attitude toward dealing with the issues and concerns that people put forward.

We seem to be inevitably sliding towards a recession. I know that we prefer to have a government that participates in the decision-making and that wants to offer assistance. I note that the Minister of Finance has said: "I know [that the planners] initially preferred that government not participate" -- this is in reference to a conference with respect to the economy, scheduled for November 8 and 9 of this year -- "but I really want to be there to offer my assistance." I'm sure the Minister of Finance will have the opportunity to hear from some 1,000 business representatives when they meet in Vancouver to discuss those issues. My only fear is that that process seems to have been repeated a number of times and that a number of directions, policies, and practices have been suggested to the minister and to the government, but to date they have not been responded to. I hope that the minister will attend and will respond to the directions that come from that, but in order for that to occur and to happen within the context of the bill before us, the amendment that is here today would have to be passed, so that we don't send another negative message to the business community -- that, rather, we give them the opportunity to respond and that we give the minister the opportunity to respond to that.

[5:45]

[ Page 9932 ]

I want to say at the outset that I entirely endorse that amendment. I think it is another opportunity for the government to reconsider the reckless course they are on here in the province, another opportunity for them to listen to the people of British Columbia and to avoid throwing another body blow into the economy. Regrettably, there have been far too many of those kinds of blows rendered by the government since they took office in 1991, and sadly, given the government's reluctance to embrace this amendment and our previous amendments with respect to this issue, it appears that this government is determined to strike the economy of British Columbia another blow, which we can little afford to manage at this time in our existence.

I think it must be noted at the outset that on its own, by itself, Bill 26 might not wreck the provincial economy. The tragedy here is that this is just the latest in a long series of government initiatives that have been entirely contrary to the economic interests of this province.

I know that the members opposite like to think that they are pro-labour, that they want to help out the working people of British Columbia. But the sad reality here is that virtually everything this government has done, including what they are proposing to do right now in Bill 26, is going to have exactly the opposite effect. It is going to mean far fewer people employed in the province, and I think that's tragic. We'll be talking here today about a number of ways that the damage incurred to the provincial economy has been a product of the ill-advised, ill-conceived and ill-managed policies of the NDP government since they took office in 1991.

On those few occasions when we did hear from members opposite, they liked to tell us about the Asian flu. "It really isn't a product of the mismanagement of this government that the provincial economy is reeling the way it is; it's a product of the Asian flu," they said over and over again, as if their policies had nothing to do with the present state of British Columbia's economy. The sad reality of it all is that, sure, there is a problem in Asia, but when you look around in Canada and to our neighbours to the south in the United States, no one is suffering the way British Columbia is. Not only do we have the Asian flu as a factor, but we have the NDP plague as an even bigger factor here in B.C. The NDP plague is what's pulling this province down, not the Asian flu.

With proper management, better-advised policies and some understanding and concern about what makes a provincial economy tick, we would not be in the predicament we are in today. Our neighbour to the south, Washington State, is doing quite fine, thank you. They don't seem to be reeling from the Asian flu the way British Columbia is purported to be doing. On the contrary, they're doing pretty well. Seattle has a 2.9 percent unemployment rate. Why is that?

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Here we go. We have the member for Skeena, hon. Speaker, who's going to tell us again that it's because of a bad opposition. This is a theme I was kind enough to address earlier on -- that, in fact, all of the problems we face in British Columbia are not a product of the policies of the government but rather a product of a bad opposition, which is so rude and so unkind that we point out the errors, idiocy and gross deficiencies in public policies under this NDP government. It's all the fault, it seems, of the bad opposition. It's sad that this member should be so delusional that he would actually think that; it is a sad commentary on where he has come.

Obviously, if we look at Washington State and at Alberta, both of whom are doing very well, they aren't being hurt by the Asian flu the same as British Columbia is. Why is that? It's because our problems in this province are being grossly exacerbated by the policies of this government. That's the reason why we're having such serious problems in this province. We don't dismiss the Asian flu. But we don't dismiss the NDP plague either, particularly given that our neighbours to the east and to the south are doing pretty darn well despite the apparent problems in Asia.

This issue, as I mentioned at the outset, is a cumulative problem. This has not started in 1998. Since 1991, the policies of this government have reflected a real lack of understanding of the way the business and the economy in this province operate. In fact, their policies consistently have been such that they undermine both the provincial economy and investor confidence in this province. It's sad, but that seems to be the way it is. Everything they have done has undermined our position.

I think there are really four legs to the stool which is contributing to our current problems. One, I think it has to be said, is anti-business rhetoric. Lately we've been hearing warm cooing sounds from the Premier and other members of the government with respect to business and investment in this province. Perhaps they have realized belatedly -- seven years too late -- that they have to pay some attention to the interests of business. Unfortunately, it's much too late for even the belated efforts in the way of rhetoric of this government. If we want to talk about the extremes of rhetoric, we can look back at the 1996 election campaign and the long-term impact of that. There we had the Premier of this province deliberately attempting to set up business in this province as the bad guys, the guys in the black hats.

Again, it's most unfortunate that that ad occurred. People don't forget that as soon as the campaign is over. They don't say: "Oh well, you know, that was just a lot of virulent anti-business rhetoric that was a product of the election campaign." They don't forget that. They recalled in the days and weeks and months after the election campaign that they had a government in power in British Columbia that is not friendly to business, that is downright hostile to business. As a consequence of that, that has an immediate and -- at least until we see the defeat of this government -- a long-term consequence for the state of our provincial economy.

Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That's fine, member. Your place is reserved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising do stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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