[ Page 9933 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26.

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

G. Abbott: At the time we departed for dinner, I had just begun a discussion of what I think are the four reasons the economy of British Columbia is struggling and people are suffering as a consequence. The first I had noted was the anti-business rhetoric which all too frequently has pervaded the comments of the Premier, particularly, but also of members of his government at times. Some of that rhetoric, I regret to say, is probably amongst the most virulent that one might hear north of Havana. I think it's unfortunate. I think it does have its price, and I hope we're hearing some toning down of that. I think what we need in addition to a toning down of the rhetoric is a recognition of what is needed to turn around this economy and of what we need to see new investment in this province, so that we can stimulate the economy and create some new jobs. Without all of the ingredients being in place for new investment in this province, it isn't going to happen. I think it's an important part of our job here to ensure that it does.

I think that the second element that has contributed to the economic malaise we've had in this province, which is specifically addressed in the amendment put forward by the member for Matsqui, is the issue of excessive regulation and its impact on the provincial economy. Particularly in Forests, the area that I'm proud to be critic for, we see the cost of excessive regulation to our provincial economy. Even the current government now admits that the Forest Practices Code, as it was created in 1994 and put into place in 1995, was onerous and excessive in its scope and application. The Forest Practices Code, even by the reckoning of, I believe, the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment. . .some $300 million a year more in costs to the forest industry than was necessary to achieve the environmental objectives which continue to be contained in the revised code. Because of ill-conceived and ill-managed legislation, we see a government that penalized the forest industry in British Columbia to the tune of about a billion dollars, and the consequence of that has been lost jobs. In 1998 we see forest companies having severe problems, in large measure because of the unnecessary penalty they pay. But I don't think it's just forestry; it's a whole range of the ways business has been conducted across the province.

I think the attitude of this government has all too frequently been that you can heap the regulation on, and it doesn't matter -- business just absorbs it. Business can handle any sort of degree of regulation, and they just pass it along or whatever, and it's not a problem. But obviously we're seeing more and more that yes, it does matter, particularly as we get into 1998 with the recessionary problems we're facing. We see some tentative steps on the part of the government, in fact, to try to reduce that onerous and excessive level of regulation. Regrettably -- and we'll obviously get into this when we get to some of their bills around red-tape reduction -- the talents of this government, such as they are -- lie in the area of adding regulation, not in the area of getting rid of it. I don't think they really have any understanding or ability to rid the province of regulation. For what it's worth, they are good at adding regulations, but they are not a talented group in terms of identifying unnecessary regulation and eliminating it. The NDP's answer to deregulation, by and large, is to add more regulation. The world just doesn't work that way, but they have not yet captured that fact. Again, we are talking here about how Bill 26 is going to further damage investor confidence and the provincial economy.

The third aspect of this four-legged stool around damaging investor confidence in the provincial economy. . . . We've talked about anti-business rhetoric; we've talked about excessive regulation. I want to talk about the third and, in some ways, the most important element -- although that's debatable, and perhaps some of the members on the other side might want to take me up on this. I think onerous taxation is another huge element in the general undermining and damaging of the economy which has occurred during the tenure of the present government. The excessive and onerous taxation is obviously manifested in several ways, and I just want to identify a couple of them. One is a tax which the Premier paid a lot of attention to as part of the anti-business rhetoric around the 1996 campaign: the corporation capital tax. In his view, it was a way to penalize the bad guys -- to characterize the way the argument ran then.

Certainly the promise of then-Premier Harcourt, back in, I think it was, '93 -- when the corporation capital tax was extended to business beyond the banks was. . . . When then-Premier Harcourt brought that extension of the corporation capital tax in, he said it was going to be a temporary thing. It was a temporary revenue measure which was going to be taken away in the relatively near future. Well, of course, that didn't fit into the general themes of the 1996 election campaign. The then Premier, much to his dismay I'm sure, became the former Premier, and the new Premier saw the corporation capital tax as another example of how any government of a socialist persuasion should beat business over the head. He was all for keeping the corporation capital tax, and I guess still is.

There have been some discussions in recent months around relieving business of that tax, but it still remains in place, and it still remains -- just as Bill 26 is going to become -- another impediment to investing in British Columbia. The corporation capital tax says: "You know, you may want to invest in British Columbia, but the first thing -- the absolute first thing -- we're going to do if you have the courage and the foresight to invest in British Columbia is tax you through the corporation capital tax. We're going to do it regardless of whether your business is new and struggling. We're going to do it regardless of whether you've made money or lost money or anything else. We're going to penalize you for investing in the province." So it's a huge impediment to new investment here, and mark my words -- and mark the words of the entire official opposition on this -- Bill 26 is going to do exactly the same thing: it is going to discourage people from investing in the province. We can definitely not afford to see another barrier or impediment of that sort to further harm our B.C. economy.

[6:45]

[ Page 9934 ]

I will just mention in passing the example of New Forest Opportunities. In order for anyone in the coast region of FRBC to work on a FRBC-funded project -- not just a displaced forest worker -- they must join the IWA. Now, the IWA is a fine union with a proud tradition, but this, I'm afraid, is not one of their finer moments. This is an example of where people are being compelled to join a union whether they like it or not. It's wrong to compel people to unionize on silviculture projects that are using public dollars. Yet I think New Forest Opportunities, Bill 26 and all this kind of thinking underlines the view that if it's not unionized, something's not quite right. The world isn't spinning quite the way it should if it's not unionized. I think that is a destructive and negative sort of view of the world, and regrettably, it is one that is going to contribute further to the decline in investment confidence in this province and a decline in the provincial economy as well. Bill 26 is going to be one more step in this direction.

One of the problems with Bill 26 is that it looks at relationships between labour and management on the basis of sectoral structures, rather than individual enterprises. It seems to me, again that this goes back to the notion that if it's not centralized, if it's not bureaucratized and if it's not unionized, it's not worth having. There seems to be, implicit or explicit in Bill 26, a notion that it's not right to have individual enterprises negotiate their own contracts so that they can build details and features into it which accommodate the special interests of that enterprise. In Bill 26 there seems to be a rejection of that exact thing; things have to be done on the basis of sector, where everything's common, rather than recognizing the individual needs of different businesses.

Again, this is a fundamental -- where the government side of the House and the opposition side of the House divide. Clearly if we are to have jobs, if we're to have new investment, if we want to have people working in this province, we need to build in those kinds of opportunities to recognize the special features and challenges which any business may have in the marketplace. To take that away just makes it that much harder for our businesses in British Columbia. Particularly given the taxation and regulatory burden that they're facing in the province, to have that heaped on as well is something that just makes it that much more difficult for our businesses and our economy to succeed.

A second point I want to make about Bill 26, and I think it's a very important one, is one of the darts aimed at the economy of this province. Sectoral bargaining, in the absence of the restoration of the secret ballot for certification, will further damage investor confidence. We need -- and again, this is a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House here -- a secret. . . . There is nothing wrong, in theory or in practice, with the secret ballot. We all get here to this House by a whole lot of people marking secret ballots about who they want to have. To take away that right in union certification is wrong. It's a fundamental difference that we have with the Premier and with his side of the House.

The overall problem is that the Premier and the Labour minister and others like to brag about their record in labour relations. They say that things are great. Well, if they're so great. . . . To use the old maxim, if it ain't broke, why are they proposing to fix it? The fact of the matter is that what they're going to do here is something that is going to cause. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: You don't need to start getting in on this just to show off to the Premier. Go back to sleep. You were asleep before the Premier arrived; go back to sleep again. You're just showing off -- you're just grandstanding -- for the Premier.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, member.

G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, I was just trying to point out to the member for Vancouver-Burrard that heckling me now that the Premier is in attendance will not get him into cabinet any quicker. I'm sorry for that intervention.

So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's the lesson here on Bill 26. There are a lot better things we could use our time and talents in this House on than a bill that is going to further undermine the economy of British Columbia.

I want to just point out a few things about the damage that has been done to the economy of British Columbia. Others have noted that British Columbia has gone from number one in 1991, when the NDP took power, to number ten today -- an awful part of the legacy of the ill-conceived and misguided policies of this government. We see that decline showing up everywhere: in economic growth, in new investment. We see it, for example, in the decline in the gross domestic product. This is from TD Economics. Others have noted this, so I won't spend a long time on it. The graph is striking. The graph shows strong provincial GDP growth in every province, with the exception of British Columbia. Newfoundland is the strongest, at 5 percent; Ontario, second-strongest, at 4.5 percent; Alberta, 4.1 percent. Even PEI, which is the weakest of the other nine, is at 2.3 percent provincial real GDP. Where do we find British Columbia? At zero -- a shocking indictment of this government's policies and a shocking indictment of the way they have led this province for the past seven years. Really, when you look at this graph, going from Alberta to British Columbia is like falling off the edge of the earth. There has been tremendous damage done to this province, and it's showing up now.

Sadly, it shows up in not only a decline in investment but in a decline in employment as well. I think we saw some figures come out on the weekend that showed that British Columbia is actually losing jobs, and that's shocking.

The other shocking figure from the weekend is that StatsCan is reporting that B.C.'s student unemployment rate for June stood at 22.9 percent -- a shocking figure! That is perhaps the saddest statistic of all. What this government is doing with its regressive, thoughtless policies is taking away the future of our children. When I was going to high school and university, I could readily count on a job every summer. This summer almost 25 percent, one in four, of the students in British Columbia looking for work can't find it. It's another

[ Page 9935 ]

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Yeah, what leadership? That's a good point. It's negative leadership.

We see an overall decline in business confidence. . . .

I see I'm going to be running short of time here, so I just want to make note of one last point, and that's the B.C. discount. I want to quote briefly from a First Marathon Securities Ltd. analysis of the Canadian paper and forest products industry in British Columbia. The heading says: "B.C. Discount Is Real." I'll just quote a small portion of this. "B.C. companies now trade at a 26 percent discount to eastern companies, on the basis of their median price over book value." It's an astonishing figure, hon. Speaker, and it's going to get worse. Bill 26 is going to make it worse.

I urge all members of this House to support the amendment moved by the member for Matsqui.

S. Hawkins: I'm very pleased to rise in support of the amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Matsqui. This amendment proposes to decline giving second reading to Bill 26 because it will risk further damage to investor confidence in the provincial economy.

It's good to see that the Premier is back. I know he's been away, and I know he got a ton of mail, because I've been receiving copies of it. I was going to leave this until later, but while he's here, maybe I can just read him a letter. This one particularly struck me, from the mailbag that I got. It's from the CEO of Enviro-main Filter Inc., Mike Alderman, who is situated in my constituency. He writes to the Premier:

"My name is Mike Alderman. I'm 25 years of age."

"I own a company in Kelowna that was incorporated on November 7, 1997." It's less than a year old. "I'm a young entrepreneur struggling. . . ."

"I'm asking you to please give your head a good shake and look at what you are doing to a province that small business owners should be proud of. The hard work and money that we, as small business owners, have already spent and continue to spend to establish small businesses should not be shot down by your government by providing favours to unions at the expense of B.C. entrepreneurs.

"If Bill 26 is passed, you are going to cause me to move my company to a province that I don't want to live in, but I will have to do so to provide for my family. Yes, Premier, I will be able to thank you for this move."

[7:00]

In less than a year they've chosen to expand and develop their company. Here's a young person who's willing to do that. This is a very, very environmentally friendly product. We should be proud that we have people who are doing this kind of work in B.C. He's writing to the Premier and saying: "What you're doing, Mr. Premier, is threatening my company. You're threatening any jobs I might create. You're threatening any investment that I might attract so that I can expand and develop my business and actually guarantee some kind of a living in B.C." He's saying to the Premier: "If you do this, you're going to force me to move my company out of B.C. I don't want to go, but that's what you're doing." I hope the Premier is listening. This guy is only 25 years old. He started out. . . . He's already franchising his company. Like I said, it's environmentally friendly. It's the kind of business I think B.C. is looking to attract. He's the kind of entrepreneur that B.C. is trying to attract: young people who are motivated. So it struck me quite hard that someone I know feels quite threatened by the moves of this government and is saying that they will take their company out of the province if negative initiatives by this government go ahead.

We know that the policies of this government have hurt B.C.'s economy. We know that private sector investment is falling, and with it businesses fall and job creation falls. We know that resource sectors are in a crisis. We only have to look in the papers every day and look what's happening to forestry, to mining. It's appalling what the policies of this government have done. We are losing jobs. We are losing taxes, because there are fewer jobs. B.C. is seeing an alarming rate of job losses in businesses. We heard in the debate members who have spoken before me talking about 107 companies -- and counting -- that have moved out of B.C. into Alberta. That can't be good for our economy. The rate of economic growth is continuing to lag behind most of the rest of Canada. The speaker before me spoke about the TD Bank releasing their report on July 9. I can't underline it enough. They say that B.C. is in a recession, and it's due to the mismanagement of this NDP government.

The TD Bank is forecasting a big, fat zero percent economic growth for B.C. How can anyone be proud of that? How can any member on that side of the House stand up and say: "We're proud that B.C. is going to be having zero economic growth for 1998-99"? I think the reason none of them stand up and speak to any of these motions or amendments is because they're ashamed to. They're embarrassed, because they know that the numbers speak for themselves. When you have reports like the TD Bank predicting economic growth. . . . Look, they predict 5 percent growth for Newfoundland and 5 percent growth in the Maritimes. Isn't that amazing? Alberta, our neighbour -- and we keep hearing about bad Alberta -- it's 4.1 percent economic growth. That's compared to -- what? -- ours at zero percent.

We've heard other members go through the list, but I think it's really important to go through it. Prince Edward Island, 2.3 percent. Here's a little island. They can't have that much of a diversified economy or that many people working in their job force. But guess what. What an entrepreneurial spirit they are showing. They're going to have a growth rate of 2.3 percent. I heard one of the members talk earlier about Quebec as well. That is a province that has seen some hard times in the last few years. Their province has been torn by

[ Page 9936 ]

It's not that an NDP government can't do it or doesn't know how to do it, because we know that Saskatchewan, which has had an NDP government for the last five or six years, is going to show an economic growth of 3.4 percent. There's a government that somehow did things right. Maybe it was by mistake; I don't know. But they did things right. They've had five balanced budgets. Maybe their B.C. cousins can take a lesson from them. We can only hope. I won't hold my breath, because I've lived here seven years, and I really haven't seen this government do anything right. What I've seen is a lot of things done wrong.

The taxpayer-supported debt in this province climbed by $14 billion -- that's 135 percent -- since 1991. And you know what? Balanced budgets are still a dream. It's still a dream of this government and everyone in this province, because they haven't been able to achieve it. In fact, we have seen debt management plans go nowhere in this province. The members on the opposite benches come up with all these plans, but do we ever see them put into motion? Do we ever see them meet a target or a goal? No, it's hit-or-miss all the time. Well, that doesn't do very much for investor confidence. If a government can't even manage its own books, its own finances, why on earth would an investor want to come to B.C. and work under that kind of mismanagement? They wouldn't, and they're not going to. We know that in large part, government taxes, regulations and unbalanced labour laws have a lot to do with investor confidence, with investors coming to B.C. or not coming to B.C., and with businesses either surviving or not surviving in B.C. We have seen a negative business climate, because this government creates an unfriendly business atmosphere. It creates a very unfriendly business climate.

More people are leaving B.C. than are coming here, and we read about it all the time. In fact, I picked up my copy of the Province on Sunday. What was the headline? "Why More B.C. Families Are Fleeing to Alberta." The members opposite might want to stick their heads in the sand and say, "No, no, it's not happening," but there were interviews in the paper of families and people saying exactly why they were leaving. In fact, the subheading says: "Plenty of jobs, cheaper homes, lower taxes. . .and it's a lot easier to commute." So they're not only financial but also lifestyle kinds of choices. And you know what? That's a shame, because seven years ago, when we moved to B.C., it was for exactly those kinds of reasons -- lifestyle choices and, we thought, for financial reasons. But you know what? In the seven years that I've lived here -- which happen to be the same seven years those members have been in power -- I have seen the province just go downhill. It's been horrible. We have seen our friends leave, we've seen businesses in our community leave, and we've seen friends go bankrupt. We've seen young people leave their communities.

I think I've said it more than once, but it warrants saying again: I'm not ashamed to say that I'm from Saskatchewan, which is a good place to be from -- that's what everybody says, and I do think it is a good place to be from -- but it was the kind of province where you had to leave home to find a job. I grew up in Saskatchewan knowing that some day I would have to leave the province, because it was one of the poorer provinces. But you know what? Today we see people moving back to Saskatchewan. In fact, we've had friends that have recently moved back to Alberta and Saskatchewan, and they're citing the same kinds of reasons: lower taxes, better quality of life, not as much stress in the lifestyle, cheaper homes. And frankly, they're laughing at us. They're laughing at us here and wondering why we choose to stay: "Why do you choose to stay in a province where you're paying high taxes, where you have a government that doesn't care about business -- where you have a government that doesn't care about a lot of things, actually." When you look at the state of the resource industries, health care, child welfare in this province, it makes you want to give all of them a shake and ask: "What are you doing to this province?"

Last week I said goodbye to one of my workers in my office, a lady that's worked for me for two years. Her husband has struggled for the last five years looking for a job in B.C. He ended up doing one of those fly-in, fly-out jobs -- you know, where you go to the Northwest Territories or the Yukon and live in a camp, and then you fly back. That's what he was doing for a couple of years until a year and a half ago, when he found a job in Alberta. He wasn't going to go there, but he found a job in Alberta. He took his elder daughter with him, and the younger daughter lived at home with the lady who worked in my office. Friday was one of the saddest days I've had in the last few years, because I had to say goodbye to someone who had worked for me. He's got work in Alberta for at least another three years, and they couldn't live with the family torn apart. They all wanted to be together. She is quite confident that she will be able to get a job in Alberta -- in Calgary, as a matter of fact. They have a house in Calgary now, and they were packing up the truck. She said goodbye to me last week. It hits awfully close to home when you see people you know and love, people who work for you, moving away. That really hurts.

He tells me that things are so good in Alberta that when he's. . . . He's in the construction industry, and when he's working on a site, it is so busy that people are scrambling for good workers. He has had contractors come and offer him jobs and up the ante so he'll come work on their sites. That is the kind of competitiveness that's going on in Alberta, the kind of job growth and economic revival that's going on there. People are actually going to other job sites and saying: "Hey, come work for me."

You know what? That reminds me that that's going on a little bit here in British Columbia. I recall a newspaper story and a story that BCTV did about a month ago on recruiters coming to Campbell River, and they said they had lots of jobs. They were recruiters from the oil and gas industry coming to Campbell River for two days, and they thought that maybe they might get a few workers out of this. Over 100 people showed up each night. They were absolutely amazed. But the amazing part is that the recruiters were from Alberta. They were coming to B.C. and trying to get good people to come to Alberta to work, because Alberta has a problem. Alberta has a problem that I think everyone in this House and everyone in B.C. wishes B.C. had. Alberta has too many jobs. Can you imagine that? It has too many jobs and not enough workers. They're coming here now and taking away our good, skilled workers, because our workers here don't have jobs. They need to provide for families and make sure they can make ends meet.

Unfortunately, some of those families are going to be in the same position that the family of the lady who worked for me was in. They don't have homes they can uproot. Their children will probably be going to school in the little community of Campbell River while Dad goes and works for long periods of time in Alberta, probably, and commutes home very, very rarely. I know how stressful and how hard it was on the family that I knew intimately, so I can just imagine what that kind of situation will do to families in these little commu-

[ Page 9937 ]

[7:15]

What this amendment proposes to do is to decline second reading of this bill and basically stop the government from doing any further damage to B.C. I keep hearing the Labour minister saying: "No one's proved that this is going to do any damage to B.C. No one's proved that it is going to damage the economy." How can he possibly know that? He hasn't done any studies. He hasn't done an economic impact study to see if this bill will indeed damage the economy, and that should be his responsibility. He shouldn't say: "Prove to me that it will damage the economy." He should have to prove to everyone else that it won't damage the economy. That is the responsibility of the minister when he brings in legislation as controversial as this one. That is his responsibility.

It's interesting, because his own chamber of commerce. . . . Again, the Labour minister says that opponents have told him that the code is bad for investment and the business climate, but they haven't proved this. His own chamber president in Nanaimo said that the Labour minister hasn't proved that it's good for the economy. He said, again -- and as chambers across the province reiterate -- that it's this minister's responsibility to do an impact study; it's imperative that the study be done. Business leaders and job creators across the province are telling this government that this bill is going to affect the cost of doing business and that it will foster more unionization of small business. Frankly, small businesses are saying that they can't afford it. Small businesses are saying that they would move, as the young gentleman whose letter I read said he would move, rather than stay here and watch his business go downhill. Small and medium-sized businesses and job creators are also saying that this bill will take away not only employers' rights but workers' rights. It will kill jobs and it will kill investment. That is what they're saying to the minister, but he chooses not to listen, and it's a shame.

Now, I know, hon. Speaker, that you've seen the ads in the paper too. Businesses are doing everything they can to try to get this government's attention. It's amazing what they'll do, the extraordinary steps they are taking. We're not just talking about one or two businesses; we're talking about some of the major, major business groups in the province. When I read the letters to the Premier that I'm getting copies of -- business leaders are writing to the Premier and sending us copies of the letters -- it's amazing who the letters are coming from. They're coming from accountants; they're coming from banks; they're coming from chambers; they're coming from little mom-and-pop shops. The kind of response that this bill has got from the people who actually create the jobs in the province is absolutely incredible.

When I see the ads in the paper, I wonder why. . . . What is it going to take? Why doesn't this government listen? What's it going to take for them to pull back and give this a second look? What we know is that the economy is worse this year than last year, and last year we had Bill 44. We saw the kind of negative impact it had on the business community, and we know that the business community this year, looking at the economic climate in the province, is just as frightened with what is in Bill 26. When this minister says that this is just a modest bill, just modest changes. . . . Well, we've seen what they mean by modest in the past. They said the same thing about the gambling expansion, and we know that it was a massive gambling expansion. We know that. We saw what they meant by modest changes to the ICBC product, and that was their no-fault insurance. And you know what? The community, British Columbians and groups across the province, had to rise to defeat that.

When we hear the word "modest" used by the socialists, we know it's not modest at all. We know that. We know that it takes an incredible fight to beat it back into its place and ask the government to take a second look at it. That's what had to happen last year with Bill 44, and unfortunately, because it seems to me that these socialists don't seem to learn -- they don't listen -- it's happening again. It is taking an incredible fight from the business community and from groups opposed to these changes across the province to try and get the message through to the government. I think it's sad.

I'm looking at the kinds of groups that are rising up and saying: "Listen, the economy's not in good shape. We're the ones that create jobs. We're the ones that look for the investment for our businesses in this province. We are not getting the kind of investment we need. We're the ones that can pack up and leave, thank you very much." And they can. You know, we have to find ways to keep people in B.C. If we keep the job creators in B.C., they will create jobs, and there will be work for workers.

This government says that this bill is good for workers. What good is it for workers if the workers won't be able to find a job after they pass the bill? That is the concern: that there will not be work for those workers after the bill is passed.

The government also says that this bill will not influence any changes in the residential construction industry. But you know what? I can't tell you how many letters I've got from construction firms that say that's not so, that it will affect residential construction. I know for a fact, as I've mentioned before, that my own office is commercial on the lower level and residential on the top. I don't know how you separate the two. Do you have a certain group of workers working on the lower level, and then you punt them out and say: "Okay, now the residential ones come and build the top"? Well, I don't think so; I don't think that's the way it works. We know that there are going to be changes. The bill is going to influence changes to the residential construction industry. I'm just overwhelmed by the fact that the government doesn't listen. I'm sure the Premier and the members opposite probably have ten times as much mail as I've got. I know I have already got boxes of it in my office in Kelowna.

When I think of what it's going to do to unemployment. . . . We know -- and we've heard it from other speakers -- that the unemployment rate is incredibly high. The unemployment rate right now in B.C. is higher than the national average. When we look at all the factors that come into play in trying to keep people at work and bring in investment and keep businesses going in the province, we know that the unemployment rate is one of them. Who's going to come and invest and stay here when that rate is that high?

Certainly we see a lot of young people leaving. I read that in the papers every day. On Sunday there was a story about young people leaving as well. We know that the youth unem-

[ Page 9938 ]

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon tells me it's 22.9 percent. Well, that is shameful! I don't know what other word to use. That is shameful; that is nothing to be proud of.

We know that private sector investment is the fuel that drives an economy. We've learned in the last seven years that it's not the government that creates jobs and that it's certainly not the government that's attracting businesses to come and invest here. We know that. Somehow in the last seven years people have survived, and I think they've done it in spite of the government. We know that the government has imposed many, many hardships and handicaps on business. Frankly, we've heard them squeal: "Enough is enough." Now we're hearing them scream: "Stop!" Frankly, a lot of them have spoken with their feet. Many of them have moved out of the province; many of them have taken that walk across the border, either down to Washington or over to Alberta.

Frankly, we're almost the laughingstock of Alberta. I went there for Mother's Day. I went to a wedding on Saturday night, and one of the gentlemen I met there -- I hadn't seen him for a few years -- said: "You're elected in B.C., aren't you?" I said: "Yes, I am." He said: "With all due respect, we really like your government there, and we hope it stays." I said: "You do?" He said: "Yes, it's the best thing to happen to Alberta." It was a big joke at the wedding that night. The best thing to happen to Alberta is that this Premier got elected in B.C. In fact, the joke of the evening was that Alberta should name this Premier as Alberta's man of the year because he has done more to create jobs in Alberta and drive investment out of B.C. and into Alberta than perhaps Albertans could have done themselves. I don't think we can be very proud of that kind of information when we go across the border.

We need a healthy business climate if we're going to be successful here, if jobs are going to be maintained and if jobs and businesses are going to stay in B.C. We know that there are many issues facing small business. It's hard enough to get started in the first place. But the last thing you need is the government to make it even harder for you. We know in this province that business is not the enemy. In fact, business is what helps drive the economy here. The small and medium-sized businesses are the job creators in this province. But you wouldn't know it from this government -- you sure wouldn't -- because of the kinds of burdens they impose: the kinds of taxes, the kinds of regulations and the inflexible, unbalanced labour laws.

Now they're trying to tip the balance again. I don't think that is good for B.C. I can tell you that the majority of people in British Columbia are worried about the economy and about jobs. They don't feel it's best at this time to be doing that, either. I think that if this bill doesn't get second reading -- and I hope every one of the members across the way will stand up and support this amendment -- it will send a good message to British Columbians. It will send a positive message to the business community and the investment community that this government is going to listen -- that they are willing to put this bill aside and actually listen to British Columbians. So I will be voting for the amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Just before I recognize the next member, the Chair needs to remind members in regard to the standing orders on repetition. Hon. members, repeating one's own arguments and those of others leads to much repetition of debate. So members should respect the House's decision to move on, to come to a decision on this debate and exclude discussion that doesn't contribute to that process.

M. Coell: I can say that it's with some regret that I have to stand tonight and speak again on Bill 26 and the motion put forward by the member for Matsqui not to proceed with this bill -- that it shouldn't be given second reading. I had first planned, as a matter of fact, to go over some of the arguments I had made previously that weren't successful in getting the government to have second thoughts. I had tried to get the Finance minister and members of government to change their minds and vote against this bill or withdraw it. Those arguments weren't successful.

So I'm going to try a different tack tonight, a tack that may drive home some of the problems the government is forced to face with this bill. I think one of the things. . . . Hon. Speaker, you may remember the debate around the neutron bomb, the bomb that just killed citizens and left buildings standing. What's happened here is that this piece of legislation is part of the bomb. The bomb is being built by the NDP government, the socialist government here in Victoria. They're building a bomb bit by bit. They started with high taxes, then with labour legislation. They started with basically badmouthing anyone who wanted to come and start a business in British Columbia -- red tape, more labour legislation.

[7:30]

I look at the forest industry, the fishing industry, the mining industry, the civil service -- all union jobs -- devastated by this government. Do they stop; do they reflect; do they think that maybe we're hurting the people we purport to represent? I don't see that reflection; I don't see it at all. It's just more of the same: grind out the same legislation; grind out the same thought.

Mr. Speaker, this government may be incapable of changing direction. And that may be the best thing that happens to this province: that the government is incapable of changing their thoughts and their direction, their manner of bringing budgets forward -- or not forward -- their manner of bringing legislation forward, their manner of respect for the Legislature. That may be how they're going to continue for the next months, year, and that may be the best thing that happens to this province, because the province will throw them out on their ears. The people of this province will throw them out on their ears, because they're not flexible. Flexibility is the key to the future of job creation in this province -- flexibility to find out what works and to put it into action. If something doesn't work, get rid of it quickly.

That brings me to what I want to centre in on: the flexibility to throw things out that aren't working. We had a budget that goes along quite neatly with Bill 26 in that it basically acknowledged some problems. It didn't acknowl-

[ Page 9939 ]

Well, they must think that people who start businesses -- whether it's individuals or corporations, small or large -- don't read, don't pay any attention. One of the first things that people who invest in places like British Columbia do is read. They read to see what climate they would be investing in. When they see a government that acknowledged. . . . They were told that maybe there are some problems, and they acknowledged it by doing -- nothing? In order to get this economy back on track, you need to act and act quickly, not act three years from now. That will only create more unemployment; it will only create more companies moving to Alberta and Saskatchewan. You know, it used that we were just saying that they were moving to Alberta. Now it's to Saskatchewan; now it's to Ontario. They're moving anywhere in North America except B.C.; that is probably the simplest way of putting it.

Government needs to act, and it doesn't need Bill 26. The bill itself, once enacted, becomes part of a bomb dropped on union workers. That's what this bill will do: more of the same out of government and less action to stimulate the jobs that are needed. I think, hon. Speaker, you've heard me mention a couple of times that the idea of creating jobs is that you create jobs. Whether they're union or non-union will be determined through a process that's laid out in labour legislation, but you have to create the jobs. You have to create union and non-union jobs. You just create jobs. This government is incapable of doing that, because it isn't flexible.

It isn't flexible, and this legislation proves that. As I say, it's the last piece of a neutron bomb dropped specifically on union workers. What's going to happen is that jobs won't be created; buildings won't be built; factories won't be opened; expansions of businesses won't happen. Do you know what that means? That means people out of work. It means union people out of work. And this government doesn't care; this government doesn't act. It won't create the climate that will create the jobs. It isn't flexible. It doesn't see the problems and doesn't correct the problems. You can't just click your heels and go back to Kansas. You've got to be realistic; you've got to make some changes. This bill furthers the commitment to centralized, socialized, sanitized government. But what's needed is flexibility; what's needed is change. What's needed is a realistic plan that will create jobs.

I want to outline a few of those changes that this bill doesn't address. In the budget we had tax cuts -- little tiny wee tax cuts that were seen as a joke this year and didn't take effect for three years. But the legislation must happen this year, without discussion, without any input from industry, without any input from the people who create the jobs -- the good-paying union jobs. They didn't talk to those people.

Government increases red tape daily. We have environmental legislation coming through, increasing red tape. We have labour legislation coming through, increasing red tape. But this bill has to go through. What's important to the government -- doing what's necessary to create jobs, or this labour legislation? I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's this labour legislation. Delivering truth in budgeting, bringing in a balanced budget. . . ? No, the government didn't do that. As a matter of fact, we're just about to find out how many hundreds of millions of dollars the government is out on their own budget after the second quarter, which is just coming to an end. It's a coincidence that government would want to debate this legislation before looking at the second quarter financial results. I think all of us are going to be shocked at the mismanagement this government has dealt the people of British Columbia. But this bill has to come first, before looking at the financial state of this province.

Dealing with your debt. This government has had three sort of laughable attempts at legislation to deal with their debt, but they can't. But this piece of legislation has to go through before balanced budget legislation. We had a lovely article in the Wall Street Journal talking about B.C.'s disastrous government and the disastrous job they've done of managing the economy, but this piece of legislation has to go through this week. The government still doesn't balance its books, doesn't pay its debt, hasn't eliminated red tape and hasn't cut taxes, but this bill is so important to them that it has to go through. All these other things that are important to job creation -- to union job creation, to people who will work in this province -- are not important to the government, but a labour bill, part of a bomb. . . . Build that bomb, and drop it on the employees and the workers of this province.

One of the things that would help is balanced labour legislation that is predictable year after year. When someone invests -- whether it be one person, a small business or a large business -- they want to know what the labour climate is going to be for ten years or for five years -- for two years maybe. Every year there are changes to the labour legislation. This is just chapter 1 of Bill 44. Someone looking at B.C. would say: "Well, I can't predict what the labour legislation is going to change next year, and I honestly don't think taxes are going down, so I'm not going to invest." So more jobs are lost. This bill doesn't just represent the bill that you see before you; it represents this government's continued encroachment on entrepreneurs, free enterprise and jobs. And for me, entrepreneurs and jobs are one and the same. They're both equally important and both equally to be respected. An entrepreneur can't generate that third or fourth job if the first two jobs don't materialize in the first place, and without all of these things that set the climate for job creation, we have unemployment.

In my opinion, we have an embarrassing situation for the young people of this province. I don't know how any member of the government -- especially the cabinet -- can look at the 20 percent unemployment for youth of this province. Twenty percent of youth 17 to 24 are unemployed in this province. What is the government doing about that? I'll tell you what they're doing. They're bringing in more legislation that will hurt those people. They won't even give them a chance to lose their job; with this government, they'll never get a job in this province. I think we all know that that is not, and will not be, acceptable to the Liberal opposition. Our first job is to create jobs and put that group of 20 percent of unemployed youth back to work. They deserve it. They deserve this government's attention first. They may not be card-carrying members of the NDP or whatever card they wish them to carry. They're unemployed, and they haven't had a job, and this government brings in this bill, which will further drive down their chances of working in this province. They'll end up moving out of this province. What a loss! We're already losing talent and education out of this province, but what a loss, to lose the youth of this province. They give up on the NDP government, they give up on socialism and they leave this province.

[ Page 9940 ]

But Bill 26, a guaranteed job-creator? This is a guaranteed job-killer. This is the neutron bomb. It's going to kill jobs and leave buildings intact, with the wind blowing through them. And this government doesn't care.

[7:45]

M. Coell: You know, some of the members on the other side get a little testy when you hit close to home, when they know that their government is keeping their kids from ever having a job. They know their government is just training the workers for Alberta. They know that this is a disastrous government for job creation, and they bring in Bill 26 to add to it. It's amazing to me that a government could think that a piece of legislation like this, coupled with all of the problems they're having, is going to create a job. Who are they listening to? Or are they listening to themselves? Maybe they just get in a little tight room and talk to themselves. Maybe this is the sort of idea they come up with for job creation.

We had a budget; we've had legislation. . . . You know, we've lost jobs since the budget came down. They killed jobs in this province, and they haven't even passed the legislation yet. They're all pumped up because as soon as they get this legislation, there are going to be job losses. Can you imagine that, hon. Speaker? Job losses. People are going to say: "I don't think I'll build that building." That's what this government is expecting. I've got to tell you, hon. Speaker, that some of these members aren't quite as strong in the corridors as they are in this House in front of their Premier. There are a lot of people on that side of the House who would like nothing better than for this piece of legislation to fail.

An Hon. Member: No.

M. Coell: Yes.

An Hon. Member: Then why don't they vote that way?

M. Coell: Well, there's a reason for that. It's because some of the folks on the other side -- the socialists -- do know that business is a generator of jobs. It must be innate in some of them. They know that business is a generator of jobs and that governments don't generate jobs.

An Hon. Member: So why don't they vote that way?

M. Coell: Well, I think they're probably going to vacate their chairs. That's a way of sending a message to cabinet that all's not well in NDP land, when you can't get your legislation through and the House is in disarray and your members feel that possibly they've gone down the wrong yellow brick road.

I want to touch on a couple of issues that I think may bring it home. I know that we're in a last ditch effort here to try and convince government. We know that government is intent on this legislation. I guess the reason we as opposition are spending so much time trying to convince government that they've made a mistake. . . . I think many of my colleagues have shown seven years of horrendous mistakes, just saying: "Hey, this is the last. . . . You can't afford to do this. You can't afford to cut any more jobs in this province." But those in cabinet don't seem to care. I know the back bench is a little different; they're starting to think.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Maybe they're starting to look for jobs, one of my colleagues says, and they will be.

An Hon. Member: Three more years.

M. Coell: Three more years, the member cries out. I wonder. . . .

Interjections.

M. Coell: Yeah, it's starting to resonate from the other side: three more years. Can you imagine how much damage this government can do in three more years? There won't be a soul left here. It will be "The last one out, turn out the lights" in British Columbia. There won't be a job left in this province if we let these guys have three more years -- not a thing. It will be: "The last one out, turn out the lights." The Minister of Health will be the last one out, and she'll turn off the lights -- and the Minister of Education.

Interjection.

M. Coell: The lights are out.

I don't think we can show this government how serious we are about this bill putting people out of work, that it doesn't put any life into the economy.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, I've got one backbencher coming over to our side. Are there more?

Interjection.

M. Coell: Ah, that's music to my ears. There's room for some of those members on this side. We've got the Reformers on our side. We'd like to have some of you, because when you're elected government, you're supposed to represent all the people. We've got room for a couple of you over here too. When we're the government, we'll be representing 100 percent of the people in this province -- not 35 percent, like this government. This government only represents a very small group of people in this province, and they don't do that very well. They're putting all of them out of work. We've got to start having a government that represents all the people in this province, and this government clearly doesn't represent all the people in the province.

This bill shows they don't even understand what the province needs. They don't even understand how much. . . .

[ Page 9941 ]

M. Coell: I enjoy the heckling, but it's not making any sense. It's babbling, not heckling, over there. If they would heckle properly, it would be more beneficial to all of us, but babbling and drooling doesn't help.

This government, with this bill, is killing jobs. . . .

Interjection.

M. Coell: The member says that that's 33 times I've said this bill is killing jobs. If I have to say it a hundred times, will you listen? For some of these people, you have to say it a hundred times for it to sink in.

This government will go down in history in this province as chasing more jobs out of this province than any other government in the history of British Columbia. And they're going to be chasing them out for the next three years. As the hon. member said, "We're here for three years," to chase the jobs out. The scary thing is that I believe that member. This government is going to chase every job out of the province. And you know what? A very big percentage of them are going to be the union jobs that you purport to represent, and that should hurt, because it's hurting a lot of families in this province. It's hurting a lot of individuals, and it's hurting a lot of young people in this province.

An Hon. Member: What do you care about union families?

M. Coell: Everything.

I don't know whether this government doesn't care. . . . This government doesn't care about union families. This government does not care about businesses. It does not care about young people. It has proved it every day, and it's proving it today with Bill 26. This is an "I don't care" bill. This is an "I'll put you out of work" bill. This is a "we don't want you in our province" bill. This is a bill that throws the entrepreneurs out, throws the union workers out, throws the non-union workers out. This bill doesn't work, and the members are intent on crushing this province -- as the last great socialist experiment in North America, I suspect.

Interjection.

M. Coell: The member says "the world." Their Whip says the world, and I believe him.

We've seen this government's experiments. The last little bill kind of puts the nail in the coffin for me. It should for the government too. I know it does, I know they. . . . They're misguided, and they're saying: "We have to do this. It's all we know. We don't know how to change. We don't know how to be flexible. We don't know how to create jobs. We can create legislation." They're great at creating legislation, except it doesn't work half the time because the real world -- the global economy, flexibility, entrepreneurship and partnership with business and labour -- is not part of their agenda. That's not part of their way of thinking. We just keep going down this tunnel, and at the end of the tunnel, I don't know. . . . NDP nirvana? Everyone out of work? Everyone just sitting around looking at one another? But, you know, at the end of the day, we don't have a balanced budget, we don't have a debt management plan, we've have the highest unemployment rate in the country, we have more unemployed teens in this province than anyplace in the country. We've got a government that hates business, a government that's showing with this bill that they hate labour, a government that doesn't want anyone to get ahead, doesn't want to give the young people of this province or the unemployed a chance and a government that will continue down this road until they're satisfied that they've killed this province.

But I can tell you that this opposition is not going to let this happen. Every chance we get, we'll speak out against legislation like this and a government that doesn't care about the workers of this province, doesn't care about job creation in this province and doesn't even know how to create a job -- doesn't have a clue. But they can use FRBC funds to create a job for a friend, to create one job. They should be proud: during their term they've created one job. They've used taxpayers' money to give it to a friend.

[8:00]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Hansen: Earlier today, my colleague the member for Matsqui moved an amendment to second reading of Bill 26. The amendment reads as follows: "The House declines to give second reading to Bill 26 for the reason that the bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." I know that there is a tradition in this House that prescribes the format for the kinds of amendments that have to be put. Certainly this is one of the formats. It's not something that we in the opposition can make up. We can't create a whole new amendment. It's fairly tightly scripted.

We can move an amendment to hoist it for six months. We did that and tried to get support from the government side to take a look at this thing for six months. We put an amendment forward to send it to committee. There, the prescribed format is that we can fill in the committee that would be most appropriate; in this case we felt it was a committee on economic development. Again, this would have been a good opportunity for this House to look at some of the problems that are associated with Bill 26.

The third amendment that is allowed under our rules is, of course, the motion that we put forward which says the bill should not be read a second time for a particular reason. We have set out today -- my colleague from Matsqui -- the reason: ". . .further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy."

But it's interesting that another way of putting that same motion was one that was put forward by the NDP in a debate on Bill 19 in 1987. It's actually interesting. Mike Harcourt was the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain at the time, I believe. He put forward an amendment to second reading of Bill 19. The reasons that he put in that case are applicable today and applicable to the motion that we have in front of us.

In that standard format of inserting reasons why a bill should not be moved a second time, he moved this amendment to second reading: ". . .for the reasons that it is contrary to the interests of democracy and our traditions of free collective bargaining. . . ." Now, I find that interesting. We could have moved that exact same motion today, hon. Speaker. But

[ Page 9942 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Bill 26 is a bill that imposes master collective agreements. It doesn't allow for individual groups of workers who form a union on their worksite to go out and negotiate a collective agreement that meets their needs. Instead, what we have is legislation that flies in the face of that principle, one of the underlying principles of free collective bargaining, by saying: "Fine. If you are unionized, if you are certified at your workplace, no secret ballot." There's no demonstration that that is in fact the wishes or the will of that group of workers. But what they're also doing with this legislation is saying that not only do they not have democracy in the workplace and the democratic right to vote in a secret ballot for the trade union of their choice but also that Bill 26 denies them their right to be part of a process of free collective bargaining. Bill 26 denies them the right, as a trade union, to sit down and negotiate an arrangement with their employer that will reflect their interests and allow for the long-term security of their jobs.

It's interesting that the former leader of the NDP certainly recognized that. Actually, if Mike Harcourt were still a member of this chamber today, I question whether he would vote for Bill 26, because of the motion that he put forward in 1987 where he talked about Bill 19 being "contrary to the interests of democracy and our traditions of free collective bargaining."

It is clear that democracy is going out the window. Democracy is no longer a part of the trade union movement in British Columbia when it comes to the right of workers to have that secret ballot. As I will point out later, there are other areas that are being brought in where they are saying that there has to be a secret ballot, and there has to be a vote of workers. The hypocrisy in there is interesting, because they want to give the right for secret ballots in some very limited areas that serve their interests, but they don't want to give secret ballot votes in other areas. That's blatantly undemocratic and blatantly flies in the face of the principles of free collective bargaining.

I know there are members opposite who were very much part of the trade union movement before they were elected to this chamber. I would like to see them stand up in this chamber during this debate on this amendment. I would like to see them stand up and defend Bill 26 as a tool that does not jeopardize collective bargaining. I would like to have any one of them stand up during this amendment debate and explain to the chamber where the democracy is in Bill 26. Where's the democracy for the workers?

Secondly, I'd like to see them stand up and talk about the right for free collective bargaining. I'd like to see them dig out some of those speeches that were given by NDP members when they were in the opposition benches. I'd like to see them stand up and deliver the same wonderful, principled views on collective bargaining and then defend those same views today in terms of Bill 26. That's clearly not what Bill 26 will achieve. It is the opposite of democracy; it is the opposite of free collective bargaining.

Last year we had a bill presented to this Legislature called Bill 44, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1997. Of course, there was a great outcry at the damage that it was going to do to workers in British Columbia and to our economy generally. At the time, it was said that Bill 44 was going to drive jobs out of the province. Even after the Premier and the then Minister of Labour announced that Bill 44 was not going to be proceeded with, those that create jobs in the construction industry in this province said: "That's not good enough." They said: "It's not good enough for this Premier to stand up and say that they're not going to go ahead with Bill 44 because they want to consult."

What was needed, hon. Speaker, was for someone to stand up at the time, either the Minister of Labour or the Premier, and say that nothing in Bill 44 would be proceeded with. It was said at the time by those in the construction industry that anything short of that was going to cause the continued erosion of confidence in our economy, of their ability to create jobs. Because at that time, during that Bill 44 discussion or debate, it was clearly pointed out that it would drive jobs out of the economy.

When the Premier stood up and said they weren't going to proceed with Bill 44, what he said was that it was not because it was bad legislation. In fact, he said he thought that it was very good legislation, that he agreed with everything in it, or words to that effect, and that the only thing he would admit to was that they had proceeded with Bill 44 without adequate consultation. So they went out to do the consultation. But all of the other signals that came out of this government were that they thought Bill 44 was good. They were going off to do the consultation, and then they were going to bring back something similar. That's exactly what we've seen happen with Bill 26.

But last Friday, which I believe was July 10, the latest labour force survey came out -- here is the indictment of this government's record and the effect of Bill 44 last year, because there are some interesting numbers in that survey. One, for example, is that they talk about the job employment levels. They refer to how employment levels in British Columbia are 5,000 jobs below what they were even in August of last year. But this is a summary of the labour force survey that comes out of HRDC. It's interesting, what they say about the construction sector. June of 1997 was the month that Bill 44 was brought in. Now we have the numbers, through the labour force survey, comparing June of last year to June of this year in the construction sector. That's 12 months for the effects of Bill 44 to do their damage on the economy.

Do you know what those results, those statistics, show? They show that the construction sector in British Columbia lost 9,000 jobs between June of last year and June of this year. The government had an opportunity to do something about that, to do something last July when Bill 44 was pulled off the agenda. They had the opportunity to stand up then and say they would not proceed with sectoral bargaining or any other form of master collective agreement with the construction sector. They could have put a lot of those fears to rest. As a result of that one announcement that they could have made, there would have been construction projects that would have gone ahead in this province. Instead, they failed to do that.

Now we are paying the price for that. What we are seeing is 9,000 jobs lost in the space of one year. But this isn't just a

[ Page 9943 ]

You know, we can look at the construction industry. As we all know, construction isn't year-round employment. I think in most full-time jobs you wind up with about 220 days of employment per year. In the construction industry, most people don't see 220 days of employment. So it's not a case of us saying that there are 9,000 people in total that have lost their jobs. We're only taking one little snapshot of one month last year and one month this year, and they are 9,000 fewer positions.

I think that the Premier of this province should address those 9,000 people with an apology for destroying the economy of this province and destroying the job-creating ability of the construction industry with Bill 44, and an apology for bringing in Bill 26, which basically cements the pessimism that was started with Bill 44. On Friday, I was talking about some of the reality checks that we have to get when it comes to jobs. The reality checks happen when we have stats like that coming in, and that's the sad part.

When I last had the opportunity to speak on Bill 26, I was talking about a report that was commissioned by this Minister of Labour by a Dr. Joseph Rose from Hamilton, Ontario. I questioned why this government had to go to Ontario to find an academic who was prepared to comment on Bill 26, an academic whose sympathies they obviously must have known, and known the kind of report he would come back with. It's interesting that they would not go to some of the respected economists we have in British Columbia today to do a précis of Bill 26.

We've talked before about the fact that there has been no economic impact study done. Well, there has been some work done by economists in British Columbia on what's in this legislation, and I can understand now why this government had to go to Ontario to find somebody to give them a favourable review. What I think is clear is that economists in British Columbia, who are in touch with the day-to-day realities of the B.C. economy and in touch with the realities of the construction industry in this province, are probably unlikely to give the government the same kind of favourable review that they got from Professor Rose writing from his desk in Hamilton.

One of those respected economists in British Columbia is Dr. Roslyn Kunin. I know that the government has very high regard for the work of Dr. Kunin, and I've in fact heard her work being quoted on other occasions by government ministers and government members to justify certain initiatives they have taken in the past. Dr. Roslyn Kunin is certainly not somebody who's on the right side of the political spectrum. She is somebody who is respected, I think, by all parties. She has also done a review of Dr. Rose's report, and I think the response we have from a British Columbia economist on the work that Dr. Rose did is quite interesting.

[8:15]

I think this is directly relevant to Bill 26, because what they're bringing in. . . . Granted, other provinces may have some forms of master agreements or some form of sectoral bargaining, but not in the form Bill 26 has come in. As Dr. Kunin points out, we have a unique construction industry in this province compared to others in that our construction industry is not that much different from other sectors of our economy. Perhaps in other provinces the construction industry is so radically different from other areas of the economy that they need separate legislation, but, as Dr. Kunin points out, with the kinds of structures we have, this is becoming less unique over time and more like the rest of our economy.

She notes: "These factors make it harder to argue that construction needs its own set of rules." That's what Bill 26 is. Bill 26 is putting in place a whole new section of the Labour Code that deals specifically with the construction sector. What we are seeing is a construction sector that is becoming more and more like the rest of our economy. The only thing that was unique about our construction sector are these jurisdictional lines we have, which are a diminishing part of our construction industry today. Our construction industry is generally becoming more like the traditional industrial-style unions. So she questions the need for this separate set of rules.

She goes on to talk about Dr. Rose's support for the expanded roles of the Construction Labour Relations Association and the bargaining council for the building trades unions. She points out that Dr. Rose completely ignores the plight of small and medium-sized companies when it comes to being part of this sectoral bargaining approach to collective agreements. She points out that the voices and the interests of these smaller companies will be swamped by larger organizations. She says that it is the small and medium-sized enterprises, not the large firms, that have been responsible for net job creation since the 1980s recession.

When it comes to jobs, we have seen the decline in jobs. As Dr. Kunin points out, it's not the big firms that have been driving job creation in British Columbia, but it's the small and medium-sized firms. What we're doing with Bill 26 is taking their interests and lumping them in with all of the other employers -- some of them very big employers -- within construction labour relations. When it comes to the interests of our economy today, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that are driving the interests of our economy. It is the small and medium-sized enterprises that are producing the job creation in this province. What we have in Bill 26 is a slap in the face to those companies. What we're saying to those small companies that have been creating jobs is: "Now your interests are going to get lumped in with the interests of everybody else. You can no longer be competitive with other companies and the big companies. You're going to get lumped into the same bucket as everybody else." With it, I fear, is going to be a lot of the initiative that resulted in what little job creation we've seen in this province.

Dr. Kunin goes on to comment on Dr. Rose's study, pointing out that he fails to recognize the weakness of our provincial economy. Something the B.C. Liberal members of this assembly have been talking about consistently is the fact that you can't compare what's been happening in other

[ Page 9944 ]

Dr. Kunin goes on to point out that most construction projects barely break even, and even a marginal rise in labour costs could mean that projects would not proceed. But I will talk about this a bit more later in terms of the very narrow margin of profitability there is in construction today. So when you start looking at Bill 26 and the increased costs that are going to be imposed on companies, all it takes is a very small increase in costs to turn companies from basically being in a position of not making any money into a position of losing money in this province.

She notes that there was a survey conducted last spring of construction employers, and it's interesting that there were only 20 percent who were not considering leaving the province. Can you believe that? Of the construction firms surveyed, only 20 percent were not considering leaving British Columbia. Fully four out of five companies in this survey were thinking about -- or were, in fact -- acting upon initiatives to go to other jurisdictions.

Let me just wrap up Dr. Kunin's comments here when she talks about her conclusion. "In conclusion, Rose's comments do not appear to take into account either employers' concerns or the current serious economic situation in British Columbia. Had he done so, his opinion of the report and subsequent proposed legislation may well have been less favourable." We have an academic from Ontario, who this government went to find. It went out of the province to find somebody. His report has not only been repudiated by me in the House last week but has been repudiated by one of the leading economists in this province.

I thought it was appropriate to look further at some of the views of Dr. Kunin, who is very widely respected, so I went back to get a report that Dr. Kunin had prepared on sectoral bargaining in the construction industry. This is a report that was prepared this year. In fact, it was April 20.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: I know that the Minister of Finance is asking me what date: April 20, 1998. I know that the members are going to point out that this was before Bill 26 was introduced, but it was based on. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, we know it's relevant.

C. Hansen: The minister says that it's relevant, and it is relevant, as I will point out. If she listens, she will, I'm sure, learn something.

When Bill 26 was introduced, they picked up basically the same wording that was in the Kelleher-Lanyon report. I think most people in the industry felt that there would be a much watered-down Bill 26. We know that this government had debts to pay when it came to their relationship with the building trades unions in British Columbia -- the union bosses in the building trades and in the B.C. Federation of Labour. We knew that there was a debt to pay and that they had made the promise that they would amend the Labour Code. But they did not have to bring in the measures that were in that construction industry review panel report. They didn't have to bring in that draft legislation. They could have brought in something that would not have damaged the economy so badly. They could have brought in something so they could have said that they'd delivered on their promise but which, at the same time, didn't do the damage to the economy that Bill 26 does.

The report of the construction industry review panel clearly said that they didn't think that this should necessarily be brought in at a time when the economy was the way it was. They questioned that -- wisely so, I would say. When Dr. Kunin prepared this report, it was prepared in the context of the draft legislation that was in that review panel, so it's totally relevant to the issue that's before us today.

The way this report was approached was that Dr. Kunin and others who worked with her approached employers in the construction sector. They were careful to select a broad range of employers -- both craft unionized and non-unionized employers, as well as employers that were unionized with other unions that used the standard industrial model, not the craft model. While they recognized that it is not the kind of survey where they can make empirical claims that will represent all construction employers, they have been very careful to make sure that it is at least representative.

They asked, in their research. . . . They started out by asking this very basic question: what is the estimated range of labour cost change that sectoral bargaining will bring to the construction industry? They used an example of a construction project. Let's say that the example they started out using was a $10 million project in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector -- which is the sector that Bill 26 hits directly. Look at that $10 million project, which of course will include the cost of land and all of the other costs that will go along with a project of that nature -- typically, about 25 percent are the actual construction costs. In the case of a $10 million project, your actual construction costs would be about $2.5 million. What their research shows is that of this, typically about 45 percent would go into the cost of labour. They raised the point that if this labour cost was subjected to a 20 percent increase in worker pay and benefits as a result of a master collective agreement being imposed, or as a result of this sectoral bargaining being imposed, that would increase the cost of that one project by about $225,000. Just stop and think about that. Here we have $225,000 applied against a total construction cost of $2.5 million. That is almost 10 percent.

I can appreciate that the math is difficult for this government, because I know they have difficulty with other numbers, but here we have a noted economist saying that, to construction, the added cost of sectoral bargaining and imposed master collective agreements would be almost 10 percent of the construction cost. When you're talking about an industry that has margins as small as they are, that's the difference between projects going ahead and projects going down the tubes. That's the difference between jobs being created and jobs not being created. That's the difference between projects that are going to get built in this province. On that $10 million project, it's the difference between whether that project is going to be built in this province or in some other province.

[ Page 9945 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . . To the member who has the floor at the moment, the red light is now on.

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, I am the designated speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

C. Hansen: Thank you. I was just getting warmed up.

There are seven points that Dr. Kunin came up with. I'll read them, and then I'll try to explain them in a bit more detail so that the members opposite can understand some of the implications of Bill 26. I think what's important here, as they listen to some of this report, is that we know they didn't do an economic impact study, which they should have done before this bill was brought in. If they had done that economic study, I don't think they would have ever brought in this legislation. But here we have a noted British Columbia economist who has done some economic research on the implications of what's in Bill 26.

The message that it shows is not a positive one for Bill 26. The message is the reasons why they should pull Bill 26 before it has the opportunity to do the damage to the economy that we know will happen. The first one is "the inability to 'contain' sectoral bargaining," which I mentioned earlier. The second one is the "disruptive, negative changes to labour-management relations" in the province that it will have. The ramifications are quite serious. It goes beyond just what is in Bill 26. It affects the entire labour relations climate in British Columbia, on which I will get into more detail.

[8:30]

The fifth point, which she refers to as "unclear specifics on how proposed changes will be implemented," is the whole uncertainty of Bill 26 -- the questions that are not answered and are probably as important and as serious as what's actually written in there, the things that we do understand. The things that are not in there and that are not explained are perhaps a bigger concern than what is actually clear. The sixth point is that "the changes add to an already complex situation." Rather than trying to explain that one at this point, I will come back to it later. The seventh point is that the "changes do not address more pressing issues," the more urgent issues in labour management relations, in our economy and in the construction industry per se.

The second overall question that they asked when they put this research together is: how will these risks -- these factors that I've just outlined -- affect overall development project costs, and how will this change in cost affect demand for construction? Demand for construction translates into jobs -- jobs for union workers, craft union workers, traditional union workers and non-union workers in this province. This is how she summarizes the answer to that question. She says: "Without a quantitative figure for the above question, this question too cannot be answered with an exact numerical projected loss to the economy."

Hon. Speaker, the answers aren't there. They can't tell you the damage that this bill will do to the economy of British Columbia. What's interesting is the very next sentence. She says: "The outlook is not positive. . . ." This is one of British Columbia's most respected economists saying that the impact on the economy -- while they can't quantify it exactly, given the research that they were able to do -- is negative. She goes on to say: "Many potential projects will be considered unfeasible or unfinanceable if changes are tabled and passed." She says that a majority of the respondents to the survey -- these are the companies they went out and talked to -- talk about "shifting some resources -- effort, people, capital -- out of the province."

That's a summary of the work that Dr. Kunin did. Those are a few highlights from the "Executive Summary." I wanted to pull some of these particular points apart, because I think the work that Dr. Kunin has done is quite instructive. If the members in the government caucus had, in fact, given a good read to this work, I question whether they would have supported the introduction of Bill 26 in the first place.

As an aside, before I get into some of those arguments, she includes in this report a summary of the kind of capital that we have in construction. She actually breaks down the amount of dollars that is spent on ICI construction -- this industrial, commercial, institutional construction sector. She breaks that out from the rest of the construction industry. She draws on Statistics Canada's numbers, the most recent of which were from 1995. Granted these are a couple of years old, but I don't think they vary that much from at least the percentages that we have today. We know that overall construction investment is down from 1995, but the percentages probably hold true. She points out that in 1995 industrial building construction was $416.8 million, the commercial building sector was $980 million, and the institutional building sector -- which was largely government at that time -- was $987 million.

What we see in total is a little bit under $2.4 billion for this ICI sector that we've been talking about, that Bill 26 is going after. That amounts to just over 25 percent of the construction sector in British Columbia. Bill 26 is going after that sector with the imposition of master collective agreements on every employer that is unionized by a craft union that does any work in the ICI sector. Here we find out that it is almost $2.4 billion of construction. That's a lot of work. That's a lot of jobs, and it's those jobs that are going to be threatened as a result of this legislation today. As I say, we know that construction is down because of the policies of this government, so the overall number is probably down, but the percentage is probably still quite true. As I've pointed out before, the impact of Bill 26 extends well beyond that sector; it extends well into residential sectors and other construction sectors as well.

Dr. Kunin sets out some of the arguments against sectoral bargaining, and she clearly points out that what's in Bill 26 -- contrary to what has been put forward by this government --

[ Page 9946 ]

She points out four arguments against this form of sectoral bargaining. Firstly, she points out that the nature of sectoral bargaining means that once every three years there is going to be the potential for "industrial paralysis." Once every three years you're going to have this one big huge master collective agreement that's going to affect so much of the construction sector in British Columbia, and, as is the case with every negotiation, there is the potential that that collective bargaining could shut down an entire industry. Now, we're not just talking about shutting down a company, and we're not talking about shutting down things that will affect one particular community; we're talking about shutting down an entire industry. She notes that that could lead to industrial paralysis.

Secondly, she points out that it will "raise the cost of doing business for small and medium-sized firms." As I mentioned before, these are our job creators. When you raise the cost to those companies, you force them out of business. You force those small and medium-sized businesses to cut back on their number of jobs, not to continue to create jobs.

Thirdly, she points out: ". . .interprovincial and international competition is such that investment will likely not stay in a jurisdiction with strong, newly introduced sectoral bargaining, at least not in North America. There may be jurisdictions somewhere else in the world where bringing in this kind of sectoral bargaining regime would bring some kind of stability, but it's not going to bring stability to British Columbia. Certainly it is the kind of legislation that will scare away investment and jobs from this province.

Finally, the fourth point that she notes as an argument against sectoral bargaining is: ". . .the argument that workers need the extension of unionization in the construction industry is spurious. Wages are among the highest in Canada and safety, workplace, training, wage and other standards are in place regardless of unionization" -- certainly regardless of Bill 26.

I want to come back to. . . . I summarized the points she had raised, but I want to deal with each of them individually, because I think it's quite instructive. She talks about the first concern -- the number one concern -- that she has about what's in Bill 26. That is the inability to contain sectoral bargaining. She notes that many firms -- builders, general contractors -- do not work only on ICI projects. Many of these contractors, these companies, will do work in a variety of construction sectors. It's not just in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector; they will work in a variety of other areas. She notes the case in point of high-rise residential work and master plan community development as areas where a lot of these other companies are involved, in addition to ICI. Clearly this kind of sectoral bargaining regime is going to extend into those other sectors as well.

She also notes that there is a "lack of trust" in the government's intentions. I know there has been a lot of talk, especially over the last two years, as to whether or not this is a government that you can trust. There is a lot of suspicion out there. There are a lot of people in British Columbia who truly question what the intentions of this government are. There is a belief that the rules that will be put in place as a result of Bill 26 will be slowly modified to become more inclusive, and that it's not just whatever we wind up with as a definition of ICI -- which is one of the big unanswered questions -- but whatever we wind up with in the end is going to be subject to change. That change may take place in the years to come, either through new legislation which this government may bring in. . . . Also, I think they have argued as to. . . . I think the Minister of Labour had one interpretation as to whether or not there was new legislation in the future, and I think the Premier had a different spin on that. They themselves probably don't know whether or not this is only stage one in the latest changes to the Labour Code or whether there's going to be more to broaden the reach of sectoral bargaining.

Clearly we've seen examples before where ministers of the Crown in this government have been the last ones to know what's going on because the Premier tends to hold those cards pretty close to his chest. This may well be one of those cases where the Minister of Labour is going to be the last one to find out there are going to be Labour Code amendments coming in again next year. I guess the one message that we hope comes through loud and clear from this second reading debate is that there should not be any changes to the Labour Code by this government. If there were to be any further changes to the Labour Code by this government, this opposition, these B.C. Liberal members, are going to be standing here in their places, and we will, at length, debate the damage that is being done. But I'm not convinced that that's not in the offing next year, because of the comments the Premier made when Bill 26 was first introduced last month.

The other thing that Dr. Kunin points out is that it doesn't take just legislation to broaden the reach of Bill 26. What it takes is interpretations of rulings by the Labour Relations Board, and we can see that, through that, there are so many things in Bill 26 that are left to the decisions of the LRB. Through that process, as we have seen in the past, we can see the labour relations environment in this province becoming more and more union-friendly, tipping the scale more and more in the balance of the trade union movement -- beyond the radical imbalance that is there today.

In this survey that they did of these companies, there were some words used to describe Bill 26, and one of the quotes is that it's the "thin edge of the wedge." That's a quote that we've used and pointed out many times. They talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing. I'm not sure that I would agree with that quote to describe Bill 26. It's probably a very nasty wolf in the clothing of only a little bit nasty wolf -- certainly not a wolf in sheep's clothing. They talk about it as a smokescreen. Well, there are certain things in Bill 26 that are quite transparent to us in terms of what they're trying to do to make things easier for the trade union organizers in the craft unions -- not in the other unions, just in the craft unions. They're being given this favourable treatment. So to say that it's a smokescreen is probably true. This legislation is probably a smokescreen, but it's not to say that that smoke hides the damage that is done in a transparent way. It's just that when you blow the smoke away, you realize that Bill 26 is even more damaging than it first appears.

[8:45]

[ Page 9947 ]

She talks about how a more charged labour-management relationship that will develop. She says that the multiskilled craftsman who has built up trusting and often friendly relations with an involved owner-manager is going to pay a big price. Instead of that labour-manager relationship that's been built up, that mutual trust, mutual respect, fair wages, good job stability, and the understanding that the employer has to reach out and find new work constantly to keep his labour force engaged, we're going to see that going out the window as a result of this. That worker who has built up that relationship is going to pay the price as a result of Bill 26, because we're going to see a shift from that traditional style of relationship to one that is more adversarial -- in a craft union tradition -- where the workers do not have that opportunity to build a good and constructive working relationship with an individual employer.

The third point that she came to was the loss of business control. She says: "Managers have different business plans, policies and personal styles when it comes to labour-management relations." She goes on to say that one medium-sized firm, that admitted in the survey that their wage scale was slightly below the union scale, was also being very conscientious about keeping its workforce on a year-round basis, on year-round employment. I think we have to ask the question: what is important to the individual worker in the construction industry? Is it important to have a wage scale that is, let's say, $30 an hour, or is it important to have consistent, year-round employment? Here we have an employer, one of the employers that Dr. Kunin surveyed, say that that company felt it was an obligation to make sure they had enough work to keep that workforce engaged year-round, to make sure those workers had the ability to meet their mortgage payments on a regular basis -- not the kind of situation we see many craft union workers facing today, where they may get a few days work here and a few days there. It's inconsistent. It doesn't give that kind of stability. That's the kind of loss of business control that a lot of companies are facing. They can't give that kind of assurance to their workers as a result of a craft union structure that may be imposed.

Another company that they interviewed wanted to keep control over pay scales so that they could reward productivity. If you go back to the purposes section of our basic Labour Code, it talks about the need for productivity. The only way we're going to have long-term secure jobs in British Columbia is to make sure that we have productivity along with it. The one way you can have an economy that is stable, where you have rising wages for employees and you have enough profitability that allows companies to stay in business, the one way that everybody can have that cake and eat it too, is through rising productivity. Here we have an employer who takes a look at what is in Bill 26 and says: "If that's imposed upon me, I'm no longer going to have the ability to reward workers based on productivity." He loses that kind of control.

She also points out that business control also means control over bargaining -- collective bargaining. This is what collective bargaining should be all about. This is the kind of speech that those members used to give when they were in the opposition, standing up for the rights of collective bargaining, fighting for the interests of workers to be able to form unions and to bargain collectively. We see a government now that is totally turning its back on the principles of collective bargaining. We see it in Bill 26. We also see it in the course of labour relations in the education sector as well, where the government has basically thrown collective bargaining out the window and decided that it knows best. In Bill 26, they are taking away the ability of a small business to control their own collective bargaining.

The fourth point that Dr. Kunin points out is the lack of control of their working life by employees. It's not just the lack of control of businesses that we have to be concerned about; it's the lack of control that each individual worker has in terms of the kind of working environment they want to work in. She notes: "This will strike particularly those tradespeople used to working in small, cohesive contracting or subcontracting firms." The carpenter, for example, is used to working at a worksite and doing his trade that he's been trained to work at to the best of his ability -- but also, in addition, to being a useful member of the team on that job site to make sure that the project gets done. Now, when they get forced into a craft style of union, that carpenter is going to find out that he suddenly has to worry about jurisdictional disputes, the jurisdictional lines. He has to worry about what he is allowed to do as a carpenter, and he has to be careful that any portion of the work that he's doing on that job site isn't something that has to be done by the member of another trade. Those are the inefficiencies that we see built into the craft style of labour relations.

But it also flies in the face of the kind of working environment that those individual workers want to be part of. So you will see, as a result of Bill 26, a dramatic change in the kind of working environment that those workers are faced with.

Hon. Speaker, the fifth point is, as Dr. Kunin points out, that it is unclear how the proposed changes will address specifics. She talks about just a few of the variations that they have from project to project. Here we have, with Bill 26, a one-size-fits-all solution. What we have is one master collective agreement that's going to be imposed on every single workplace in the province that is unionized under this craft style, every workplace that is doing any kind of industrial, commercial and institutional work -- this ICI sector we talk about. She points out in here that not all projects are alike. I think it's something that we realize, but she actually lists some of them. She talks about the project-to-project variations, which include municipal regulations. Doing a construction project in one municipality is totally different from doing that construction project in another municipality because of the local municipal regulations. That is a factor on costs; that is a factor on all kinds of things. The question you have to ask is: how can you impose this master one-size-fits-all collective agreement when the construction projects vary from municipality to municipality?

She also notes that the competitive price demands in the marketplace vary from project to project. She notes that the cost-of-living standards faced by employees vary. They vary from municipality to municipality. The cost of living faced by a worker in Terrace, British Columbia, is very different from the costs that are going to be faced by a worker in Vancouver. She talks about the windows when building can take place -- I'll come back to that one in a second -- in terms of the times

[ Page 9948 ]

It also varies with the level of technical expertise that's needed. Clearly if you're on a project that requires a highly technical labour force, that can be quite different from a project that's building a commercial strip mall. Let's say that we've got a project where they're building a cancer facility in this province, an institutional facility. The requirements of the construction workforce on that site are going to be very different than the construction workforce that's on a commercial project with a small strip mall. But this master collective agreement is going to be the same for all -- one size fits all.

I mentioned when we were talking about the time-windows. . . . She uses a couple of examples, specifically Whistler versus Vancouver. Let's look at a construction project in Whistler as opposed to a construction project in Vancouver today. Particularly, what if that construction project in Vancouver is in a community where there's been some real concerns about the rate of growth? What we see in Whistler is that they have a very short construction season; you can't be building a new hotel in Whistler in the middle of February. In fact, that's true of so many communities in British Columbia. A lot of construction projects can only be done during the months that the ground isn't frozen and the months that you can actually get equipment into some of these job sites. You've got times when either the ground is too frozen to work on or you've got the shoulder seasons where projects would be mired in mud because they're going through breakup in the spring.

Clearly the construction project in Vancouver is going to be totally different, because of the totally different climate. It may wind up that in Vancouver a construction project will be prolonged because of noise and other restrictions. There are construction sites in Vancouver today where work can't start until a certain hour of the morning, and it has to wrap up by a certain hour of the afternoon, because of noise bylaws that municipalities have. In other areas, where there is ground that can only be worked on through a very narrow season of the year, they may want to work from dawn till dusk in order to get that project done while they have that very narrow construction window. Clearly one size does not fit all.

Her sixth point is that Bill 26 adds to an already complex situation. When I went through the executive summary, I suggested that this may need some more explanation. As she points out, the construction industry is being hit by a variety of things at once. We have a weakening economy. We have a poorly perceived business environment. We have ever-more mobile capital flows, and unfortunately those capital flows have been going out of this province.

But in addition, let's look at some of the other challenges that the construction industry faces today. They're trying to keep up with technology. The construction industry, like any other industry, is faced with constantly changing technology -- probably more so than most industries in this province. New WCB safety standards are being brought in. The industry is trying to get used to and adapt to those standards and make sure that they are dealt with at the worksite level. A new liens act came in last year, and it's going to take some time for the construction industry to go through some of the legal arguments that are going to be involved, some of the precedents that are going to be set, so that the industry knows what it's dealing with in the implementation of that liens act.

We have a new building code that the construction sector is trying to deal with. If you look at the ramifications of the leaky condo report that came out, there are implications for more changes that have to be dealt with. We have a review that will likely initiate structural changes to training and designation. The construction industry review panel didn't feel they could make recommendations on this part, and they suggested that more work be done. ITAC has been set up with a fairly broad base of support, and they're starting to look at how training should be done in the construction industry. That's another whole change that the construction industry is facing at the same time as Bill 26 is being piled on top.

[9:00]

These are all challenges that the industry is trying to deal with. These are challenges that Bill 26 will make worse. It's that kind of uncertainty and instability that's going to cause even more job losses in the construction sector.

Dr. Kunin also says in her report: "On a final note of concern regarding jobs in B.C. is the feeling that more of the off-site component of construction, which includes a lot of craft labour, is and will continue to be shifted out of province." She uses the specific examples of doors, windows and cabinets. This is the kind of value-added that this government at least talks about. They talk about the need for more value-added in our forest sector, in the wood industry in British Columbia -- the need for us to be doing more construction and manufacturing of wood products, so that we can put more British Columbians to work building doors, windows and cabinets from B.C.-grown wood. They talk about it, but what we don't see are the actions that are actually going to translate into jobs -- real companies being able to hire people to do that kind of work in British Columbia.

Here in Bill 26 we have one more incentive for construction companies to go outside of the province to find those components. A lot of that construction work that was done by British Columbia tradespeople on the job site is now going to be contracted to firms outside the province. When it comes to constructing the doors and the windows and the cabinets, they can just as easily buy those components from Alberta and bring them here to install in our construction projects, rather than having British Columbia craftsmen build those products here in this province and create jobs for British Columbians.

One of the things that I think is quite important in Bill 26 is what is not included. You know, if you start looking at the construction industry review panel report. . . . The title of that report is "Looking to the Future," but the arguments that we've made from this side point out that when it comes to the craft style of trade unionism, that is not what the future should be about. It's not the direction that the economies in North America are going. We haven't been heading in the direction of these very narrow, rigid jurisdictional craft lines. In fact, the construction industry has been heading in a totally different direction; instead, they've been heading in the direction of a form of trade unionism: the traditional, industrial style of unions -- the wall-to-wall unions, as they're called in the construction sector -- where basically you have one union that represents all of the workers and makes sure that their

[ Page 9949 ]

So I think this title that was given to the report, "Looking to the Future," is somewhat of a misnomer. It may be something like "Back to the Future," or it may be that in fact we're looking to the past to try to find answers for the future. This form of trade unionism, which had so much importance in the history of the industrialized world, has probably had its day. We've seen that in other jurisdictions. We've seen that workers have been better protected in other forms of unions. Those unions are faced with a challenge: they either have to adapt to this modern economy or they're going to disappear. In fact, that's the trend that we were seeing in British Columbia -- that craft style of union was failing to adapt. They were failing to change. As a result, they did see a diminishing share of the construction sector. They saw their inability to ensure year-round employment for their members.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet with the leaders of some of the craft unions in British Columbia. We met with each of the individual craft unions -- their business agents or their executive members. They talked about their diminishing ability to get jobs for their members. It comes back to this thing that I pointed out earlier: what's in the best interest of the worker -- a stable job year-round or a very high-paying wage for only a few days or sporadic periods during a year? What's important is that any institution in our society has to be able to adapt, to change. If it's an organization that has a membership base, as a trade union does, then it's incumbent on them to work to ensure the interests of those workers are served by that institution. There are very few, if any, institutions today that can afford not to change. There are very few organizations whose members are being well served by an inability to change.

Yet what we have in Bill 26 is legislation that comes in to prop up that form of trade unionism. It says that rather than those trade unions changing, government is coming in to say: "That's okay. You don't have to change like the rest of the world is changing; you don't have to change to all of these pressures of our changing economy. You can leave your structures exactly as they are, exactly as they have been for years. You can keep these rigid craft jurisdiction lines. You don't have to worry about it, because government will come in and prop it up." Government will basically tell the entire construction industry of British Columbia that they're going to be locked in this time warp -- and it is not a time warp in the future; it's a time warp in the past.

There are some important issues that are not mentioned in this report. We talk about the need for the building trades unions to change. In the appendix of this report, the authors set out the principles respecting the trade union bargaining structure constitution. These are the principles that the authors felt were necessary to change in order for this particular structure to work with Bill 26. But we find that the government has said nothing that indicates that they're going in this direction. I go back to the interim report of the first construction industry review panel, which was tabled in February 1996. They say: ". . .we are of the view that changes are currently necessary in the building trades unions' constitution so as to put collective bargaining on a more even footing with other bargaining relationships in the construction industry."

This was the second panel that was asked to look at the construction industry. It's clear that the government didn't like the first panel, which reported in the early 1990s. They didn't like their report because they didn't get the answers they wanted. They struck a second construction industry review panel in March 1995, which came back with this interim report a year later. What's clear is that these very prominent labour experts came up with what they felt was part of the problem with the construction industry today: the inability of the building trades unions to change, to adapt their constitution. They go on to say: "We hope those consultations will result in BCBCBTU" -- which stands for the Bargaining Council of British Columbia Building Trades Unions -- "and CLRA" -- which is the Construction Labour Relations Association -- "voluntarily [establishing] a bargaining structure that is more responsive to the current realities of the industry."

That was in the report from a couple of years ago, from the second panel that this government appointed. They say quite clearly that it's not for legislation; in fact, in the report they specifically recommended against legislation. Instead, they recommended that that sector of the construction industry sort out their own problems. It's not for this New Democratic Party government to come in and use the powers of this legislative chamber and this government to throw them the lifeline that's in Bill 26, so that they don't have to change. These labour experts said that it was up to those organizations to change. As I said earlier, as with any organization anywhere in the modern world, you either have to change or perish. And instead of changing, we've got the government that sort of says: "That's okay; we'll prop you up."

If you go through appendix A, you will come up with a whole series of principles that the authors of this report felt had to be addressed in order for this building trades constitution to be amended. They set out ten points. As much as I find Bill 26 distasteful, as much as I find that the provisions in it are wrongheaded and will do damage to British Columbia. . . . It is wrong to bring in this kind of bargaining structure in British Columbia. As much as I feel strongly about how wrong Bill 26 is, the least this government can do, if is it is going to proceed with Bill 26, is make a clear and unequivocal indication that these principles must be entrenched in the direction that is taken as a result of Bill 26. That's the least they could do.

My fear is that the building trades unions may not have much liked what's in this particular appendix -- they may not have liked these labour experts telling them how to revive their constitution -- so they have said: "Let's just stay away from there." They probably said to the Minister of Labour and the Premier: "Let's not talk about it. Let's not say anything about it. Let's just get Bill 26 through. Then we will spring it on them afterwards -- that we're going in a totally different direction when it comes to revising our constitution. These are the principles that make Bill 26 marginally less distasteful than it is if these principles aren't incorporated."

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

But I think that if you go through these principles, certainly. . . . I'm not going to read all ten of them, because they're quite detailed. But I think if anybody wants to find these, they can actually go into the Ministry of Labour web site and find this report from the construction industry review panel, and they will find this appendix.

But as I go through this, you know, we're talking about how they have to revise their constitution so this group of craft unions is forced to at least work together, to work to speak with one voice, because what we have seen is a fracturing of these interests. We've got these narrow jurisdictional craft lines. Some of them want to be part of a bargaining unit; some of them don't. Some of them claim that the work that is done by another union is in fact work that they should be doing. Hon. Speaker, when you go through these principles,

[ Page 9950 ]

So I think that when you read through this report. . . . In my mind it begs the question: why are we taking all of these complexities and entrenching them into our Labour Code? Why are we taking this form of jurisdictional craft distinctions, and where are we taking that? We're building a whole section in our Labour Code.

Instead, I would argue that in other jurisdictions where they have this kind of section in their labour code -- if they're going to modernize their labour code -- they probably want to get rid of it, because that's the direction that things are going in. That's the direction that workers are choosing; this isn't something that's being imposed. This industrial style of union, the wall-to-wall union, is the choice of the workers. That's what should be respected. And that's what's blatantly undemocratic about Bill 26 and the direction that they're going in.

In Appendix B of that report, it sets out the principles respecting the CLRA constitution and bylaws. Again, here we have. . . . It's a shorter list. There are four areas that the panel felt should be addressed. These are the principles against which changes to their constitution should be measured. Again, we don't see that anywhere in the legislation, and that's understandable, because that's not. . . . They recommended it not be part of the legislation. But they recommended that it be part of a total package. They recommended that this initiative which the government takes in Bill 26 should include this particular approach.

[9:15]

The other thing in this proposal that has not been talked about is a requirement that the unions have to show evidence of fresh membership support before they can get certification. Now, this is an interesting one, because again it was not to be part of the legislation, in their view, but it was part of the package. What this particular provision would require is that if a union wanted to go into a non-union worksite and certify that worksite under a craft union, they would have to show that -- at least on the membership sign-up basis -- there were at least 55 percent of the workers who in fact wanted to be certified by a craft union.

The way it exists today is that you have members of a trade union -- members of one of these craft unions -- who work on all kinds of projects. We know that many of the members will maintain their membership in the union in order to protect their pension benefits. The pension plan may in fact be held by the trade union, so in order to maintain their pension benefits in the future, they have to maintain their membership in the trade union. They may be working on a job site that is not union and may be quite contented to not be represented by a union in that work site. I think that's a fundamental difference between the government side and our side: the government side feels that every worker in this province must be part of a trade union or somehow they're not happy. Well, in the B.C. Liberal Party, we feel that workers should have the right to form unions. They should have the right to be part of a union. At the same time, they should also have the democratic right that they and their fellow workers choose not to be a member of the union. That's what democracy is all about.

What we have today is worksites that are not unionized where there are workers who are members of the craft unions. The expression they use is that these workers have their "card in their shoe." They're not on the worksite with their union membership card emblazoned on their shoulder, but in fact they've got their union membership card tucked away in their pockets, because they don't necessarily want the worksite that they're on today to be unionized. They just want to be part of the union to protect their pension and other benefits that they may get as a result of having worked on a trade union worksite in years gone by.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

What happens today is that a union organizer from one of the craft unions discovers that there are 55 percent of the workers on a worksite holding union membership cards. It may well be that those workers don't want that worksite to be unionized, but they don't have any choice, because that union organizer just has to go to the LRB and show evidence that 55 percent of the workers on that worksite in fact hold membership cards, and there's an automatic certification -- no secret ballot. They get it whether they want it or not, because in the definition of the NDP government and the definition of the union organizers, it's good for them. It's not a question as to whether they want it; it's a question as to what big government or the big unions think is good for them.

In this report, the authors recommended that there be a requirement for current membership support so they had to get each worker on that worksite to sign a statement that would indicate that they wish to be certified. Again, it falls short of the requirement that there be a secret ballot, which is what we've argued for and certainly what would solve all of these problems. But at least the authors of the report went one step towards workers' rights, and that was to say that they had to sign fresh evidence that they in fact wanted their workplace to be unionized. That's not in Bill 26. It was to be part of the package, but it's not there. This minister, in all of his communication on Bill 26, has never once indicated that he will respect that recommendation put forward by the authors of this report. So again I ask that the minister, when he has his opportunity to speak on this legislation, stand up and give the kind of reassurance that a lot of people are looking for: that those other aspects of the construction industry report will in fact be delivered by this government.

I want to look at the philosophy behind Bill 26 and, I think, some of the hypocrisy that we have in that legislation. The construction industry review panel, in its report that I referred to earlier, came to a number of conclusions. One of them, if I can quote, is: "The principles of competition must be maintained if the industry is to thrive in the increasingly competitive economy of the next century." Bill 26 is clearly inconsistent with the objective of maintaining flexibility, profitability and competition.

[ Page 9951 ]

Why is it that the craft unions need a structure which compels unions and employers to belong to bargaining councils, but the industrial-style unions don't need the same structures? I think that's part of the hypocrisy. Is it possible that the industrial unions are in fact efficient and competitive and that the craft unions are not competitive and not efficient? If we go back to one of these fundamental principles -- that they want to ensure efficiency and competitiveness -- and they're only bringing this model in for the craft unions, then it begs the question. Here we have the industrial unions, the wall-to-wall unions. . . . It must mean that they're already competitive and already efficient in the way that they serve their membership and ensure that their members have jobs in the construction industry.

Part of the rationale for the imposition of this form of sectoral bargaining and the imposition of master collective agreements. . . . The rationale for compelling membership in this type of bargaining council is the difficulty in organizing in the construction sector. In these craft sectors they often talk of their inability to get first collective agreements. Why is it, I have to ask, that they bring in a bargaining structure that only applies to the craft unions? If there is this difficulty of organizing -- difficulty in getting workers to sign up, difficulty in achieving first collective agreements -- then why wouldn't they bring in a model to solve the problems of all of the unions in construction, not just the craft unions? They have not imposed this model of sectoral bargaining on our wall-to-wall unions. So why is it that the solution is only to make it easier for the craft unions to organize and not make it easier for the industrial unions to do exactly the same thing?

We have legislation that is designed to assist only the craft unions. It begs the question: does this mean that the industrial-style unions do not face the same kind of difficulties? Could it be that these industrial-style unions are, in fact, more efficient and more competitive? If the industrial unions and craft unions both face the same kind of difficulty in organizing and achieving their first collective agreement, then why does this legislation favour craft unions over industrial unions? The legislation clearly should not favour one form of unionism -- unless there's another agenda.

The second way this legislation reduces competition is that it imposes the same collective agreement on all employers. Any economist will tell you that this creates an oligopoly or a monopoly. Coming back to the initial principles that were supposed to have gone into Bill 26 -- the principles of ensuring competition -- begs the question: how does creating an oligopoly or a monopoly encourage competition? Clearly the answer is that it doesn't. What Bill 26 does is the exact opposite. What we have in the craft unions is a very special relationship with the New Democratic Party. What we have is a government that is prepared to use the powers of this Legislature to deliver a benefit to only one form of union -- the craft unions. The industrial-style unions -- the wall-to-wall unions -- have been doing very well with the legislation that we have in place already. They don't need that kind of special treatment, because they've been able to grow -- they've been able to recruit members. They've been able to sign collective agreements. So it begs the question. It is not the construction industry that causes the inability of unions to get collective agreements. The construction industry is clearly conducive to signing agreements, as is any other industry in this province.

As I've argued before, the construction industry is not a special industry. It is not different and unique from the other sectors -- except for this particular craft style of unionism. Clearly, when you start looking at the other unions, they're able to work with our existing Labour Relations Code. They're able to sign up members; they're able to represent their membership; they're able to get collective agreements in place. For this government to say that they need Bill 26 to allow these craft unions to conclude agreements is simply illogical.

I know the Minister of Labour has a great concern about logical arguments. I hope that he has been listening carefully to some of the illogic that is there. I am sure that when he has a chance to speak, he will explain to us why it is that the craft unions in British Columbia need a government bailout in terms of Bill 26 -- at a time when the other unions in this province that are operating in the construction sector are doing quite well and are able to survive and thrive under our existing Labour Code. They're able to maintain the collective bargaining rights of individual groups of workers. The industrial-style unions are able to maintain the collective bargaining rights of individual employers, and they don't need this special treatment by government. They don't need this special hand up. They don't need the power of this Legislature to ensure their future viability. These are unions that are able to thrive and able to survive. They're competitive and they're efficient. They have the ability to represent the interests of their members and to negotiate good collective agreements with good wages and good benefits, and at the same time, they are able to ensure that their employers can remain competitive and continue to employ those workers.

[9:30]

In this editorial, they point out that there is "evidence that shows that closed shops are an economic drag. Canada is one of only two industrialized nations that still back closed shops with the power of legislation." You know, the form of unionism that I think most of us are familiar with -- certainly what I belonged to years ago when I was trying to put myself

[ Page 9952 ]

There have been variations on this. In fact, many people have heard of the Rand formula. The Rand formula means that for individuals who -- for religious reasons or whatever reasons that are allowed -- do not wish to join a trade union, that's okay. They're allowed to work in these union shops, provided that they remit union dues. So it's a compromise that still allows the integrity of that unionized workplace to be intact and allows the union involved to represent their membership. But what we have seen around the world is that the closed-shop style of union is fading, and what we have in Bill 26 is something that's going to entrench that. So while there are two countries in the world that have entrenched this kind of unionism in their labour legislation, the trend is clearly in the opposite direction. But this government doesn't seem to recognize that today.

I want to refer to an analysis that was done of Bill 26 by one of the leading labour relations experts in British Columbia. I just want to quote some of this analysis of Bill 26. I will start with this quote: "Bill 26 is designed to make it easier for the building trades unions to organize." And, hon. Speaker, we go back and look at the reasons that the Minister of Labour thought Bill 26 was necessary. You know, at no time, I think, did he come clean on the true intent of Bill 26. The true intent of Bill 26 is simply to make it easier for these craft unions, the building trades unions, to organize workplaces around British Columbia. It goes on to say: "It's designed to aid the building trades unions in organizing in all parts of the industry." This is, again, something that I believe the Minister of Labour is wilfully not publicizing. He's not explaining that side of it, because it clearly will have ramifications that go far beyond just the one sector we've been talking about: this ICI sector, the industrial, commercial and institutional sector. It will have effects on other sectors as well.

Another quote I picked out of this is: "It facilitates organization by building trades unions, because they can rely on short-term employees with no real ties to an employer to raid that employer's existing union." This is in reference to the section of the act that provides for the raid period. This is the time when one union raids the members of another union. In the existing provisions, existing master agreements in building trades unions or other construction unions, it usually provides for a raid period -- say, the seventh or eighth month of a contract. But it can be any month of the year that that seventh or eighth month comes up. What this legislation says is that it doesn't matter what has been negotiated, what the employer has said and what the unions have signed in the collective agreement. What it is is government -- big government -- coming down and saying: "Whatever you've negotiated in your collective agreement isn't good enough. Government is going to force you into a raid period that is July and August." And, as they point out in this analysis, it is because the building trades unions expect to be able to rely on short-term employees -- short-term employees who don't have an attachment to that particular employer, don't have a long-term employment interest in that worksite; but rather, short-term employees that will be there for a period of perhaps only those two months, perhaps just July and August. What Bill 26 does is give them the ability to use those short-term employees as part of a raid, part of throwing out one union and bringing in another.

This also addressed the issue of the maximum three-year collective agreement. What I find interesting is that one of the noble purposes set out in Bill 26 is. . . . It talks about orderly collective bargaining. The minister, in some of his opening remarks and other communications, talks about bringing stability to the construction industry. Well, as this analysis points out, bringing in a maximum of a three-year collective agreement is the opposite of longer-term stability. In fact, it's designed to prevent employers and unions from mutually agreeing upon longer-term collective agreements. You would think that that longer-term agreement, mutually agreed to by union and management, would mean longer-term stability. Here we've got the government going in exactly the opposite direction.

They talk about the voluntary recognition agreements being invalid. There's a provision in Bill 26 that says if an employer voluntarily recognizes a union, now there is going to be a requirement that the workers affected by that collective agreement have to have a secret ballot to ratify the collective agreement that comes out of it. Now, I can support that. That's a very useful concept. But what I find interesting is some of the irony behind this. While they're prepared to support secret ballots in this situation in order to ensure that it is in fact the wishes of the workers to be represented by that union, which the employer has voluntarily recognized -- they're prepared to make sure that there is a secret ballot to make sure those workers' interests are recognized -- they're not prepared to apply the same philosophy, the same principle, to all forms of certification. So when you have a craft union that walks in and gets a certification as a result of a remedial certification, which doesn't require even 20 percent support, there is no secret ballot in that case. There is no requirement for that first collective agreement to be ratified by a secret ballot of the workers affected.

It's interesting. . . . They point out something I hadn't realized until I read this. The voluntary recognition agreements used to be, in fact, a major organizing tool for the building trades unions. The building trades unions themselves relied on these voluntary recognition agreements. And now, when we find that this provision for voluntary recognition is leading to more certifications for industrial-style unions, suddenly the building trades are concerned about that. Suddenly this is the situation where they want to have a secret ballot vote. Quite frankly, I think that most of the building trades unions are going to be in for a shock, because when the workers have the ability to go to a secret ballot to verify the union that they want to have represent them, they're going to find that those workers are quite happy to be represented by an industrial-style union. That's going to be one of the big shocks the building trades unions are going to get as a result of this particular provision in Bill 26.

They talk about the jurisdictional assignment plan. In Bill 26, for the first time in British Columbia legislation, the jurisdictional assignment plan is going to be entrenched in our Labour Code. This is the system whereby the jurisdictional disputes between these various crafts get sorted out. This

[ Page 9953 ]

If we go back and look at some of these reports that have been done on the construction industry in the past, they talk about the need for the building trades unions to modernize, to accommodate, to change. You know, there is the reference that I quoted before from the Labour Relations Board decision from a few years back, where they talked about the pathological inability of the building trades unions to sort out these jurisdictional disputes. Now we're having this entrenched.

In this legislation we also find that employers will have to pay fees to the jurisdictional assignment plan even if they are not members of the Construction Labour Relations Association and even if they have only one craft union representing their employees. Think about that for a minute. Here we have some employers who employ a whole range of different craft unions. Within that one company -- of the 15 craft unions -- they may have several. They may have six or seven different unions that they are negotiating contracts with or that they're dealing with on a day-to-day basis. But in many cases, we have employers who have only one craft union in their workplace. So it's impossible for them to have a jurisdictional dispute among their workers as to which jurisdiction gets which work. Yet that employer that has only the one craft union in its company has to pay into the costs of running this jurisdictional assignment plan. What's the logic behind that? What's the justification?

It goes on to talk about project agreements. There is a provision in Bill 26 that says that the Minister of Labour can basically take this whole negotiating structure -- this whole master collective agreement -- and throw it out the window. The Minister of Labour alone can say: "This is to be a major project where there has to be a separate collective agreement negotiated." We have seen that for government projects.

The other thing that's interesting is that they don't have to adhere to the three-year rule. So here it is: government and the Minister of Labour have the ability to designate government projects to be major projects and to throw the three-year thing out the window so that they can get a four- or five-year agreement, like they did on the Vancouver Island Highway, in order to give stability to the project. Now, that kind of stability, I would argue, is good for all concerned. You've got a collective agreement mutually agreed to by all parties, and you have a longer term to it. Perhaps it's four or five years; that's stability. If it's good enough for government projects, why is that same kind of stability not good for the rest of the construction industry? Why is it that the Minister of Labour gets to decide this? What ability does the Minister of Labour have to designate projects? Why isn't this a provision that can be accessed by anybody in the construction industry, whether it's the minister's favourite project or not?

[9:45]

They also talk about enabling. In Bill 26 there is a provision that says that if a construction union or the bargaining council is to grant enabling to one particular company to compete on a project, they have to give fair treatment to all of them. Enabling, for those who aren't familiar, is the ability of the union to come in to say to an employer: "If you're going to go out and bid on that project where you're bidding against industrial-style unions, let's say, and you're not as competitive -- because we know that the crafts style, this jurisdictional style of unionism, is more inefficient and is less competitive, not because of wage rates but because of these craft distinctions and the jurisdictional lines and the inefficiencies that we find on the worksite. . . ." So what they're saying to that employer is: "You go out and you bid on that project and you bid against the industrial-style union. But we'll subsidize you so that you still have to pay the wage rates that are in the collective agreement. But we will give you the money to pay the wage rates to those employees that, of course, have to be members of the union, because they have to come out of the hiring hall."

Again, what this does is it begs the question about competitiveness. You know, the fact that enabling exists at all begs the question about competitiveness of this particular form of trade unionism in our society. They talk about the ICI sector's lack of definition, and they say: "It is virtually certain that it will have repercussions outside this sector and especially in residential construction." This is written by someone who is very familiar with the construction industry, the Labour Relations Board and our Labour Code. As we've been arguing, it is clear to all who know what they're talking about that this definition of ICI is going to extend far beyond what the government will come clean to admitting.

They point out two reasons for questioning this. First of all, they say that employers will not know whether or not they fall within the ICI sector until their case comes before the Labour Relations Board. This is a point that has not been made before, and I want to make sure that it is on the record. You have an employer who is going out to start work on a project; they're bidding on a project. Now, is it or is it not a project that falls within the ICI sector? We haven't seen the definition of ICI, but let's say that this is a few months down the road and that there is now a definition out there. But again -- coming back to this issue of different projects -- construction is different; every project is different from every other project.

Hon. Speaker, you've got an employer who's bidding on a project, trying to get work for his or her workers, and they won't know whether or not that it is an ICI project until it goes to the LRB for a ruling. In some cases, it may be clear; but there may be many cases where it's not clear, where we don't know whether or not this is an ICI project. So they're going to have to wait until it goes to the Labour Relations Board.

Well, then, let's say that it starts out that that particular employer is a craft union employer, and he feels that it's not an ICI project. So he imposes the other collective agreement that he has to work with, the non-ICI collective agreement -- not the master collective agreement. He starts the project on that basis. Now, let's say that the craft unions come back, and they say: "No, we think this is ICI construction." Well, the only way to resolve that kind of an issue is to go to the Labour Relations Board, and as we know, that can take months. Meanwhile, this particular contractor has to get the project going. He's bid on it based on an assumption that it was not ICI. The project gets underway. He's following the collective agreement that he has for his non-ICI work. They go to the Labour Relations Board. Let's say that the Labour Relations Board decides, months down the road, that it is in fact ICI work.

What are the ramifications of that? The ramifications are that he's got to go back, for every hour worked on that project, and apply all of that work to a different collective agreement. First of all, just think of the administrative nightmare that that

[ Page 9954 ]

Again, coming back to this definition of ICI. . . . The second point is that employers do both ICI work and other forms of construction. Many have the same employees working on both types of projects, which is going to be administratively and operationally difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to administer from a company's point of view. Thirdly, a point that we have made before is that residential projects often have a commercial component. So where do you divide the line on this stuff?

I want to go on to look at sectoral bargaining through the Construction Labour Relations Association. What we have in Bill 26 is a requirement that all companies that get caught under this craft structure of ICI construction are going to be forced into the Construction Labour Relations Association. If you look at other legislation across Canada, what they have are provisions that will allow groups of employers to select their own bargaining agent. In some cases they're forced to set up a bargaining agent, but at least the democratic principle of the majority wish is there.

Bill 26 imposes one organization on them -- in perpetuity. There's no flexibility. There's no ability a couple of years down the line for the majority of employers to say: "No, we want to have another association represent us." That's not there because we are entrenching this into our Labour Relations Code. As they point out in this analysis, contractors will also be required to pay dues to the CLRA regardless of their wishes.

So there's no voluntary membership. The only thing voluntary in Bill 26 is that these employers have the ability to not join the CLRA. You know what that gets them? That gets them no say at the table; it gets this master collective agreement imposed on them. Not only do they not have the right to negotiate a collective agreement that will suit their own company, but they have no right to have a significant say in anything, because they're going to be one small part of this big bargaining council. But they've got the right to not join -- which will give them no vote at the table, no say. Yet what Bill 26 does impose on them is that they still have to pay the fees and the dues that would be dictated by that organization.

They also address the automatic imposition of this master collective agreement. It's interesting that they point out that unlike the company that has voluntary recognition, unlike the company that decides to voluntarily recognize a union, those workers get a secret ballot. But under this provision, if that employer becomes certified by the craft unions for the ICI construction, the employees of that company are going to have this master agreement imposed upon them without any vote at any stage along the way. They get no certification vote -- in other words, no vote to decide whether or not they even want to be part of that union. They get no strike vote, and they also get no ratification vote. Here are three areas within the labour relations process in British Columbia that ultimately lead to a collective agreement that workers have to work under. As a result of Bill 26, the workers in these companies get no vote, no democratic right, at any stage in the process.

It goes on to say that contractors will be unable even to negotiate provisions to protect the employment of long-term employees or to protect existing pension or benefit plans. Now, think about that one for a minute. You've got a company that's been working non-union and has a workforce that has been working with that particular company for many years. Many of these non-union companies do have pension plans that they have built up. Pension plans aren't exclusive to unionized workforces; we see pension plans in many companies. There are also benefit plans that non-unionized employers have. In some cases, these companies have voluntary employer-employee associations that aren't formal unions, but they still have the ability to sit down with the employer to arrange for fringe benefits, whether they be dental plans or those types of things. There are many employers that have granted these benefits.

You're now going to have a situation where those workers may be forced to give up those benefits that they've already received. They're going to be forced into a building trades model instead, forced into this kind of closed-shop union structure where they're no longer allowed to have any relationship or any loyalty to any one employer.

Just to summarize this particular document -- I think it's the point that I started on when I was talking about this analysis -- Bill 26 is a strong organizing tool for the building trades unions. This piece of legislation gives the building trades organizers the ability to shop a master collective agreement, the ability to go in and say: "This is what's in this agreement; you'll get this." But what they don't say is that there are all these other risks that come along with it. There are risks in terms of their having to forgo the full-time, year-round employment that they may be used to. There are risks in terms of the employers that they've always worked with potentially going out of business because they can't afford the imposition of that particular collective agreement.

Yet for the employer to communicate with his or her workers. . . . If the employer were to say to the workers: "Wait a second. If you sign that membership card, then you have the potential of putting this company out of business. . . ." If the employer were to communicate that message to the workers, that would be deemed to be an unfair labour practice. In that case, even if only 10 or 15 percent of the workers had signed membership cards, if there was evidence that the employer tried to communicate some of the realities to his workers, that would be deemed to be an unfair labour practice. So you would wind up with this master collective agreement being imposed on that employer, on those workers, even if only a very small percentage of those workers felt that it was in their best interests.

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

C. Hansen: I urge all members to support this resolution. Let's get back to building a dynamic economy, and let's put these changes to the Labour Code aside. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: And he still had more, no doubt. I thank the hon. member for his endurance and for a number of other things, and I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: It's 10 o'clock on Monday night; it seems to be a regular practice, talking here late in the evening after a long day. But talking about changes to the Labour Relations Code has not only been going on for many hours, many days or a number of weeks; I've been involved in these discussions in this Legislature for over six years now. It was in 1992 that I first got involved with the labour relations discussion of this government. That's when they began to change the Industrial

[ Page 9955 ]

[10:00]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

That three-way tension, rather than a three-way balance, has been with us very much since 1992. As I remember, one of the significant changes in the new Labour Code of 1992 was to change the preamble to the legislation from the purpose of supporting labour unions to promoting labour unions. That was a major shift that began to put everything out of balance, so that the union aspect -- as important as it was -- became the prime importance, and the concerns of employers and of the citizens of the community became secondary to that interest. That's what we've been struggling with ever since 1992. It's interesting, hon. Speaker. I read this letter that was written to those who were concerned about the changes to the Industrial Relations Act in 1992. This comes from a company in Richmond, B.C., and they wrote on October 5, 1992, to the members of the Legislature:

"Re: The Proposed Changes to the Industrial Relations Act.

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

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

"Therefore, we urge you to consider all of the above when dealing with the proposed change to the IRA."

There's another kind of balance that must be taken into account and which has been stressed in all of the studies done by government and non-government agencies, and that is that we must address the economic, environmental and social concerns of our community. These three must again be in balance with each other. If any of them is out of balance, then the whole of our community life is out of balance. This is what this letter of 1992 was warning us of, and it was saying that if we were not careful, we would bring our province into disrepute and disregard. That's what has happened in the last six years. We are out of balance economically, environmentally and socially. That's a concern as we come here tonight to discuss amendments to Bill 26.

We have debated now for days and weeks. The opposition has brought in four different amendments to the government bill recommending that: (1) the bill should not go forward and (2) the bill should be hoisted for six months so that it could be considered again and taken back to the community, and they would have time to respond to it -- particularly since the bill was brought in one day and debate was started the next day. Then, when neither of those two was acceptable to the government, we recommended that it go to an all-party committee of the Legislature so that it could review the legislation, hear from delegations across the province and bring forth a revised presentation.

When none of those were acceptable, then we had to come, unfortunately, to this amendment. Let me read the amendment, which says: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26). . .for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." In '92 that kind of motion would probably have said: ". . .because we are worrying about damaging investor confidence and the economy." Now it says "further" damage, because the damage that has been created has been well-illustrated by many of the comments presented in the Legislature these last few days.

The concerns presented by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses can update that letter of 1992. In writing about their concerns when this bill was presented, wanting us to understand its implication for the businesses of B.C. and, therefore, for the employees and families of B.C. . . . Let me share their words:

"I am writing to you today about an issue of serious concern to B.C.'s small and medium-sized businesses. The throne speech announced the government's intention to proceed with sweeping changes to our province's Labour Code. These changes, like the ill-fated Bill 44 withdrawn last year by Premier Clark, will have very negative impacts on investment and job creation in B.C. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses, which represents 30 organizations speaking for small and medium-sized businesses, is urging you to stand up for the job creators in your constituency and urge the Premier to stop the amendments to the Labour Code.

"Small and medium-sized businesses from the entire cross-section of B.C.'s economy believe these changes will have a negative impact on jobs and investment. B.C.'s economy has already gone from number one to number ten in Canada. B.C. now has the highest unemployment rate of any province west of Quebec. Our youth employment rate has been at or over 17 percent. Businesses are leaving B.C. for Alberta, Washington State and Ontario. Our province, once the economic envy of Canada, is losing jobs as a result. Labour law changes, like those planned, will only make matters worse.

"B.C.'s small and medium-sized businesses don't want special treatment or bailouts from the government, they just want a fair chance to succeed. Balanced and flexible labour policies are essential to their ability to respond to the needs of their customers and to continue to be our province's overwhelming source of new job creation.

"There are many reasons why the proposed legislative changes are poor public policy in the eyes of B.C.'s job creators. I have attached for your consideration a thoughtful and informative summary of the rationale for opposing these changes. It is written by Peter Gall, a lawyer with the firm Heenan and Blaikie and one of our province's most respected labour law practitioners.

[ Page 9956 ]

"B.C.'s small and medium-sized businesses are committed to creating the investment and jobs that will make B.C. number one again. But we need your help as an MLA to make that positive climate for growth a reality. Please join us in saying, no, to the Premier's labour law changes.

"If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me at 684-5325. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter of concern to B.C.'s job creators."

I would like to comment on the appreciation that we, in the Legislature, have for the persons who spend the time and have the interest to follow the debate. Last week I was speaking on this same bill at midnight. When I returned to my office shortly after I had finished speaking, at about 1:30 in the morning, I had a taped message: a lady had phoned to appreciate what we had been doing here and to thank us for doing this.

Hon. Speaker, we're not speaking just to ourselves here in the Legislature. We are speaking to the citizens all around this province who are concerned about their well-being. They're concerned about the fact that they're unemployed. They're concerned about the fact that they no longer have the income for the mortgages on their homes or for the food to feed their children. They're concerned that they may have to pull up roots and leave British Columbia and go to another part of Canada, or outside the country, to have a future. That's the concern that we're talking about tonight. We're not just talking about a few union people in certain kinds of jobs -- industrial, commercial and institutional construction. What affects them affects everybody else as well, and the spinoff goes right around the community.

[10:15]

It's interesting that in 1987, when we were debating the bill that I talked about in the letter from 1992, the Industrial Relations Act, the opposition at that time -- which was the NDP -- was arguing in a similar fashion with the then Social Credit government. I'd like to quote one of the comments that was made at that time, back in 1987, by the present Minister of Labour:

"It seems to me that a number of points have been offered from this side of the House, and they have not been responded to. I'm sorry to hear that. We have now spent considerable time trying to delay this bill, trying to persuade members on the opposite side of the House that there were indeed good and obvious reasons for holding back, for thinking seriously about this legislation, for not trying to push it through precipitously. Sadly, all of those reasons seem to have been ignored. Unfortunately, nobody has been listening to what we have to say."

Many here today have talked about the economic and labour situations. That has drastic consequences, because one of the things we have at the moment in this labour-oriented government is to promote labour expansion not only in the construction industry but in the non-profit, voluntary sector of our economy: the sector that provides care to those with disabilities and helps them become independent, the sector that provides health care, the sector that provides community care and educational care for children from the time they are born until they get to school -- the kind of care that has been brought together with our support in an act of this Legislature, through Children and Families. But, as so often happens with this government, they can take a good idea and destroy it by the manner of its implementation. This is what they have done in Children and Families. By attempting to labourize -- I'll use that term -- the services given and needed by the people in our community, they have destroyed the services which have been developed over many years.

It got to such a point that when we got a new Children and Families minister and she began to ask what was happening. . . . She began to hear what was happening, and she called for a review. The review was done on her behalf by Mr. Allen: the D.E. Allen review. When he came in with that review, he had discovered that while the principles of the act may have been valid, the implementation of the act had been totally destructive. So all of the implementation that had been going on for the last two or three years and has disturbed and destroyed our whole social services community had to be put on hold. What we're showing here is that this drive to regulate by government decree that everyone should belong to a union -- to regulate how the union should be organized, to regulate from central positions the rules of the union and of the government relationships and the relationships of the employer and employees -- is totally destructive.

We can understand the fear about this bill when we understand how the government went about trying to work out an agreement between the trustees elected by the people of our community to care for our schools. . . . They were setting out contracts between themselves and the teachers. As they were struggling with this, hampered by the kind of government relations that had been put in place and by continual government meddling as they went through the process, the government finally decided that it wasn't going in the direction they felt it should go. So they interfered. They ignored the trustees. They worked with the union members only and came up with the deal, which we'll have to discuss later in this session. As we look at that deal, we already see that the financial and educational implications are a disaster. There is no way our children are going to be better off because of this. It's the same with this bill. There's no way that families, union members, employers or employees, or businesses are going to better off because of what has happened in this undertaking. We need to look at it from all of these points of view, because if we don't, we take it out of context and try to deal with it itself.

[ Page 9957 ]

Though this government, as with this labour bill, has talked a good line about trying to do something for them, nothing of significance has happened. It's illustrated extremely well in an article by Kim Pemberton of the Vancouver Sun. She talks about her own child, who at two years of age has an educational difficulty. When she went to look for resources to aid her child, she found that resources are not available. Not only did she find that resources were not available for her child, she found that they were not available for thousands of other children in our province. Resources are not available because they are not a priority. What we have to do in our thinking is to get our priorities straight. We have to begin to look at our children as our major resource in the province. We have to say that when they are born and come into the world, it is from that moment that they become a priority. This bill is an indication of, once again, how we have not taken that priority seriously. The implications of the money and time that we have put into these discussions have taken away from the care of our children in our families in our communities.

I mentioned earlier the volunteer communities which have been -- many of them -- forced out of existence because of the pressure to unionize. People have had to go from Vancouver to Kamloops to get care for their little children, because there's no other program available to them. They do that on a weekly basis, because support has been taken away from the volunteer community all around us.

Another letter comes from Doris Schellenberg of Clearbrook Iron Works in Abbotsford:

"As the owner of a small business in B.C. and creator of 30 jobs, I am appalled by the B.C. government's proposed Labour Code changes -- Bill 26. This legislation will further undermine investor confidence in the B.C. economy. I urge the government to send a strong and positive signal to the real job creators by cancelling this legislation immediately. Remember, governments do not create jobs. People with dreams of being a self-employed entrepreneur are the real job creators.

"I have worked long and hard to establish a business based on good service and competitive prices. This legislation does everything to kill the continued possibility of this. This government can't dictate competitive pricing. Small business owners like myself are getting tired of this sort of mentality. A lot of my friends have already left, and more will. Explain that problem to your union buddies when the guy who signs the paycheques has left."

We have committed ourselves to the convention on the rights of the child, which says that we have responsibility for them -- and we need to express that responsibility. This act and the majority of the other acts in this Legislature fail to do that, and I am sad.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, you've run out of time.

B. Barisoff: I too rise tonight to support my colleague from Matsqui in his motion to delete the words after "that" and substitute the following: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26). . .for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy."

[10:30]

After that, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head brought a motion to recommend that we send Bill 26 to a select standing committee. Again, the members from that side of the House found it impossible to support such a motion. In essence, when we talk about it and look at it, the select standing committees -- the few that we've had -- have worked extremely well. But the members from that side of the House, even though this is a modest change to the Labour Code, decided that they weren't going to support that either.

So tonight at 10:30, we head back into another debate on Bill 26 -- the same stuff all over again. On this side of the House, we know what kind of effect this is going to have on the people of British Columbia; we know the devastating effects that it will have. I would hope that the members of that side of the House will finally begin to listen. This will have a devastating effect on the economy of British Columbia.

I notice that I drew the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. He knows full well what's taking place in the agriculture industry, particularly in the agrifood industry, as it leaves the province. Today we hear the job protection commissioner indicating that Lilydale, the plant here in Langford, is going to shut down in September. This is an indication of what's happening with the economy of B.C. This is a small processing plant that just can't survive the market. When times get tough, people change. They don't want the marginal plants; they're not able to work anymore. So what happens? They shut down. That's going to have a huge effect on all the chicken producers in the area; it's going to have a ripple effect that funnels all the way through. It affects the feed producers.

It's bills like Bill 26 that cause people to leave the province. We see them leaving one after another. Anybody who had a chance to read the Province on the weekend noticed the great headline on the front page about people fleeing to Alberta. That's wrong. That's not the kind of legacy that we want to leave for the children or for anybody here in British

[ Page 9958 ]

This is not a modest change. It has a major affect on how people and investors look at the economy of British Columbia. When my colleague from Matsqui indicated that it was damaging investor confidence. . . . It's just the tip of the iceberg. My colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove. . . . I mentioned last week, on Thursday, the $100 million. . . . I understand that they might be appearing here tomorrow, showing the government that this is the kind of money that is going to fade away, disappear out of the province. It's disappearing from British Columbia. It's gone, and once it's gone the chances of getting it back are extremely difficult.

Bill 26 is actually behind the times. Other provinces are going in the opposite direction. Ontario is changing its labour laws to give more flexibility to the construction industry. They have just introduced a new Labour Relations Act that gives employers and unions the freedom to negotiate specific project agreements which contain terms and conditions that may be different from provincewide agreements. This is a positive direction. What we're trying to do. . . . This is a direction that people are trying to take it in, to make things happen. The changes in Ontario will end automatic certification and guarantee workers the right to vote for or against the union. That's just simple democracy: the right to vote for or against the union. All we're looking for is a little bit of democracy.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, it is almost impossible to hear the debate going on. Order, members.

B. Barisoff: In a modern economy, companies and workers succeed when labour relations decisions are made in a cooperative fashion, from the bottom up. We on this side of the House support the workers of British Columbia. We want them to have jobs; we want them to be workers; we want them to be out there working. But when you see things like what happened with the Lilydale plant in Langford, you understand that this is the tip of the iceberg. It's one after another leaving British Columbia.

A secret ballot vote at the start of the certification process is a prerequisite to this. It allows the collective bargaining process to begin on a positive note; 77 percent of British Columbians support this. This government is moving in the opposite direction; we're going in the opposite direction. The people of British Columbia deserve better. They want this government to move forward. On this side of the House, all we're trying to do is help this government move forward by stopping this devastating Bill 26. We're trying to make it move in a positive direction.

This bill proposes legislation that is not supported by business, the community or the general public. The government is not listening. Inflexible labour laws are one of the primary reasons why there is a lack of confidence in B.C. as a place to invest and create jobs. Every single time you pick up a newspaper, you find that people are leaving. The confidence is gone. We hear the Minister of Labour saying on the other side: "Well, it's the opposition telling everybody the sky is falling." We're not telling everybody the sky is falling; we're telling everybody the truth. I wonder what the Minister of Labour is going to tell these people at the Lilydale plant in Langford. What is he going to tell those people when they don't have a job -- "The sky is falling"? For them, the sky is falling. That's exactly what's taking place. They won't have jobs, and it's going to be hard for them to relocate from here to the mainland. That company is owned mainly by an Alberta firm. The next step they're going to look at, when we get Bill 26 and labour laws like this. . . . They'll move the rest of their company east, into Alberta.

Bill 26 is misleading; Bill 26 is the thin edge of the wedge. One piece of it at a time will be imposed, until the agenda of organized labour is accomplished. Drip by drip, they're going to slowly but surely get what they want. Last year, they tried to introduce the whole thing in one fell swoop, in Bill 44. There was a total outcry from the public of British Columbia -- a human outcry -- saying: "You can't possibly do that." The economy of British Columbia has gotten worse. Over this last year, we've been on a downhill slide. So the Minister of Labour says: "Well, we'll only introduce a piece of it -- just a small piece of it." But that is the thin edge of the wedge. That's what's going to drive the rest of the businesses out. It's going to continually drive business out of British Columbia, because it's starts with one, then another. . . . Next year, I'm sure, we'll probably be debating another Bill 26 or a Bill 44 in some revised form.

We have to stop this bill now -- all of us together. All 75 members in the Legislature have to work to promote the economy of British Columbia. We can't take a piece of it and say: "What we're going to do is give a little bit extra over here." These people that are out of their jobs just want jobs; they want to work. They don't want something like Bill 26 to come in. They want to look for a job. With cases like this, what we're going to do is force more and more people onto social assistance. The amendments being made will introduce mandatory sectoral bargaining into B.C.'s private sector, starting with the ICI -- industrial, commercial and institutional -- sector. That is sectoral bargaining. We're going to have sectoral bargaining. I know the members on the other side of the House raise their eyebrows and look and say, "That's not true," but it is true.

For all the people listening, even though we're debating this at 20 to 11 on a Monday night, when we should be debating this during the daytime, or maybe at 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock at the latest, so that the folks at home can watch the debate. . . . It's going to affect everybody. Fortunately for us, we're lucky; we have a few people in the audience today that have come by to listen to some of the debate. I appreciate the fact that they're here, listening to what this socialistic government is doing to the province.

The central concept of Bill 44 is back, despite overwhelming opposition from the business community and the general public. No matter how you look at it -- Bill 26, Bill 44 -- it's the same thing. When I went back to my riding this weekend, people said: "Are you going to be able to stop Bill 26? Can you get it off the table? Is there any possible way?" I said: "With any luck at all, with any hope, maybe there are some strong-minded, free-spirited people on the NDP side that are going to get a little ounce of common sense. . . ." I see a member walking in right now. He might have a little common sense and say: "I'm not going to support this." He's the Minister of Small Business, and he might have just a little bit of common sense and vote against this bill.

I spent time with that minister on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. It was an excellent committee; it worked extremely well, and amongst us, we did some

[ Page 9959 ]

Hon. Speaker, when I look at you sitting in the chair there, I think to myself that you were a member of a Motor Carrier Commission committee that went around the province. That was another committee that worked really well. We made recommendations to the minister that eliminated a little bit of red tape in this province. Hon. Speaker, I expected that you might be one of the people who would jump up too, because you knew that that was a good committee. You knew that we did a good job on that committee and made some good recommendations. But I didn't see it happen. I didn't see the Minister of Small Business and I didn't see you -- the member from Cranbook -- get up and support that.

I thought to myself: this is wrong; this is really wrong. We have created something that could work. I know that in his deepest heart, the Minister of Small Business wanted to support that concept. But I imagine that on that side of the House they are told what to do. They're going to ramrod this bill through, whether it is at a quarter to 11 at night or whether it's 2 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the morning -- whatever it takes to push this bill through. I see members over there nodding and smiling and saying: "It's going through. It doesn't matter; it's going through no matter what."

Yet we all know that it's wrong for the people of B.C. This is the wrong bill. It's not the right time to bring this kind of bill forward; it just is not the right time. You know what we want to do? We want to convince the members of that side of the House that a little bit of common sense. . . . Let's make B.C. . . . We won't get it back to number one for a number of years, but let's start moving it away from number ten. Let's move it up to nine, eight, seven, six, five, four -- we'll keep moving it up. It just takes a little bit of common sense from that side of the House. It doesn't take a lot, just a little bit of willpower to stand up and say: "I'm going to be counted; this is wrong for B.C." This is wrong for the residents of B.C. -- seriously wrong.

[10:45]

Sectoral bargaining in any sector of the industry will set the stage for expansion. Each aspect of B.C.'s private sector can end up with its own mandatory union agreement: service industries, manufacturing, high technology. That's the fear that's out there. You know, the Premier is out there roaring around the country, saying: "I'm going to bring 57,000 aluminum plants here, and I'm going to bring ten of this and whatever else. . . ." He's got more things coming into B.C. -- nothing materializes, but he's bringing them here to B.C.

The high-tech industry. I hear the Premier speaking: "Well, I'm going to go out and get some people from the high-tech industry here." But when the people from the high-tech industry look at Bill 26, and this government says, "Well, no, it's only in the construction industry," do you think they're going to believe that? Do you truly believe that the people in the high-tech industry are going to believe that it's going to stop there -- that it's just going to stop? We all know that it's not going to stop. We all know that there's going to be another bill next year, and it'll take another segment and put it into this. We'll have the same Bill 26 all over again, and it will be the high-tech industry. The people on that side of the House will say: "Well, it's for the best"-- but we're not going to have anybody left.

If we allow the government that we have in power today to last much longer, we'll be lucky if there are jobs in B.C. All the time, it's getting to be more and more like the old adage about the last person out shutting off the lights. It's hard to go home every weekend and have members from my community saying: "Why do I have to send my son or daughter to Alberta to get a job? You're my MLA. Why is it that I have to send them there? Why can't you stop Bill 26? What's wrong? Why can't you do it? What's wrong with the people on the other side of the House? Can't you talk to them on an individual basis, one-to-one, and say, 'Listen, do the right thing; don't toe the party line all the time -- do the right thing for the people of British Columbia'?" All I can do is ask that they do the right thing -- try to do the right thing -- for the people of B.C.

That the Minister of Small Business is busy reading there. . . . He knows that the right thing to do would be to vote against this; he knows for sure that it would be the right thing. But not enough people on that side of the House are listening. We have every member on this side of the House getting up to tell the government members that Bill 26 is wrong. We tell them time after time. We told them in the hoist motion. We told them in the motion to refer to a select standing committee. We're telling them here in the motion by my colleague from Matsqui. We keep telling them: "Do something. Do the right thing. Stop this bill." But, as we can see, the night goes on. We're going into late hours of the morning again, debating this bill when a lot of people won't be up to see what's happening. It is simply a method of railroading this bill through.

There should be some management in this House where we can't go past 8 or 9 o'clock at night. What is happening with the House Leader saying that we can just keep ramrodding something like this through? Let's debate this bill when all the people of British Columbia can see it -- every last one of them. They all want to see what's happening with this bill; they want to watch the debate.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Yes, what we were doing this afternoon is exactly right, but they want to hear all the speakers. They want to hear all the speakers from this side of the House. We don't hear anybody from that side of the House getting up -- not a soul. Not a soul gets up from that side of the House to say why they should keep Bill 26. You know why? Because it's hard for them to get up and spend half an hour not telling the truth. It's difficult for them to stand up, knowing full well that they'll be on TV and that the people of British Columbia would say to them: "Hey, listen, that's wrong. How could you stand up and say things like that?" And when they go back to their ridings, people will confront them and say: "Why would you say something like that when you know it's wrong?"

Bill 26 is destructive for the economy of British Columbia. Cut it any way you want: it's a destructive bill. Bill 26 destroys jobs. It will destroy some businesses, and it will definitely kill investor confidence. It has killed investor confidence, and Bill 26 is hardly. . . . We're only debating it, and people are talking about leaving. Let's do the right thing. Let's try to bring them back.

This government is not learning from its mistakes. Bill 44 was a mistake. You stopped it; you did the right thing. Bill 26

[ Page 9960 ]

When I go back to my riding, week after week, or when the House is finished, and I speak in front of the chamber of commerce or groups from different communities in my riding, they ask me: "Did you speak against Bill 26?" I can get up there and say: "Yes, I did. I did everything in my power to try to stop this bill -- everything in my power to try to stop it." That's what they're telling us. We get letters on top of letters from people telling us: "Stop this bill." The members from that side of the House are getting the same letters. We know a lot of letters are addressed to the Premier, and they're copied to members from this side of the House. But the Premier is not listening.

I hear members from that side of the House saying: "Well, I only got a few letters. Just a few people aren't going to have jobs." We can't afford to lose jobs in British Columbia. That's the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to create jobs.

Bill 26 is an insensitive bill. Jobs won't be created if the business community sees a poor labour relations climate becoming more negative. It seems to get more negative every time we turn around. Construction is the window on the economy. Labour relations is one of the factors considered before investors make a decision. Why should they risk their money in B.C. when Alberta and Washington have a better labour and business climate?

We meet people almost daily in this House, almost daily in the precinct. People come from all over. What are they telling us? Today we met with people who were saying: "What is going on?" Business leaders from the U.S. were here today, and they were saying: "What is going on? Do you realize that this government is farther left than any democratic government that we've ever had in the U.S.?" That was the statement that was made: "It's unbelievable." They said that it's unbelievable. They have never seen a government destroying jobs as quickly as this government. They've never, ever seen it.

It's wrong. This government has continually demonstrated its unwillingness to listen and its obvious insensitivity to the factors which influence our economy. They don't listen; they just don't listen. It's because everybody on that side of the House. . . . They pick up their paycheque every two weeks, the same as the members on this side of the House. But what about the people who don't have jobs? What about the people who are on social assistance? The people on that side of the House have to start to think that we have to create jobs for the people of B.C. No more of this Bill 26 stuff or Bill 14 -- we go from bill to bill to bill and it destroys everything. We've yet to get into a debate on Bill 39.

An Hon. Member: We're waiting.

B. Barisoff: As one of my colleagues says: "We're waiting." Destructive bill after destructive bill. . . . Why is this government bound and determined to destroy the economy of British Columbia? We're on a downhill slide. They say: "Well, it's the Asian flu." Well, yes, the Asian flu has a little bit to do with it, but not nearly as much as the NDP flu. That's the flu that's causing the grief in British Columbia. That's the one that's really driving it down.

An Hon. Member: That's a good one.

B. Barisoff: That is a good one. It's driving the economy down so far that it's not even funny. Who asked for Bill 26? We can't find anybody. We understand that there are a few high people in the labour movement who have asked.

An Hon. Member: Could it be that nineteenth cabinet minister?

B. Barisoff: That could be; it could be the nineteenth cabinet minister. I think the Premier mentioned Mr. Georgetti as the nineteenth cabinet minister of British Columbia. That's who asked for Bill 26.

They're saying: "It's not broken. Why are we trying to fix something that isn't broken?" You know why? It's because you've got 39 seats. That's why you're doing it; that is the only reason.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: The Minister of Small Business is saying: "Why are we doing it?" That's why you're doing it. You're not helping the working people if they don't have a job. That's the wrong thing to do. You know full well that if they don't have a job. . . . What are they going to do? Bill 26 is driving people out of this province daily. The Minister of Small Business should be the first one to say that this is wrong -- the very first one. He should be arguing with his colleagues in cabinet and saying: "Listen, this is wrong for small business." He knows it's wrong. I bet you that if you could talk to him one-on-one, he'd tell you: "Yes, I know it's wrong, but this is the NDP way. This is the socialist way. We have the 39 seats in the House, and we're going to run this through. We have payback time. We have to pay back some of the people that supported us."

That's exactly what's taking place: it's payback time. But why should there be payback time on the backs of the residents of British Columbia? Why should we do that? Why shouldn't we make the economy work? I would like to ask the Minister of Small Business to get up and speak after me and tell me how many small businesses have written to him and said: "Minister of Small Business, this is a good thing."

Hon. I. Waddell: Not one.

B. Barisoff: I listen to him saying: "Not one." Not one small business has supported this bill -- not one in the entire province. This province runs on the back of small business, but nobody. . . . The Minister of Small Business has to understand the effect that this is going to have.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

B. Barisoff: This is wrong. It doesn't make any sense. The evidence and the record speak for themselves. At times, you get up here and you say to yourself that it's hard, because the people of British Columbia are out there looking and saying: "What can we do?"

An Hon. Member: They deserve better.

B. Barisoff: They do deserve better, they certainly deserve better. They deserve a better reaction from the government in power. The government in power doesn't mean dictatorship; it doesn't mean you railroad through whatever you want. I'm sure that there's got to be a few people on that

[ Page 9961 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Any member over on that side of the House that says that Bill 26 will not affect the investor confidence of British Columbia. . . . I can't say the words, hon. Speaker. I just can't say what it is, because it's probably unparliamentary to say what I'd like to say to anybody over there that believes that Bill 26 does not affect investor confidence. It does affect investor confidence.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: I hear the Minister of Small Business speaking again. He's starting to sound like the Minister of Labour: "The sky is falling." Well, the sky is falling. Ask the workers at the Lilydale plant. Ask them if the sky is not falling.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

B. Barisoff: I still have more to say, and I hope to get another chance to get up here.

[11:00]

This is the fourth opportunity that we've had to speak to Bill 26, and I think this says something about our commitment to trying to stop this very, very controversial bill. And I'm sure that over and over again this House has heard the members of the opposition express their concerns. There's a certain amount of frustration for all of our members when we see that we're still debating Bill 26 and that this government has refused to listen to reason and to relent and to hoist this bill.

I'm really amazed by the reaction of the Minister of Labour. Just over ten years ago, when he was a member of the opposition, he was quoted as saying the following:

"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."

I've had three prior opportunities to speak to Bill 26. The first time I spoke against this bill was in second reading. The second opportunity to speak to Bill 26 was on the amendment to hoist the bill for six months. The argument used was that this bill would damage our economy by increasing uncertainty in the Labour Code, so therefore giving the bill six months would allow the public to respond and, hopefully, the government could react to the public's concerns and do an economic impact study.

The third opportunity I had to speak against the bill was on the second amendment. It referred this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. That is an all-party committee. This would have allowed the government to function in a true democratic process, by allowing the public's input into this very controversial bill. It would have allowed the government to rethink their position on this amendment to the Labour Code.

This third amendment really speaks to the potential impact that this bill will have on creating a negative climate for investment and further damage to the economy of British Columbia.

The latest round of Labour Code changes began last year with Bill 44, and there were basically two components. The main section, where it brought in sectoral bargaining for each of the seven sectors of the construction industry, would have given the craft unions an opportunity to unionize workplaces unchallenged. The second component contained changes to other aspects of the Labour Code, the main one being successor rights. Last year the government was forced to withdraw its bill, but that did not satisfy them. Bill 26 is the first step in re-creating their 1997 Labour Code amendment bill. The minister has said that these are modest changes. These are not modest changes. Any changes to the Labour Code that tip the scales in favour of one player are not modest. They are particularly not modest when the economic environment is considered.

I have a letter here from the president of the Interior Savings Credit Union. There are a couple of items that I would like to quote:

"As you are aware, our B.C. economy is already suffering. Clearly, both workers and businesses are leaving this province. This legislation will further hurt our ability to attract and retain small and big business investment and jobs in this province."

". . .we reported [that the] challenges for government [included] the 'pro-union-pro-labour bias of government' and the perception that 'B.C. isn't open for business.' In recent months, I have seen and heard of an unprecedented number of workers who are moving out of this province due to spouses who have been transferred with their jobs as their employers relocate to more business-friendly provinces."

This really indicates that the minister doesn't know what he's talking about. He really does not understand the current economic climate. I just don't understand what the Minister of Labour's problem is with understanding it. Does he have a bad case of cataracts, which are giving him clouded vision, so that he can't see the impact that his current policies are having on the future of this province? Or could he have a case of tunnel vision, where he's only seeing what he wants to see? He's so caught up in his archaic ideology, he sees nothing else. Or is he simply so overpowered by the Premier that, even though he sees the damage that this shortsighted piece of legislation is creating, he is toeing the line and taking all the flak for his leader without having the guts to stand up to the Premier's Office and say that this legislation is bad for this province?

[ Page 9962 ]

The minister and Premier have received letters from my constituents. I have had the opportunity to read some of those letters over the course of this debate. I would like to refer to one letter in particular, which was written by George Heiss of Gray Monk Cellars. This winery, of course, is located in my riding of Okanagan East. In his letter he states:

". . .this legislation is just another attempt by the NDP government of this province to put a stranglehold on small business. . . . Small businesses, and most big businesses in this province, are teetering on the brink of destruction as it is -- we do not need any further Labour Code changes. The people of British Columbia cannot afford any more of your government's attitude -- you are killing investment, killing jobs and killing small business."

"We do not need your NDP government tampering with any more labour changes. Stop Bill 26. We view this bill as your stepping stone to begin tampering with the labour laws of the rest of the workforce -- leave us alone. Spend your time and energy getting this province back on track, so that all British Columbians can be employed."

Deputy Speaker: Relevancy, member.

J. Weisbeck: I do want to make a couple of suggestions for the members opposite. As I mentioned, the wineries in my riding are very important to the economy of the area. They have given a couple of suggestions to the members opposite. Gray Monk Cellars suggest the pinot gris. Calona Wines suggest the 1996 Private Reserve, late harvest ehrenfelser. It won an award in 1998 at a world competition. Cedar Creek Estate Winery suggests a 1995 chardonnay. It won the gold medal in an all-Canadian wine competition. One of my favourites, from Summerhill Estate Winery, is Cipes Brut, a wonderful wine that is great with smoked salmon and oysters. I really do hope that the members opposite will buy B.C. the next time they have the option to buy some wine.

The amendment speaks to Bill 26 damaging investor confidence. I think this was well expressed by the general manager of Mantes Beach Club Ltd. in my area. This company has invested $10 million in the local economy and has created over 50 jobs. He states:

"The answer is simple: corporations will not move into an area in which labour costs and restrictions are too high and are not given any incentives compared to the other options available to them. . . . If the NDP want to stimulate growth and better labour conditions, they should aggressively look at how to attract companies to our great province instead of driving them away. I guarantee you that by passage of this new Labour Code you will hurt the very people you are trying to help the most."

We are being told that these are modest changes and, in fact, that they are long-awaited changes in order to become an equal playing field with Alberta. The minister fails to add that in Alberta they have a secret ballot. Why is the secret ballot so important? It gives the worker the fundamental right to choose without fear of reprisal. It allows the worker to vote and to be assured that there will be air in his tires after the meeting. It assures the worker that he won't get any threatening phone calls after the vote.

I am pleased to support this amendment. I would halt second reading of the bill. This bill is ill-timed. At a time when the world is looking for a safe bet for investment, this bill creates uncertainty. At a time when this province needs fair and balanced labour legislation, this bill does the opposite. We need government and labour legislation that will work with investors, businesses and workers to find the best solution for all.

Bill 26 upsets the balance between business and labour. It says to the business community that this NDP government is disregarding their concerns and is going ahead with these amendments to the Labour Code. The business community has been very active in the three weeks since the bill was introduced, and I have received dozens of phone calls and letters. Business wants to stay in B.C. There are many businesses which have been here for years and would like to stay for many more, but they're slowly drifting to other states and provinces. Business must make a profit to survive. If they have to move elsewhere to make that profit, they will; many of them have already moved.

The Premier said that this is about fundamental human rights. What about employers' fundamental right to earn a profit so that they can feed their children and families? What about the right to determine their own destiny? What about the fundamental right of an employer to run a business free of excessive red tape and demands? We should be introducing more labour market flexibility, not rigidity. Research evidence suggests that countries with flexible labour markets create more jobs than those with rigid labour laws.

This is a bill that establishes sectoral bargaining in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry. These amendments will dramatically expand the power of unions in that sector by imposing a mandatory sectoral agreement that will make it easier for unions to recruit members by offering a single standard contract, instead of requiring newly organized union members to negotiate a first contract from scratch.

[11:15]

[ Page 9963 ]

The minister has said that not only are they modest changes but that they probably will not have any significant impact. Probably -- well, that certainly creates a lot of confidence in me. Probably can also mean possibly, and what the minister is really saying is that they don't know. They don't know, because they've never completed an economic impact study -- or if there had been one, they probably would have chosen to ignore the results. The fact remains that even the minister is suspecting that this will further hurt the economy of this province. Every cross-section of this province is being affected.

Kelowna's economy has always been fairly resilient, especially in the past when the housing market has always been very, very active. Kelowna has always had better than active growth -- certainly for the two to five years that I sat on city council. There was 6 percent and 7 percent growth in those years, which accounted for a lot of late-night meetings, public hearings and rezoning applications to 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning. So sitting here with this bill is nothing new for me.

But in 1998 Kelowna has been severely impacted by this downturn. We're finding that in the first half of this year there have been 850 permits for a value of $42.2 million, whereas for the same period last year, in 1997, they had 984 permits for a total of $61.7 million. So even Kelowna is being impacted by this downturn.

We've heard many excuses by this government as to why we are underperforming compared to the rest of Canada. The Minister of Forests blames our economic woes and the downturn in the forestry revenues on the weather. He simply refuses to take responsibility for the fact that they created overregulation in the forest sector by the Forest Practices Code. Asian flu has been cited as the latest excuse, but in reality, our problems began long before Asia got a stomach ache. I think they began with the NDP being elected in 1991. I think Premier Clark should follow the lead of Prime Minister Hashimoto in Japan and resign. Prime Minister Hashimoto takes full responsibility for his country's economic crisis and is stepping aside.

There was an article in the Sunday Province about B.C. families fleeing to Alberta. In this case, they were targeting Edmonton, a city that I am certainly familiar with. I graduated from dental school at the University of Alberta in Edmonton in 1971. In 1969, I had the enjoyment of living through one of Alberta's record winters -- as a matter of fact, in that particular year they had 40 days of below zero degrees Fahrenheit -- so I always find it very severe when someone talks about trading in balmy B.C. for a pair of underwear to live in Alberta, especially Edmonton. Obviously these are pretty desperate times. I was interested to note that a quote in the paper, as well, talked about an individual who had just recently moved there but hadn't lived through a winter yet. Hopefully, with a change of ideology and government, we'll be able to entice these people back to some balmier climates.

One of the oldest companies in the province, Finning Tractor, has found its way to Edmonton. I know that when we had the opportunity to speak to these gentlemen at the truck loggers' convention, they were simply tired of being abused by this government and its anti-business actions, and by the fact that they were paying corporate capital tax on equipment that was sitting in their showrooms.

House prices are also very attractive in Edmonton. I found that the average price in Edmonton is half of that in Vancouver; it's $116,000 in Edmonton, and it's sitting at about $285,000 in Vancouver. Bill 26 is predicted to have a further impact on the housing costs in B.C., and it will probably increase that differential even more.

Hon. Speaker, the amendment declines to give second reading to Bill 26 because of the further damage it will do to investor confidence and the province. My constituents have written numerous letters to the Premier and to this minister expressing their concern about the introduction of mandatory sectoral bargaining in British Columbia's private sector. They're concerned that this is the thin edge of the wedge. They are concerned that the viability of business will be affected. Some are talking about moving out of the province; others have already moved. Now is the time to show families that we want their providers to have jobs so that they can put food on the table, to show business that they are welcome in B.C. and show investors that we want them in this province.

There are many steps we have to take in this province before things will begin to get better, but there is one step we can do now. To get on the road to recovery, it is necessary to not pass Bill 26 into legislation and to vote for this amendment.

I received a letter from the chamber of commerce. I would like to conclude with the comments from this letter, because I think it really says a lot about what is happening in this province and how my constituents are feeling. As you know, the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce is one of the largest in British Columbia. It represents quite a number of businesses and, I think, expresses views for the entire province.

"At a time when our economy is already struggling to avoid slipping deeper into economic turmoil, the collective interests of all British Columbians are ill-served by the passage of this unbalanced bill, which would further discourage job-creating investments in this province.

". . .the legitimate rights of organized labour are already well-protected under current legislation. However, the interests of other British Columbians must also be considered. In particular. . .the 10 percent of our province's workforce that are currently unemployed. . .are increasingly forced to look outside British Columbia for new job opportunities to support themselves and their families.

"Workers must have the right to decide democratically for themselves if they want to join a union. . . . Bill 26 doesn't entrust workers with the fundamental democratic right to a secret-ballot vote whenever a trade union decides it wants to represent them. The right to a secret-ballot vote on certification is an important "check and balance" in the process. Denying workers that right is totally inconsistent with a free and democratic society."

[ Page 9964 ]

C. Clark: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this amendment. The Speaker will be aware that the opposition has raised three amendments to this bill, all of which are outlined in the standing orders. We're fairly limited in what we can do with that, but we've raised this amendment to encourage the government, to give the government another opportunity to stand the bill down, to hold it back, to take it off the business of the House -- to either take it away from the legislative agenda altogether or at the very least spend some time talking to British Columbians about what it's going to mean for them. Spend some time finding out from British Columbians what this bill will mean for our economy, because that's what we are contending in the opposition to this amendment -- that this bill must be withdrawn because it will further destabilize the economy in British Columbia.

One of the things that my colleague pointed out in his speech earlier was how difficult it is to understand why the government would continue to push ahead with this bill, even into the dark of night, under the veil of night when the public isn't paying attention. They're hopeful that enough people are on vacation that they can force their legislation through with minimum public outcry, so that they can do it the sneaky way rather than the honest way -- do through the back door what they couldn't do through the front door, so that they can do secretly what they can't do out in the open, because they don't have the moxie to risk the public protest that would ensue.

They don't have the moxie to go out and take this bill across British Columbia with committees. We know that, because we raised an amendment. . . . We made an offer to the government to refer this bill to committee, so that we could travel British Columbia and find out what British Columbians are thinking -- find out why they think this bill will be hard on them, why they think it will damage jobs. But the government is scared to go out and listen to people. They're scared that they might hear something that they don't like. That's the bottom line. That's why members of the government voted against our amendment.

That must be the only reason, because when they were in opposition they got up and spoke eloquently -- well, maybe not eloquently but certainly not briefly -- about how important it was to refer to committees other labour bills that other governments came forward with, let the committees take those bills to British Columbians and hear what British Columbians had to say. They were insistent, when they were in opposition, that that was an important part of this democratic process. But now that they're in government, things have changed -- and dramatically changed.

One of the things that my colleague pointed out is that the reason we on this side of the House have difficulty understanding what the government is doing with this, why they're plowing ahead, is because we have pointed out so consistently how bad this bill will be for British Columbia's economy. How many people will be hurt? How many workers will be thrown out of jobs by the party that claims to support the worker, the party that purports to represent working British Columbians? Well, I've got news for you: there won't be people working in British Columbia if the government keeps on the economic course that it's taken. There won't be work out there. And if there isn't work, there aren't workers. If there aren't workers, then there's no one to unionize. That's the bottom line, because if there are no jobs in British Columbia, there are no union jobs either. That's why this piece of legislation is defeating what the government claims is its own purpose. Either the government or the Minister of Labour does not understand what he is doing -- which is very hard to believe. It's not just us that have stood on this side of the House and told him what the government is doing. Thousands of other British Columbians have come together to tell the government about the impact the legislation will have on their lives, on their ability to provide for their families.

The government does not lack the information. They know; they've been told. They have been travelling down this course for seven years, and look where it has got us. The future in British Columbia is bleak today; it's dismal. That's because of the place the government has gotten us to. It's because of the economic policies that this government has pursued. Year after year this government has brought in destructive economic policies that have done nothing but damage our economy, that have taken us from number one in Canada to number ten, from the best-performing economy in the country to the worst. This economy is being outperformed by Newfoundland. That is astonishing.

[11:30]

Either the Labour minister doesn't understand what has happened to our economy -- what he and his government are doing to our economy -- or he is so ideologically closed-minded, so ideologically fixed in his view of a hard-core radical labour government -- an ideologically old-line labour party -- that he cannot be swayed. He's stuck in a view of the past that won't work anymore. This is an old-line labour party. This is not a party that represents the ideals of social democrats like they used to claim to. This is not a party that represents the underclass, the middle class, the working class; this is not a party that represents those people. This is not a party that represents the greens, the feminists and all those other groups they claim to support. The only people, the only interest, that this government is now driven by is the hard-line labour interest.

We're not talking about working people when we talk about the interests that drive this government. We're talking about the people that this Premier refers to as the nineteenth cabinet minister, the biggest labour bosses in the province. That's what we're talking about: the narrowest of narrow special interests. That's who this government is driven by. They have completely forgotten and left behind all those other things they claim to stand for.

You know, the only way you can get into cabinet or stay in cabinet today is to take orders from the Premier -- a man who considers the biggest labour boss in British Columbia the unelected member of his cabinet, the nineteenth member of his cabinet. The Minister of Environment got her job only because she listens to the Premier; she will do what she is told. It's not because she is a great defender of the environment, not because she is going to stand up for all those values that that

[ Page 9965 ]

Deputy Speaker: Take your chair, member. The member for Surrey-Whalley rises on a point.

J. Smallwood: A point of clarification. . . . Perhaps you could help us. I understand that there's a motion on the floor, and unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe that the current speaker is relevant to that motion.

Deputy Speaker: The motion that we're dealing with is the amendment to Bill 26 proposed by the opposition -- the recent amendment. All members should take note of that.

C. Clark: As I was saying, unless you take orders from the Premier, you're not going to get to stay in cabinet. You're not going to last in cabinet, because the people in this cabinet. . . . The credential that you require is not that you're prepared to work hard; it's not that you know your job description; it's that you're prepared to take orders from the Premier and stand up for those very narrow special interests.

Deputy Speaker: Take your chair for a minute, member. The member for Surrey-Whalley rises on a point.

J. Smallwood: Regrettably, it's the same point, hon. Speaker. I'd ask you to instruct the speaker to speak to the motion that is before the House.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. The member for Richmond-Steveston rises on the same point.

G. Plant: I'm working my way through this, but I think that the member is making a point of order, and I think the gist of her point of order is the issue of relevance. I'm certain that the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has taken the member's comments and understands fully that the tenor of her debate and its content have to be relevant to the motion before the House, and I'm certain that the member will act under your guidance, without any difficulty.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, members. Both members have delivered good points of order, and all members should direct themselves to the points made.

C. Clark: The problem with the economy today is that this government doesn't get it. Nobody in cabinet gets it. That's why we are now faced with legislation that is representative of only the most narrow interests in British Columbia. That's why we've introduced this amendment, which would essentially result in the bill being withdrawn, set aside.

This is a government that has forgotten its roots. This is a government that represents only those people that they consider to be their friends: the people that were prepared to back the Premier in his leadership bid; the people, I guess, who derailed the Minister of Agriculture's bid to rise to the Premiership; those people who got behind the Premier and made sure he made it to the Premier's chair. That's what this bill is about today. That's why we're here debating it. That is why the opposition is standing up against it so firmly, why we are using every tactic available to us under the standing orders and offering the government every available opportunity, through amendments, to withdraw their bill.

It is an ideologically driven bill, and that is by necessity bad public policy. Good public policy is driven by the broadest public interest. That's what makes good governance: finding out what it is that the public would like, as much as you can; trying to find a consensus, if you can, and trying to govern in such a way that represents as many of those interests as you can. In many cases, government cannot find consensus. But in those cases, at least the public needs to be assured that the government has done its best to determine what it is that they want and then tried to find a solution that meets at least the basic tests of common sense. Instead, when you have an ideologically driven government, what you get is ideological legislation that doesn't represent the broad public interest -- legislation that represents just the narrowest of interests.

The problem with ideologues is that, first, they are never, ever prepared to admit that they're wrong and make a change. That's why we saw Bill 44 come in, and the government took back the bill with its tail between its legs and now has brought in the son of Bill 44. That's the mark of a government that can't admit that it's wrong: when they withdraw the bill and then bring the same bill back in, the son of Bill 44. It's the thin edge of the wedge. This government doesn't know how to learn its lesson. This government, if it had any courage, would just say: "We were wrong. We introduced a bill that was bad for British Columbia, and we're not going to introduce another. We're not going to introduce a pale imitation of the last labour bill we brought in, the last massive overhaul of the Labour Code that we attempted." That would be the mark of a government that had some courage. That would be the mark of a government that wasn't so wedded to its ideological roots that it can't stray, that it never can admit that it's wrong.

The second problem with an ideologue is that not only do they never say they're wrong, but if something goes wrong. . . . When in doubt, blame somebody else. If it's the economy: "Well, that's the fault of Asia. They had an economic meltdown over there." The economy is not the government's fault. It's not the NDP's fault. That's the fault of Asia. If there's a problem with the budget, blame the weather. That's what the last Minister of Finance did. He said that one of the big reasons he had a budget deficit was because they couldn't predict the weather. Well, I'm not sure that that's really coming clean with the public -- to blame the weather for your budget deficits. But then again, that's a new excuse, isn't it?

The last people that this government used to blame were the Socreds -- the previous government. All those budget deficits were the previous government's fault. Well, guess what. That government has been out of power for seven years, and this government has still failed consistently to balance a single budget in British Columbia. So whose fault is it now? If it's not the Socreds fault anymore, if it's not the weather's fault anymore, whose fault is it this year? Who's the government going to point its finger at? This year they point their finger across the water at Asia.

Now, maybe it is El Niño. I can hear the hon. minister suggesting that maybe El Niño is to blame. Maybe the Minister of Fisheries would blame El Niño for the state of the fishery; I don't know. Maybe the minister of mining would blame Chile for the state of the mining industry. Maybe the Minister of Fisheries would blame the Americans for the state of the fishery. He certainly wouldn't look at this government's consistent failure to invest in fish habitat, to bring B.C. Hydro to heel, to make sure that his government's agencies are doing what they need to do to protect fish habitat. There's a part for British Columbia to play in this deal too, to try and protect

[ Page 9966 ]

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. Perhaps we could get back to the amendment to Bill 26.

C. Clark: . . .is a title. Thank you, hon. Speaker, I certainly will.

When I talk about the economy and the damage that Bill 26 is going to do to destabilize our economy, it's important, I think, for the government members to recognize why we have a problem, why the bill is going to destabilize our economy. We have said consistently that the problem with this bill is that it is the wrong legislation being introduced at the wrong time. Our economy is fragile; it can't withstand this kind of change at this time. It can't.

How have we gotten to this place? What I'm trying to illustrate for the House is how we got here. We got here because we have a government that cannot recognize -- that refuses to recognize, even when confronted with the facts -- that there is a problem. And they not only need to understand that there is a problem -- because that's the first step in recovery -- but also need to recognize how we got to the place where we are, why we have a problem. It's important for the government to recognize that it has caused the problem, that it needs to change its behaviour before the economy can heal, that it needs to take some dramatic steps to change our economy, to fix the deficit, to repair the damage that they've done to local communities across British Columbia -- small towns, even coastal towns, where people aren't working, where there's a sense of hopelessness, where there is a sense that the future is dim. Young people are streaming out of those towns and travelling to other provinces and other jurisdictions to try and find work.

[11:45]

Today this province has the highest student unemployment rate in Canada. That is disgraceful; that is despicable. The student unemployment rate in British Columbia has no business being the highest in Canada -- absolutely not. And you know why student unemployment is so high? It's because this government has shut down the economy. Young people can't get work in British Columbia anymore; they can't get work here. When the economy contracts, the first people that are shut out of the job market are the young. The people that don't have experience, that don't have the connections to be able to get in, are the first people to get cut out of the economy.

When this government does its special deals with its union pals and brings in changes for silviculture employment in the forest industry, where they favour IWA workers, what that means is that students aren't going to get those jobs. That's what happens when the economy contracts, and that's why this bill will be so damaging to our economy at this time. That's why the government needs to withdraw it, and that's why we are offering this amendment to the government.

The economy cannot continue to contract. Student unemployment cannot continue to rise. This government cannot sit there in good conscience and watch the student unemployment rate go up. This Premier is the Minister Responsible for Youth, and while he sits there with his responsibilities and allows this. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member, could you take your chair, please. The member for Surrey-Whalley rises on a point.

J. Smallwood: Hon. Speaker, I find this offensive. This is an amendment to Bill 26. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything the member has been saying during her time in this House. The Liberal oppositions says: "Who cares?" Well, this time is important time for the people of this province. They're paying big dollars to keep this House open, and if this member wants to do the business of this House, she should limit her comments to the bill and the amendment at hand.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair has made several comments in regard to repetition and irrelevancy throughout this debate. If members are having difficulty coming up with new information that they'd like to add to the debate, then perhaps they need to pass on their place in the speaking position to someone else. I've also said several times that parliament's dignity is impaired by time wasted in idle debate, and I'll continue to rule on this basis. So I would caution members to keep that in mind.

C. Clark: I'm pleased to see that the members of the government are listening so carefully. Not often at this late hour in the House do we get to sit here and look at the government members all sitting there awake, but I must say it's lovely to see the change on that side of the House.

I will say, hon. Speaker, that just before I sat down, I was noting that the amendment was important. And I can remind the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley that the amendment is important because this bill. . . . What we're trying to achieve here with the withdrawal of this bill is to offer the government the opportunity to, again, back down on labour legislation that will certainly destabilize our economy. That's the opportunity we're offering to the government here; that's the importance of this amendment, as I was saying. When we look at where we are today economically, you can certainly see the necessity of this amendment.

The member from Surrey stands up and says that she'd like to see members doing the business of this House. Well, the business of this House is taking care of -- looking after -- the interests of British Columbians. Thank goodness there is one side of this House that is interested in doing that, in making sure that the interests of British Columbians are looked after, in making sure that there is someone in this House who's prepared to raise the serious issues of our economy. The member from Surrey can get up as much as she likes and try to shut down the debate about the economy because it makes her feel uncomfortable. She can stand up and attempt to do that. But on this side of the House we are attempting to amend this bill so that it will be withdrawn, so that we can stop the damage that this government is doing to our economy.

I understand that it makes her feel uncomfortable. Maybe it even makes her feel a little bit guilty. Maybe it makes her look back at her constituents and realize that she's not representing them very well. Maybe all those people in the unemployment line, all those students who aren't working today, make her feel a little bad, having to hear. . . .

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you take your seat, please. The Minister of Fisheries rises on a point of order.

Hon. D. Streifel: With regret, hon. Speaker. . . . The member opposite has a weakness in debate. Unable to remain relevant to the motion in front of us, she reduces it to personal attack on the members here. It's unparliamentary, hon. Speaker; I ask you to bring her to order and keep her relevant to the motion.

[ Page 9967 ]

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. As I was saying, we are raising this amendment so that we can have the bill withdrawn. I am trying to point out to the government as best I can why the bill should be withdrawn, and that's certainly relevant. The amendment says that this bill will destabilize the economy; that's what it says. So if I speak to the economy, I'm sure I won't be irrelevant.

I'm sure, though, that the government members have an interest in trying to get the opposition members not to speak about the economy, because they are ashamed of the place they've brought us to. They must be ashamed of their Minister of Finance. They must be ashamed of their Premier, who not only ran in an election, claiming that the budget was balanced -- and then it turned out not to be -- but since then has failed to balance a single budget and has driven student unemployment up to record levels. That's what our economy is doing today, and that's why this government should withdraw this bill.

I'm sure I don't need to remind the members on the other side that that's why we've offered this amendment. Take the opportunity. That's why we're inviting the government to take the opportunity to accept this amendment and to withdraw the bill. The economy cannot continue to withstand the assault that this government has put it under. When young people are out of work at record levels in British Columbia, it is a shame. This is a province that should be -- and once was -- prosperous. Instead, we have a government that points its fingers and says: "It's somebody else's fault; we won't take responsibility for what we've wrought in British Columbia."

Well, if the government members vote in favour of this bill, they had better start taking responsibility for what they've done. The member from Surrey had better start taking responsibility for some of the people who are on the unemployment line in her community. So had all the other members on that side of the House. They'd better start taking some responsibility for the uncertainty that people have to live with when they don't have a job, when they can't make their mortgage payment, when they're not sure if they're going to be able to pay for their children to go to school. They should take some responsibility for that, because what they are doing with this labour bill is further destabilizing the economy. They are putting another nail in the coffin of the economy of British Columbia, and it will be the last nail. We are already number ten; we already have record levels of unemployment among young people. We already have whole communities that are shutting down in British Columbia because of the policies of this government.

That is where the blame belongs: at the feet of this Minister of Finance and this Premier. That is the problem with our economy. If there is finger-pointing to be done, the Premier should look in the mirror, because he has caused this problem.

This labour bill will do nothing but further destabilize our economy. That is why the opposition has stood up so loudly against it. If the government is so convinced that this amendment shouldn't go through, let them stand up and speak against it. Let them try and persuade the members of the opposition. But they won't stand up and do that, because they know -- at least, some of them know -- that what we are doing is right. What the government is proposing to do with its labour legislation flies in the face of common sense, and. . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: . . .that's why I ask the members of the government to vote in favour of this amendment.

J. Dalton: It's certainly a pleasure to follow my colleague from Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, who was always on the topic of the economy. Just yesterday I had the pleasure of passing through that member's riding on my way to Harrison. In fact, I got there by bicycle, of all things, but that's another story.

We are dealing with a very important amendment to Bill 26.

An Hon. Member: We're not talking about rapid transit.

J. Dalton: No, I certainly was not on rapid transit yesterday, I can assure you. It took me seven hours to get there, but I made it.

The amendment that the member for Matsqui has brought in, and which we are addressing this evening and almost into the next morning, is about an economic issue. If the economy of this province isn't something of importance, and something that can be spoken on without incessant interruptions from the members opposite, then I don't know what is. This government has to appreciate the importance of this amendment. Further damage to investor confidence and, of course, further damage to the provincial economy are the essence of this amendment.

When we think back to last year and Bill 44, the government. . . . Through good fortune or something -- I don't know how -- certainly public outcry brought the message very clearly to them that the economy of the province could not stand Bill 44 in any way, shape or form. To give them some credit, even though it's a difficult thing to do, they withdrew Bill 44. They haven't got that message this year. The first thing I'm going to do is comment on some aspects of the provincial economy, but I can assure you that there is no way that the economy of this province has improved over the last year, with or without Bill 44.

It certainly will not improve with Bill 26; there is no way. That's the message we're trying to get through to the members opposite. It's not just the opposition's message. We are speaking on behalf of the people: the employers, the students, the perspective new employees, the ones who are on the picket lines, the ones who are in the unemployment lines. Those are the people we're speaking on behalf of. This labour government opposite seems to be having some difficulty comprehending the impact that its legislative policy has on British Columbia. So let's look at the provincial economy.

If this amendment were to pass, then we would in fact have an opportunity to take Bill 26 off the order paper. If the government wishes -- and as some of my colleagues have commented -- to give it to a standing committee or some other functionary body to examine the impact. . . . I invite the members opposite. . . . If they don't believe in what the opposition is saying -- and I can understand why they wouldn't -- why not take this thing around the province? Let's see what the good, honest folk of British Columbia say about Bill 26. I think that would be an important message for this government to hear.

Let's consider the provincial economy. Firstly, I want to comment on the impact that the Premier himself has had on the economy of this province. We know the track record of the Premier, who travels incessantly here, there and everywhere for photo ops and grand pronouncements. I think recently, for

[ Page 9968 ]

[12:00]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Tourism and Culture rises on a point of order.

Hon. I. Waddell: Surely, hon. Speaker, to be fair. . . . We raised a point of order about the relevancy of the previous speaker. Surely it applies to this speaker too. There has to be some relevancy, and the debate has to pertain to the amendment which is on the floor. If it doesn't pertain to the amendment, it's irrelevant. What is the relevancy of the Skeena situation? Unless the member can make it relevant to this debate, he should proceed to topics on this debate.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. The Opposition House Leader rises on the same point.

G. Farrell-Collins: This is about the sixth point of order raised by the members opposite. Just to help them out, perhaps, or to help the Speaker out, I'll read the amendment into the record again. The amendment is this: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26). . .for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." The member is giving two good examples of how bad the economy is: an $8 million bailout and a $329 million bailout. If the Minister of Small Business needs further proof or evidence of how badly his government has damaged the economy of British Columbia, I'm sure the member will move on to them.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, members. I'm sure the member will take into consideration all of the points raised as he carries on.

J. Dalton: Well, you always know when you're striking a little close to home on economic arguments, hon. Speaker. After all, as the Opposition House Leader has correctly pointed out, the essence of this amendment is the provincial economy. I'm simply citing examples where the Premier himself and the cabinet, or whoever else, have directly interfered in economic opportunity for their own self-serving purposes. If that isn't fair comment, I don't know what is.

Let's talk about some others. I've mentioned the trade and convention centre. There are untold millions that are going to be thrown away there if we don't carefully plan. This government doesn't plan things. SkyTrain -- we'll probably have an opportunity to debate SkyTrain in another context and another bill. We all know the huge economic impact of the expansion of SkyTrain.

I and seven of my colleagues attended the Council of Councils meeting on Saturday morning in Surrey. There was one NDP backbencher at that meeting. . . .

L. Reid: Who came late.

J. Dalton: . . .and she arrived late. But that's fine; she was there. Let's give her credit. No other government members made the effort on a Saturday morning to come and speak to the mayors and councillors of the lower mainland about the GVTA and about the treaty negotiations. I think those are two very important economic topics -- at least I would hope they are. Maybe the government has already signalled, by their non-attendance, that they've abandoned those causes, and it doesn't matter to them.

SkyTrain will be a huge, looming issue. This government doesn't understand the huge, looming debt that SkyTrain, if it isn't properly planned. . . . And not just to run it through a couple of NDP ridings with no thought, no environmental assessment, no planning, no GVRD involvement. . . . Talk to George Puil, the chair of the GVRD. He was asked on Saturday morning: "What is the economic impact? What are the financial implications of SkyTrain?" They didn't have any answers, because the Premier has not provided them with those answers, and that's shocking. That's a serious omission.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Another bill. . . . Again, of course, I won't comment specifically on the bill but will talk about another direct interference in the economy of this province by the Premier. The state of public education. . . . We will come to that issue later on. In fact, I suspect it may be the next bill, when we get rid of Bill 26, in whatever form we're going to. I suspect it may be the next bill on the agenda. The government will have to listen patiently when we get around to that very important aspect of our economy: it's called education.

Now let's consider some of the impact that the government itself -- putting aside the Premier, who, of course, is the leader of the government. . . . That's fine; that's his job -- although I always kind of wonder when he gets up Monday morning. . . . "Where should I be this week?" We know he's going to Prince Rupert tomorrow -- at least, that's what I understand -- weather permitting. Let's look at the track record of the government. We can even go right back to 1991, when the Harcourt government was elected, and all the economic harm that's been created since then.

Debt. What is the provincial debt now -- $32 billion dollars, give or take? Now, if that isn't a serious economic issue, I don't know what is. Just think of the interest payments

[ Page 9969 ]

The deficit. Now the government tells us the deficit is $90 million or whatever. It's probably $900 million. Add a zero and you're closer to the truth. Just talk to the auditor general about keeping the books and keeping track of the real deficit of this province, and not the nominal blue-book deficit that they bring into the House. That's a very serious economic issue, and that deficit will carry on and further contribute to the debt that I've already commented on.

Red tape. I think red tape has something to do with economic development in this province. I'm thinking in particular of the memo dealing with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks that was delivered to the Treasury Board last fall or in early the winter. It pointed out very clearly the economic harm that that ministry was causing in loss of jobs, loss of economic development, because of the holdups in the ministry -- all the paperwork and the backlogs. We asked the Minister of Environment in her estimates how was she addressing the serious impact on the economy that that memo pointed out. I wasn't terribly thrilled with the answers, quite frankly. I attended most of the estimates, as the deputy critic for Environment, and I put some of the questions to the minister. We have to very seriously address the significant impact that the government and its policies have on the economy of this province. Of course, this is a government bill that we are dealing with this morning. It's our amendment that is suggesting to the government that their bill is harmful to the economy of British Columbia.

Let's move on. What is the actual impact of Bill 26 itself? Let's get down to the specifics. We can move from the Premier to government policy and now right to Bill 26. It's interesting, hon. Speaker. You go through the clippings. . . . I hope the members opposite have occasion to even read their own community newspapers. I have a clipping from the Nanaimo Daily News of July 2. That is the Nanaimo paper, which, of course, is the riding of the Minister of Labour. I think that it's probably fairly significant to see what the good people of Nanaimo are writing and saying about the labour bill.

I see that my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson is here beside me. This very article is commenting on his motion, that infamous 11:32-on-a-Thursday-morning motion. The Minister of Labour, to give him credit, gives credit to the opposition for what we did that morning.

An Hon. Member: Who owns that paper?

J. Dalton: I know the Minister of Small Business doesn't want to get into that topic, but still. . . .

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Fair enough, we do live and learn, and that's why we're here. We're trying to learn you guys. We want to learn you all -- give you all a lesson in economic development.

The Minister goes on, and this certainly caught my eye. He says: "If someone can show me what's wrong with the legislation, I'd be prepared to listen. But it hasn't happened." The Minister of Labour is quoted as saying in his own community newspaper that no one has been able to show him what's wrong with the bill. He hasn't listened; he says it hasn't happened.

Interjections.

J. Dalton: Well, I don't know -- maybe the minister hasn't bothered to read the Blues. More importantly, has the minister, I wonder, read any of the economic reviews that are circulated around this province? I'm not suggesting that he should just read his local newspaper, although that would be a good start. I certainly think that the minister should pay attention to the real economic reports that are indicating that Bill 26 is indeed harmful. He should listen to those reports and read those reports.

I have the minister's release of June 17, when this bill hit the floor for first reading. The last comment he makes in the release is: "It is now up to the parties to negotiate standard agreements that keep them competitive and flexible." The problem is that there is no competitive opportunity in Bill 26 -- not for the construction industry. It's going to blanket the industry with a standard agreement. It will wipe out competition. If they haven't been listening to the small business contractors and other people in their own communities, then that is unfortunate. It's not just their constituents; it's the employers, the revenue generators of British Columbia. Those are the ones who are being impacted by Bill 26. Of course, the minister also commented on flexibility. Well, we know there's no flexibility in Bill 26. It's a take-it-or-leave-it operation with the building trades -- and we know, of course, the opportunity for this government to ultimately unionize everybody, if they had their way.

The minister claims -- again, I'm referring back to the newspaper article -- that he hasn't heard any argument as to why Bill 26 is harmful. Well, there is more. In today's Vancouver Sun, there is a column by Suromitra Sanatani. Now, I know that the government doesn't like to hear from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, because after all, they're just those nasty business people, just those nasty employers, just those nasty taxpayers and just those nasty constituents who may or may not vote for them. I think that Ms. Sanatani certainly has a very important message to deliver -- and constantly. I give her credit: she is always on the forefront delivering the economic message that we are trying to deliver on the floor of this House this morning.

Ms. Sanatani starts off with probably the most famous comment that any government member has made since the NDP government came in in 1991. God bless him, of course, it's the Minister of Forests -- my good friend, the MLA for my in-laws, who we all remember. . . . She starts out: "Remember, government can do anything it wants" -- the wise words of the Minister of Forests. I don't want to make a comment about the Minister of Forests. He can take care of himself in question period, as we know, hon. Speaker.

Ms. Sanatani points out that many learned and respected economists in this province -- Bill Stanbury; Roslyn Kunin, who one of my colleagues commented on earlier today; Craig Riddell; Morley Gunderson; Steven Globerman; and Gerald Garvey -- say that this labour law approach will kill jobs, raise costs and chase away investment. This is not some wild academic or an exercise in politics; these are very well respected economists of British Columbia who are telling the government of the harm that Bill 26 will cause. I invite the Labour minister, the Small Business minister and maybe even the Forests minister to reflect on this bill they've brought forward and to seriously consider the importance of our amendment. It's not just the economic argument, of course; it's investor confidence.

[12:15]

[ Page 9970 ]

If the members opposite have not heard from people offshore who say that there's no way they're going to invest a nickel in British Columbia until they see some turn in labour relations, government policy and the other things that we've all commented upon, then unfortunately we haven't been able to get the message through. That only means that the harm will accelerate; it will be exacerbated. We don't need that, not in this province at this time.

Other people have commented, of course, on how they fire the blame elsewhere. They do this. It's someone else's fault; it's the fault of the Asian flu or the Americans, who don't build enough houses. Who knows what other fault they can place elsewhere. The prime fault lies across the floor. That's where the fault is, and that's our function with this motion -- to point out that fault, and to allow this government to take a very serious look at its own policies and its own legislative package and ask itself: "Are we doing the right thing? Are we doing the thing that is going to produce economic opportunity for this province?" I don't see that evidence right now.

Just on a personal note -- because I think it's always helpful to bring things really close to home, if not in-home -- my son will, at the end of this month, be finishing his seven-month heavy-duty mechanics course at BCIT, and he needs an apprenticeship. He's sent out letters to probably 20 or 25 firms in this province. So far he's had a few rather vague replies, but the main message they're telling him is: "We'd like to take you on, but. . . ." I just use the example of Finning, because Finning would be an ideal employer in the area of heavy-duty mechanics. But we know what Jim Shepard is doing with Finning, and this isn't a criticism of Jim Shepard. This is simply to say that Jim Shepard, who knows far more than this government will ever know about the economy and the state of economics, has to move a significant portion of his operations to Edmonton. That's where the action is, folks. I don't particularly quarrel if my son has to end up in Alberta to get an apprenticeship, but I would like to think that my son and many thousands of other young British Columbians would have that economic opportunity in their home province and not in the neighbour across the Rockies. We'll have to see.

The minister himself says: "Well, look to the future." In fact, the report that was commissioned is headed "Looking to the Future." This is the Kelleher-Lanyon report, which was tabled or produced on February 25 of this year -- not that long ago. Attached to the report, all members will remember, was a draft bill. So on February 25 they tabled the report with a draft bill attached to it; on June 17, there was first reading -- and guess what. It was the same bill. It hadn't been changed. I think that maybe two words had been changed in the entire bill.

So I'm kind of wondering: why did this government not take the opportunity between February 25 and June 17 to take that draft bill around the province and allow people to discuss the economic impact that it might have? But they didn't do that; they sat on it. They waited until almost the end of June, when we should have had our legislative agenda well in order, to bring in the bill in first reading. But not only that -- the cheek of this government. . . . What do they do the next day, on the 18th? They start second reading. So here we are now, early in the morning on July 14, still dealing with the harm of Bill 26. Really, hon. Speaker, it is very difficult to comprehend how a government could have had that report in its hands since February, known perfectly well in the aftermath of Bill 44 that the bill was going to have tremendous economic harm, and yet, oh no, they trotted the thing in, in the latter part of June, and here we are today.

I've talked about Ms. Sanatani and her approach and her very reasoned arguments -- and not just hers, but the economic reports that have come out. Let's consider as well a legal report. Some of the members opposite may be interested in some of the legal opinions about Bill 26. I'm referring in particular to the Heenan and Blaikie report that has gone out to some of its clients. The other day, for example, I recall that I made a comment about a lawyer friend of mine. When I called him up on another matter, he said that a lot of his clients are packing their bags and heading to Alberta or they're planning on it -- or anywhere, wherever they can escape from the clutches of socialism. That's the same thing that the Heenan and Blaikie report is saying, hon. Speaker. It's an interesting introduction: "The British Columbia economy is now in recession." That's a great start, and not only that. . . . I won't get into all the detail of that, because I'll probably have more opportunity when I do my second reading, which I haven't done yet. That comes later.

The business section of the Vancouver Sun of July 8 has an article on a report that's come out from the Toronto-Dominion Bank. That was just last week, and guess what they say: the same thing that the law firm said, warning B.C. of a recession. So the Toronto-Dominion Bank is giving the signal of a recession; the law firm is giving the signal of a recession -- and the government isn't listening.

We are inviting the government to reflect on the Matsqui motion, which deals with the economic harm in this province, and to pull this bill. If they're so determined that their position is correct, I invite them to take this bill, trot it around the province as my colleague from Oliver said, who preceded me in this debate. He said, "Let's use the standing committees," and he cited two examples where standing committees actually worked. That's the purpose of standing committees: to allow bills that may have some economic impact and harm -- or good, it may be. . . . Maybe we'll get a message from the good folks of British Columbia that Bill 26 actually has some good points, but we haven't heard that yet. Certainly we haven't heard it from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce -- quite the opposite.

Now I'm almost out of time. I just want to give two examples of a local nature from my riding and a neighbouring riding. I was talking to a dry cleaner in Ambleside last week, and he told me that he has five regular customers who would bring in about $400 to $500 of business every month, and all of them have gone to Alberta -- every single one of them. So that's $2,000 a month out the door -- gone. They'll probably never come back.

And the other one, just today on the news. . . . The members opposite may not have seen it. Interfor has announced a three-month closing in Squamish today. They're packing it in in Squamish, folks. The forest industry is dead in the community of Squamish. They're already talking about Ocean Falls and other ghost towns -- Britannia. . . . One of them made a very good. . . . Just go down the road to Britannia. It used to be a vibrant mining town. What is it now? It's a mere shell of what it used to be. I sure hope that the good citizens of Squamish aren't facing another Britannia because of harmful policies -- and Bill 26 just being one example.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to rise and join in the amendment debate. Some of the members opposite have already expressed excitement at the prospect that I'm going to be speaking on this amendment, and I'll do what I can to fulfil their elevated expectations. We are debating an amendment to the motion that constitutes second reading of Bill 26. I find that it's only the second opportunity that I've had to speak

[ Page 9971 ]

I note that the amendment that my colleague the member for Matsqui, has proposed and put forward asks that this House decline to give second reading to Bill 26, "for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." Now, it seems to me that that amendment is an invitation to examine two broad questions about the bill and what the bill presents. The first is the context of the bill. I think that any bill that is an aspect of government economic policy -- and labour bills are an aspect of government economic policy -- deserve to be looked at in its context. What is the overall economic context that this bill situates itself in? What message does a bill like this send to the economy? How does it deal with the pressing questions and issues that are out there in the economy? Does it send the right message in terms of stimulating economic growth? Does it send the wrong message?

You know, I think that that is a debate which in many respects can take place without examining the bill in any kind of detail at all. It's a debate that can take place with just the most general understanding of the basic intention of the bill. I think that it's always legitimate to look at legislation which is part of the government's economic program in the context of the economy -- in this case, the economy of British Columbia. Of course, that kind of debate is, I think, made further relevant by the language of this amendment, which says that there are things about the provincial economy and investor confidence that are at risk because of this bill. So the motion is really an invitation to examine those larger questions.

I also think that it's legitimate in this context to examine the content of the bill. What is it about the content of the bill, what is it about the bill in principle, that is bad public policy and that may, because of what it says and does, specifically create this risk -- the risk that is spoken of in the amendment -- of further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy? I'm hoping, over the course over the next few minutes, to spend a little bit of time on both aspects of what I think are the legitimate parameters of the debate here: both the context of the bill and the content.

In summary, I could put my point this way. In the current state of the economy of British Columbia, and given the extent to which the current NDP government is implicated in the failure of our economy, I think that almost any change that this government could introduce to the Labour Code would probably be ill-advised; but in particular, the changes embodied in Bill 26 are ill-advised.

[12:30]

I recall vividly that one of the members opposite spoke at some length about the history of free collective bargaining and its antecedents, about how important free collective bargaining is to the notion of some basic sense of fairness for workers, about how important it is to industrial stability, and about how important it is to creating the kind of worker environment as well as workplace environment that we need for a prosperous economy as well as an economy that is fair. It is based on basic principles of justice.

You can imagine my surprise, having heard some of those passionate speeches, to then find that the government introduced a bill which in fact has no respect for free collective bargaining. I'm sure we'll discover, when we discuss Bill 39 in detail, that it really is a denial of all those basic principles. For one of those moments, when I was trying to examine what the government was doing here and considering the arguments that the government was making in support of Bill 26 and considering those arguments in the context of what the government was actually doing, I was afraid that the government was caught in one of those magical traps of hypocrisy which they're so famous for. I always wonder when we're going to come across an issue where there's a public policy initiative by this government that doesn't eventually trip over this problem of hypocrisy. Clearly, this is not going to be one of them.

We have a bill presented by a government which speaks passionately in favour of free collective bargaining, and yet we have another bill on the order paper that speaks of exactly the opposite. In terms of creating or promoting or enhancing investor confidence, the kinds of things that you need to get an economy going again, which are talked about in the amendment to the motion. . . . I must say that the evidence of what the government is actually doing here in the course of its legislative agenda does seem to me to support the amendment.

The bill itself -- I'll come to it in a minute -- in principle will do nothing to help the economy and, I think, will in fact hurt it. But equally important, examined in the context of the other actions of this government -- including the introduction of Bill 39 -- is that we have a wonderful example of the kind of hypocrisy that makes investors and people who want to think about participating in the economy uncertain about the government's real agenda and causes them to back off. So I make that comment about the situation that presents itself to us when we have this motion and the sequence of events that I've talked about.

I want to make another comment about the introductory point I made about how it's legitimate, important and relevant to examine this bill in its context. That includes the economic context, the issue of investor confidence that is discussed in the amendment which is the matter before us. Previous speakers have spoken at some length about the current situation, the current state of the economy of British Columbia. I'm not now going to review in any detail some of the facts that they have recited. I note by now that they're well known to you, hon. Speaker, and to other members of the House: issues around jobs, economic growth, investment in the economy and, most of all, the forest resource sector.

What we hear from the government from time to time -- in fact, we hear it all the time, actually -- is that there are external forces at work that are influencing the economy, that

[ Page 9972 ]

I don't for a moment accept the argument that the NDP government is blameless in terms of its economic track record. I've spoken before -- and who knows; maybe I'll get a chance to speak again -- on my views on the extent to which I think this government is in fact responsible for the current downturn in the economy. Even if you were to accept their argument that their role in creating the current economic crisis is minimal or nonexistent, then the question is: what are they doing to get us out of the predicament? You can't argue with the facts around the predicament. The economic indicators are generally reliable. They are the sorts of statistics that we all take for granted here on the floor of the House, and certainly business people and other people out there do. We appear to be either on the verge of a recession or already in one. We have extraordinarily low rates of capital investment, low investment per capita in relation to other provinces in Canada, high youth unemployment, and so on. What is the government doing to try and mitigate the impact of these horrible overseas or external forces? Is it doing something to fix that problem?

I think that this bill is not the answer to those factors. Even if I were to accept the argument that the NDP is not to blame for the recession in British Columbia, they're not doing anything to fix it. In fact, the message that this bill sends to the investment community is exactly the wrong message, compared to what you'd want to send to the investment community at this particular juncture of our economic history, if I can call it that. When you are in a recessionary economy and you are trying to turn that economy around, you don't instil the investor confidence and enthusiasm needed to turn that economy around by introducing a bill intended in principle to tilt the balance in labour relations further in favour of unions, at a time when most of the free-market thinking basically says. . . . That doesn't send the right message to the economy.

If you're trying to create a business-friendly economic climate. . . . We don't even need to argue about whether or not that's the right thing to do; the government says it's trying to do that, so let's take them at their word, just for the point of this argument. At a time when you're trying to create a business-friendly economic climate, it's the wrong thing to do to bring in labour relations legislation intended to tilt the balance of labour relations further in favour of a particular model of union representation. To do so, I might add, in a context where it's pretty clear from public statements made by various members of the government, primarily the Premier, that this isn't the last labour bill that this government is going to introduce -- it's really the first. . . . Everything that was in the cards for Bill 44 is probably still in the cards. It's a book, and we're going to get it one chapter at a time.

That sends the wrong message generally to people who are thinking about making an investment in British Columbia, and it's the wrong time to send that message. That is why I think it's entirely legitimate -- in fact, it's necessary -- that we continue to examine Bill 26 in this larger context, even though that argument does not speak to the specifics of the bill in any great detail.

I do want to turn for a moment to some of the specifics of the bill, because they further elucidate the conception that the bill in principle will damage investor confidence in the provincial economy. They do so because they demonstrate that it's a bad bill -- perhaps more than a bad bill. Bill 26 represents the embodiment of an antiquated conception of labour relations in the modern economy, which is as inapposite in the construction industry, as it is elsewhere in the economy.

This is really the first major point I want to make about what's wrong with Bill 26. Bill 26 essentially imposes a model of collective agreements which for the most part will be multi-employer, multi-workplace agreements. So you'll have a situation where in a particular project, a particular workplace, the employer will not have the ability to negotiate specific terms and conditions of employment for that project or that worksite but rather will essentially be required to accept the terms and conditions of a master agreement that the employer may have had nothing to do with, may have had no part in negotiating. It may be a couple of years old. It may have been created in an economic context that is already out of date, without the kind of project that the employer in question is involved in.

[12:45]

I dug a little deeper. I found a few other observations. There is a book -- I think it's a textbook -- by Gunderson and Ponak, entitled Union-Management Relations in Canada. The authors of this book, in particular in an article in the book that I think is called "Strikes and Dispute Resolution," have talked about and studied the issue of what happens in terms of the propensity of strikes in a situation where you have workplace or enterprise-level bargaining as opposed to multi-employer sectoral bargaining. It appears in the literature that the propensity for strikes increases with the size of the bargaining unit and, conversely, that strikes are less likely to occur where the structure consists of single-plant bargaining units. This is obviously research that is not limited to the construction industry.

Here's what I believe is a quote from this article: "There is also the perception that some of Canada's poor strike record is partly attributable to the proliferation of small bargaining units, which characterize its decentralized bargaining structure." The limited empirical evidence that is available on this topic does not support this conclusion, however. On the contrary, "other things being equal, strikes are less likely in single-plant bargaining units. . . ." Well, that's an important point, because one of the things that the government members have said about this bill is that it is needed to promote stability in the construction industry.

Of course, one could ask: where is the evidence of instability? I've been waiting for it; I haven't actually seen it. Back in the early days of the debate, I think it was the member for Victoria-Hillside who made the point that we've actually seen less time lost in the workplace due to work disputes, stoppages and strikes than at any time since before World

[ Page 9973 ]

The member for Victoria-Hillside also pointed out that construction is unstable because, generally speaking, construction workers never work a full year. They may work only five or six months a year, and that's not real good in terms of stability. I think that's what he said. Well, I agree; it's not really good in terms of stability, in the sense of whether or not people who work in the construction industry have the economic security on which we all depend to plan our lives. But I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about stability in this context. What they mean is: are there a lot of strikes? Are there wildcat strikes? Are there unending jurisdictional disputes? Is the workplace basically, positively at risk from industrial action? At least looking a little bit into it, it doesn't seem to me that the research supports the government's contention that this bill is necessary in order to promote stability. Rather, I find that the research suggests that, if anything, the bill is likely to increase instability.

I found out some other things, looking into the research, on the potentially destabilizing problems that occur when you have a larger, more centralized bargaining system. One of them is that apparently it takes longer to reach a collective agreement. Oftentimes the people that are negotiating at the centralized bargaining table -- in this case I guess it would be the Building Trades Council and the CLRA -- actually may not have the understanding of day-to-day operational problems that are occurring in particular worksites. Their expertise may not lie in understanding what's happening in particular worksites; they're more focused on the industrywide agreement. As a result, apparently, it may take longer to settle the agreement.

The research also indicates that the range of issues that gets dealt with is more limited than when bargaining is decentralized. I would have thought that that would be something that the people on the other side of the House would be concerned about, because in part this is supposedly about a little bit of worker democracy. That's another issue that has not been satisfactorily addressed by the government. In fact, master agreements by large-scale unions often take decision-making away from the workplace and move it somewhere else, and no one is better off. The workers are not better served, and the employers are not better served.

Once again, hon. Speaker, I find that there are lots of issues that are presented in this bill, and if I'm lucky, I may have yet one more opportunity -- perhaps more than that -- to speak about some of them. They would include the evidence that this kind of approach to collective bargaining, according to the research, actually leads to a greater likelihood of wildcat strikes, a failure to ratify collective agreements, and the likelihood of developing problems with the local administration of collective agreements. All of those, I think, are serious, legitimate labour relations issues. They're all raised by this bill. I don't think they've been answered satisfactorily by the government. After all, it is the government's onus and the government's obligation to defend this bill. It's not my job to figure out why I like it or don't like it. On the motion. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I draw your attention to the red light.

G. Plant: I think that the motion is a good one, and I'll be supporting it.

J. Wilson: It's a pleasure tonight to speak to this amendment that was brought in by the member for Matsqui. It reads: "To delete all of the words after 'that' and substitute therefore the following: This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26). . .for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy."

We've heard an awful lot over the last two or three weeks about the impact that this bill will have on the economy of British Columbia, at a time when we cannot afford to cause any further erosion of investment in this province. The estimated cost increase that this bill will bring to a construction site is 20 to 30 percent. If it were legislation that would decrease the cost to the construction industry by that much, it would be doing something. Instead, it is increasing the cost at a time when there is no way that the industry can afford to lose more jobs.

In most jurisdictions, when a piece of legislation is introduced, the government of the day will do a study to find out what the economic impact of the legislation will be. If the economic impact study is not good, then chances are that they will modify it or drop it completely. In this case, the government brought this bill to the House with no study whatsoever on what affect this bill will have on our economy, at a time when the economy of this province has never been in such bad shape as it is today.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

The fact that no study was done, and that they have avoided at all costs allowing this bill to be studied by all of the labour groups around the province, the construction industry and small business. . . . All of these people need input into this type of legislation to find out the flaws that it contains -- the things that are going to hurt business in this province -- and that was ignored. Here it is, at 1 o'clock in the wee hours of the morning, and we're debating a bill that we shouldn't even be debating at this point in time. It should be out there being analyzed by people that know their business and what this bill will do to them. That's not the case.

This bill has seen the same type of consultative process that most bills that this government brings along will get: nothing. The public is not aware. They have had no input -- nothing -- into the development of this legislation. This is no exception; this is the rule for this government. They talk about the process that's been developed, that they can get out in the province and talk to groups that are affected. It doesn't happen. All we hear is the same rhetoric that they've gone through all of the hoops to get the input that's necessary. But when you go to talk to those people that are affected, they say: "We weren't contacted. We had no input into it." The same thing has happened here.

[1:00]

[ Page 9974 ]

Knowing the long line of broken promises that this government has heaped on the people of this province, we can't believe anything we hear from that side of the House. When it comes to something that's going to kill more business, drive more investment out of this province, that is serious. We are already into a recession in British Columbia. It's sad. It wasn't very long ago that the Premier went around the province with his economic summits, listening to business and trying to get a feel for the problems that business is faced with in British Columbia today. There were some things brought up, like the regulatory burden, the red tape that business is faced with and that they cannot operate under. Then we got into the issue of taxes, more taxes, various kinds of taxes. The tax burden is killing business in this province today. The third, and one of the critical things, is the inflexibility of the labour laws in this province.

So what happened? A few short months later, what are we faced with in this House but a labour bill that is going to drive more jobs and investment out of this province? It's pretty sad; it's a sad day indeed. When you look at the record of creating employment in this province that this government has. . . . We heard something last year about 22,000 jobs that were going to be created with something called a jobs and timber accord. What happened? Well, we lost 13,000 jobs -- that's what happened. Not very long ago, the Minister of Forests stood up in the House and blamed the Asian flu. He said: "Things aren't going to get better right away. For the next two or three years, we're not going to see a huge turnaround in the forest industry." At the same time, he's saying: "Well, give it a chance; it'll work. Over the next two or three years, we will create those 22,000 new jobs in the forest industry." If he could make up his mind, it would be nice. But we all know that the 22,000 jobs are a dream that this government thought up at one point. They said: "Oh, that sounds good. Let's promote that. Let's spend a few million dollars on propaganda and spread it around, and people will believe that we're doing something."

The actual fact is that the Minister of Forests has hired someone to keep track of the job loss that's going on in the industry. I'm sure we'll never see the reports we were promised, because they don't look too good. We were promised that they would be released, but we know that it's very unlikely that it will ever happen. We lost 13,000 jobs; 22,000 were promised last year, and now we're down 13,000. With that 13,000 go another 26,000 indirect jobs in the forest industry. We are in a recession, and we're so close to an depression overall in this province that it could be this bill that will do it. There are areas in this province that are already suffering from a depression, not a recession. In my riding, we're looking at an unemployment rate of about 15 percent right now. That is a depressed area; it is not a recession.

Mining is another good example of what this government can do to a resource industry. They have driven about 11,000 mining jobs out of this province since 1991. That is the measure of their economic success in British Columbia.

With Bill 26, we're dealing with the construction industry. The construction industry has been suffering for the last few years because of the economic climate in British Columbia. As of this year, we are looking at a decrease of something like 48,000 jobs in the construction industry over the last four or five years. That's unacceptable by itself, and this bill will simply add to that number.

Every sector that you want to go into has lost jobs under this government. Agriculture -- look at the processing industries in this province. They're all gone today. Why? Because of the tax burden, the regulatory burden and the labour problems, they've left. These companies picked up and went to Alberta, Washington State, Oregon or Saskatchewan -- somewhere where they can do business. The jobs that went were mostly union jobs. It's not just in agriculture. We've had the loss of thousands of jobs in fisheries. Processing plants have cut back; some of them are barely operating today because. . . .

Interjection.

J. Wilson: It would appear that the Minister of Labour would like to get into the debate. If that's the case, I would be more than glad to have him speak to this amendment.

Let's look at the new investment that this government is bringing in. Well, we've got the Premier running practically all over the world chasing jobs, but they're not following him back. They seem to have a bit of a problem when they find out that he's from British Columbia and that economic environment in British Columbia has gone sour. It's just not working.

If you add all this up, hon. Speaker, there has been a tremendous toll taken on this province since this government took over. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks alone is responsible for the loss of something like 20,000 jobs over the last three or four years in this province and $1.2 billion in revenue. A terrible record, but the government turns a blind eye to that. They carry on as if nothing's happened. You wonder where they are. The sad part of all this is that this government has not had one original idea since its first tax increase, and that is a fact -- not one original idea. Nothing that they do will help; nothing is working for them. Everything they touch just crumbles.

Let's look at this bill. Let's have an in-depth look at what will happen. They're going to kill their membership out there. They say that this bill. . . . They've promised their union leaders this tidbit, but actually, hon. Speaker, if you were in the construction business and you had to hire a crew, are you going to go out and hire a union crew? Not very likely. They're going to destroy their membership, the way they're going here. They can't help it. They've taken the rights of that crew away from them. Once 55 percent become members, they're automatically going to be certified, and they're going to get a contract slapped on them that the contractor may not be able to live with.

Alberta -- I know, we talk about Alberta -- is doing okay. Considering the resources they've got to work with, they're doing a reasonable job over there. So are places like Saskatchewan, Washington and Oregon. Right now construction in Alberta is up 20 percent. Where's construction in British Columbia? It's down 10 percent. Why is it down? Well, it's not because of this bill, but this bill will drive it even further into the ground because of all of the economic policies that have been put in place leading up to this. Anything else that impacts on the cost of construction is going to drive construction out.

We've got a forest industry that has been ravaged by this government. Then they turn around and try to bail it out. Well, they went up to Skeena, and they bailed a pulp mill out at taxpayers' expense. That's right; a lot of taxpayers' dollars were dumped in there. They didn't tell us that it was an antiquated, obsolete and outdated mill that's just going to fall down around their ears as soon as they try to operate it. How

[ Page 9975 ]

Deputy Speaker: To the amendment, member.

J. Wilson: Yes, hon. Speaker. This is directly related to this amendment. Now, if we dump another $500 million into this mill and you take the cost that will be added to it by this bill. . . .

An Hon. Member: Is it $500 million now?

J. Wilson: Oh, it'll be way more than that before they get done with it. But we know that every time they have to do something. . . . If they have to replace the boilers in that mill, it's $70 million or $80 million. Every time they do this, you can look at an increase of 20 to 30 to 40 percent on top of that cost, just because this bill has been put in.

[1:15]

It's not hard to see where the loyalties of this government go; it's not to the working man. They could care less what happens to the rank and file in the union out there. The only people that they can help out are the leaders in the unions, because they have promised their support in the next election. When they need it, they're going to contribute big-time -- oh, yeah. But by the time that election comes along, there may not be anything left. There may not be enough people left in the unions to even hear the change rattle in the coffers of this party when they get done.

You can't help but wonder whether this government isn't just a little bit brain-dead when they bring legislation like this in. That would be my impression, and that's what I've heard a lot of people say that I've talked to about this bill. They've said: "Oh, this government -- they haven't got a clue." They're brain-dead; that's the problem. They can't think beyond their friends and the pork-barrel approach. That's the really sad part of this thing today.

Look at what's happening to our health care system. The Minister of Labour has seen to it that he's created a two-tier health care system. He's got his WCB cases at the head of the list. But what about the rest of the people out there that have been working all their lives? They depended on this system, and now they're on a waiting list that's growing by the day. It's pretty sad when the government itself creates its own two-tier health care system. You want to hope that you don't get sick in this province. We've got bed closures; we've got waiting lists that keep growing and growing.

What are they doing to our education system? They're trying to dismantle the school boards, the elected officials that are there to look after the tax dollars required to educate our children. They've end-runned them. They're going to destroy them. It's just another wonderful piece of legislation that this government is bringing in -- absolutely wonderful legislation. They couldn't operate. . .

Interjections.

J. Wilson: . . .a popcorn stand if they tried. And I hear the Minister of Labour trying to explain why he created a two-tier health care system for his own government.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Member, I'll remind you: it's to the amendment to the motion on Bill 26.

J. Wilson: My point here, hon. Speaker -- and I'll get back to it -- is that I was trying to address this. . . . But I was so rudely interrupted from the other side of the House, that I had to reply to the Minister of Labour and point that out.

Then we have things like charities, you know. We had a system that worked in this province, a volunteer system. . . .

Interjections.

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, if you care to. . . . I'll sit down and let the minister take the floor, if he'd like to stand up. But if he doesn't want to speak tonight, then perhaps he could give me the courtesy of letting me finish my address to this motion.

They have robbed charities right from day one. First, it was bingo. Now they've progressed from that. Now they're going to set up all their casinos, and they're going to scoop all that money into general revenue. It didn't work; they found out they were breaking the law again. Quite a record, isn't it? And now. . . .

Interjections.

J. Wilson: I seem to be getting a little bit of static from the other side of the House. I guess perhaps they don't like to hear their own track record brought back and thrown at them -- you know, 197,000 people on unemployment in this province. In the last month, 3,500 have left this province to find employment so they can feed their families; they've left. That's the track record of this government. They could not create a job if their life depended on it. All they can do is to chase investment out.

When your daughter or your son graduates from university, there's about a 20 percent chance that they'll find a job in this province today. That's pretty sad. When our young people graduate, they leave this province and go to Alberta, go to Washington, go to Saskatchewan; they go anywhere in North America to get a job except British Columbia. The only thing that we're producing today is university graduates, and we're supplying a world market. Why is that happening? Because this government has driven the investment from this province. The job creators that employ our young people when they graduate, give them a future, allow them to live here. . . . Their parents have lived here and retired, and they would like to be close to family, close to home. But that's not the case; that does not happen. And that's wrong. If the government can't realize that that's wrong, it really is a sad day.

[ Page 9976 ]

Now they want to chase out more jobs through this ludicrous legislation that they're ramming through this House without any input from the public. I find it appalling. There were an awful lot of issues that needed to be addressed on this bill and, unfortunately, this government isn't going to hear them. They're not going to listen. All we have to do is look at the report the TD Bank put out last week. It's a pretty realistic picture of what's happening in Canada today: economic growth in British Columbia is going to sit at zero percent for the next year. Now, that is quite an accomplishment. Prince Edward Island is the second-lowest, and they have a 2.3 percent increase. All of the provinces that have a standing that's close to British Columbia -- none of them have the resources and the potential that we do -- are running between 4.1 percent and 5 percent. What are we? We're sitting at zero percent. That is a feat that's hard to match. I can't think of a government. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, your time has run out.

J. Wilson: That's too bad. I had more things I wanted to say.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment suggested -- and, hopefully, to be passed -- by my colleague from Matsqui earlier this evening. This amendment states that this House decline to give a second reading to Bill 26, because of the damage it may do to investor confidence and the fact that it may impair the recovery of a faltering provincial economy.

This amendment represents an attempt by the opposition to use the power that it does have, in terms of parliamentary procedure, to build an antidote against this bill and certainly against this government's intent to bring this bill in. Antidotes are a wonderful thing. There are many good uses for antidotes. If you look at that metaphor, with this bill this government is not dissimilar to a snake bite. There is the poisonous aspect to the bill, the potential that it could be fatal. If we look at how the economy has already been bitten by this government, in terms of what that can do, we can see -- whether we look at forestry, mining, health care or the job circumstance -- that there definitely is the need for some kind of antidote against the bite this government can provide.

There are very few things the opposition has in terms of tools to hold government's feet to the fire. But one of the things the opposition can do to prevent the pernicious nature of the bite that this government would like to provide in Bill 26, which is designed to alter the Labour Code at a time when we can ill afford it. What we can basically do as an opposition is to counteract the attitudinal circumstances that come from Bill 26 with the proposed amendment that the member for Matsqui has put forward. This antidote, if passed, can do quite a bit to ameliorate the potential circumstances that could arise from what could be a very serious bite to the economy of British Columbia, at a time when it is the last possible thing we need.

This amendment goes a long way toward counteracting the noxiousness of this legislation and, hopefully, toward neutralizing the resultant illness that would arise from Bill 26. Hopefully, by passing this amendment, we could do much to prevent what could be a further downturn in the economy of B.C. -- something that many of the members on this side have already discussed at great length. Hence the opposition does rise and continues to provide legislative antidotes to the government's ill-advised changes to the Labour Code, in an attempt to neutralize the toxic effects that government policies have had on British Columbia and specifically, in this case, on the potentiation of economic downturn that would result from changes to the Labour Code in British Columbia.

This amendment is timely, it is necessary, and it must be passed. We in this House owe it to the 61 percent of British Columbians who did not vote for this government and, more than to them, we owe it to our youth, at a time when student unemployment this month is 22.9 percent. This is something that I am very ashamed of and certainly very, very sorry for. I know how desperate students are. Individuals come into the office to talk to me about their financial circumstances, what they thought were their hopes and dreams and what they have been saddled with in terms of economic despair in some cases -- at a time when they are supposedly looking forward to their futures, to their career choices, and to going out there and perhaps having their very first job on a permanent basis.

[1:30]

We have made four separate amendments to Bill 26, all of them to prescribe an antidote function for some of the significant harm that Bill 26 could do. To this point, none of them have been passed; nevertheless, there is still always the hope that this fourth amendment, from the member for Matsqui, is a good amendment and will be put forward in a timely manner, where in government will agree that this is the right thing to do.

At this point we need to make sure that we do not further erode B.C.'s well-being at a time when we really cannot afford the luxury of playing around to see whether or not these amendments to the Labour Code will in fact, as the government says, cause an upturn in the economic situation. We don't have the luxury at this time to be able to look at British Columbia and to provide an experimental function to say whether or not, yes or no, without the economic studies in place, without guaranteed knowledge. . . . We cannot play with people's lives to the extent that we may bring in something that would further erode the job base and individuals' ability to earn money and to raise their families and to support themselves with what they would rather do more than anything else -- and that is work, to be able support themselves in a meaningful way.

There are many things that individuals in my community do want government to do; there's no question. Especially

[ Page 9977 ]

There are a number of things that the citizens that I see really do expect from a government in a province that they believe to be a democracy. They expect us to represent all of them. Regardless of who the government is and who the opposition is, there is no question that the individual taxpayer wants us here in this House to represent each and every one of them between elections. They want us to do that in a responsible way, one that shows that we're above partisan politics and that we truly have an interest in them as an individual.

They want to know that they're safe, that there is a justice system and a public safety system in place that they can count on for their families. They want to know that there will be health and education for them. Right now, more than at many times in the past, they want to know that a climate to stimulate jobs is going to be created by government. Certainly in my riding, that more than anything is the number one issue of the person on the street: they want to know what government's going to do to help them or their family members get a job. They want that question answered well before they want to talk about anything else. The reason that they feel that way is that many, many people are not working. As I have said before in this House, the largest employer in my riding is the social services system. To me, that is a very unfortunate thought: to recognize that the people in my community are living on the dole because they are not able to procure work from other sources that would give them a viable income to support themselves and the people who rely on them.

The other thing that people look for in Vernon is the ability to afford a home. Bill 26 influences and affects that particular dream very significantly. Although government will say that that's not the case, that the residential sector is not affected by Bill 26, there are equally as many pundits on the other side -- many who have put quite a bit more research into this, because they've actually researched it and done the studies, as opposed to the government position of doing no studies at all -- who say that the ability to buy a home will in fact be affected by Bill 26. At a time when people are struggling just to maintain the basic necessities of life, for them or their children to perhaps never have the opportunity to be able to afford a home of their own is really quite a significant concern and something that causes them a lot of worry on a day-to-day basis.

The other things that people expect from us, on both sides of this House, when we are elected are a number of principles that govern us. These aren't earth-shattering principles; they're not things that you'd have to look up in a dictionary. They're very straightforward, simple kinds of behaviours. No matter who is government, the people in my community are looking for fairness from government. They're looking for their side of the equation to be considered and evaluated in a fair way, in addition to that of whoever is on the other side of that equation. They're looking for honesty -- something that has become scarce in this House -- from government on a regular, daily basis, on an election basis. When they discuss this issue, many people say to me that they can take whatever the truth is, as long as the truth is told. This is something that I think this government could especially learn a lot about: honesty and the delivery of honest messages and circumstances.

Bill 26 is one of the places where we could start, by having the government confess that Bill 26 will in fact have a significant impact not just on the ICI sector of the construction industry but on many of the other sectors as well -- specifically, on those buying a new home. Individuals look for equity; they look for a demeanour that shows some intellect and the ability to comprehensively look at the topics. Again, that was the position of the hoist motion on Bill 26: to look at, with the cognitive ability of research and a comprehensive viewing of things -- with economic impact studies -- hoisting the bill, looking at it and then coming back with a recommendation as to whether the things that the minister has told us are based in reality and in fact would occur.

The other two things that individuals are looking for in Vernon, with respect to Bill 26 and any other piece of legislation, is a sense of accountability and most certainly a sense of integrity in the individuals in government. There are many in my constituency who aren't quite sure that any of those basic values are practised. They certainly aren't honed by government. Practising them would, in fact, be a very good start, and I look forward to government taking up the bid to get on with it and to start practising some basic values for the individuals who have elected them and, most certainly, for those 61 percent who have not.

I'd like to look at Bill 26. There's one section that I think is especially telling. This is the "Purposes" section -- section 2, section 55.11. In section 55.11, the bill states the following:

"In addition to the purposes referred to in section 2 [of the Labour Relations Code,] 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."

Let's look, with respect to the amendment, to some of the reasons that this amendment does in fact state what probably will come to pass -- that is, that investor confidence and the provincial economic well-being will be impaired. There are four or five areas that really do concur with that amendment being the truth. I'd just like to respond to some of those and point out why that amendment is so important with respect to four or five issues.

The first issue is the issue that the Minister of Labour has stated in many of his dissertations on Bill 26, and that is that only workers in the ICI sector of the construction industry will be affected by Bill 26. I think, from the amount of literature that's come through this House and through the media and

[ Page 9978 ]

Both local government and the market itself are demanding more multi-use buildings. As the member for Okanagan West has stated, many of us work in buildings that are most definitely a very significant mix of residential and ICI, with respect to their uses. Most are constructed by residential builders, and these projects would be at the mercy of the LRB for their classification. This is certainly an important point if you're looking at whether or not this bill will cause problems with the economic well-being. . . .

[1:45]

The second point that is supportive of the amendment is the statement that non-union and industrial-style, unionized contractors would not be affected by Bill 26. This presumes that no changes in certification status or union affiliation will occur. There are many who do not feel that that will be the case. In fact, that statement will be false as well. If we look at the situation, any newly certified contractor, or one rated by building trades unions, would be forced by statute to turn over its employer bargaining rights to the Construction Labour Relations Association. Again, as many have mentioned before me, this is an organization that isn't viewed as being on a level playing field right now and that certainly doesn't have the respect that it used to have from those who have to deal with it. That's a very large concern when it would be the body making the decisions. What this will do, when we look at that newly certified contractor being forced by statute. . . . This is a monopoly that contravenes the principle of choice. Basically, now you're having unionized contractors who in fact do not have choice.

The third area to support having the amendment upheld would be the following: the construction industry review panel's recommendations explicitly reject any limitations on competitive bids for construction work. The biggest limitation on competitive bidding is the bill itself -- something that the minister hasn't bothered to go down that road and talk about. This bill will enshrine the master collective agreements that do exactly that. That in itself is a very large concern and reason enough for the amendment to be upheld.

The real crux of the issue, when we're looking at this situation, is in fact the gridlock that exists between the bargaining council and the CLRA. What does Bill 26 do to ameliorate this? From my understanding and reading of Bill 26, it does absolutely nothing to address an issue that already exists. Perhaps the minister should have spent some more time. . . . If he wanted to make some bill while he was Labour minister and really needed legislation in order to justify his existence, it might have been that gridlock that he could have looked at to see whether or not something constructive could be done in the construction industry.

The fourth point to support upholding the motion would be Mr. Lanyon's statement, and certainly one that the minister has echoed -- that is, that the market will judge decisions, not the government. When we look at whether the market is in fact going to be where all the decisions are made, we don't have to look very far to recognize that government has its finger in all sorts of decisions that have occurred in the construction industry. Mr. Lanyon states that the content of collective agreements negotiated under the proposed structure is up to the parties at the table. These would include things such as wage rates, wage rates in different regions, different kinds of projects, etc. What we see is that the market has shown very clearly that master agreements produce non-competitive bids. Furthermore, government has been judging decisions of the CLRA and the BCBCBTU and has responded in the past not by ignoring these but in fact by presenting Bill 44, which we were loath to see last year -- and certainly are now seeing reborn in a more miniature form or a step-by-step form.

With Bill 26, we're going to have the entrenchment of the problems that exist in the flexibility and competition of these same organizations. We're going to have these thrust on the entire construction industry, and this time in statute -- rather than just looking at what the problems are, being concerned about them and saying: "Maybe we should fix it." None of those suggestions will be taken up. Instead, we will be having a construction industry that will now have by statute the lack of flexibility and the lack of competition that existed and were precursors of the gridlock that already existed between the CLRA and the BCBCBTU. Those kinds of things are not going to help the circumstance here, and they're certainly not going to make Bill 26 anything that in ten years from now people are going to say: "This was a great piece of legislation. That Labour minister over there -- we just owe this opus to him. He's brought in something that the rest of the country is just going to be going after, to try and get a copy so that they can act along the same lines."

Hon. D. Lovick: Careful, you're bruising my ego.

A. Sanders: Hon. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is concerned that I might bruise his ego. I'm sorry, I don't have an implement near large enough to do that with.

Hon. D. Lovick: Certainly not your verbal ability.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

A. Sanders: As many have mentioned, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Here we have the exemplification of this from the Minister of Labour.

The fifth thing we look at that certainly does support, again, the upholding of the amendment moved by the member for Matsqui is that the CIRP panellist recommended that bridging agreements be required to cover jobs on bids before certification of non-union contractors under the master agreement structure. A bid on a project made before the contractor became certified would be impossible to change after it was submitted, regardless of the lead time to prepare that would be provided by any bridging agreement. I think that the minister is certainly aware of that. If he isn't aware, then it would be something that staff would instruct him on.

This idea causes problems even now, and government knows that is the situation. A competitive contractor could not prepare for any cost increases resulting from the standard

[ Page 9979 ]

What I have presented are five reasons that I feel are appropriate to support the amendment. I would certainly hope that the government will consider those, to the end of in fact supporting the amendment itself.

At this time, I would like to move adjournment of the debate.

[2:00]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 7
Sanders	Farrell-Collins	Nettleton
Stephens	Thorpe	Symons
	Krueger

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

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise this morning to support the amendment that we're debating, and that is: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26). . .for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." I absolutely support this amendment. The issue of confidence in the economy of British Columbia is overwhelming -- investor confidence, consumer confidence and the confidence of employers and employees.

The Minister of Labour accused the Liberal opposition of saying that the sky is falling. Well, in fact, it absolutely is. Members on the other side of the House don't seem to get it. Everywhere you look. . . . If you look at the debt and the deficits of this particular government, the uncertainty over aboriginal land claims, private property rights that are threatened, the bungled attempt to streamline the Ministry for Children and Families, the bungled attempt to streamline Health regionalization and the Forest Practices Code, which has added huge costs and red tape to the forest sector. . . . The list goes on; that's not all of it. The government really doesn't seem to understand what is happening in the economy of British Columbia. They appear to be oblivious to the economic indicators, which clearly show that British Columbia is teetering on the brink of a recession.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I'm going to talk about the government's record, because this government is to blame for the province's economic woes that we see today. I think that has to be said. The government has to assume responsibility for the kinds of policies and legislation they've brought forward, which have so seriously damaged the economy of British Columbia. Bill 26 risks further damage to investor confidence in the province, and there are compelling reasons for this, some of which I've mentioned: the NDP's mismanagement of the economy, mismanagement of the provincial finances. . . .

Government should really feel humiliated. They should feel humiliated that the policies of this government have resulted in the state of affairs that we find ourselves in today. Seven deficit budgets. . . . While other provinces are balancing their budgets and paying off their debt, British Columbia has an accumulated debt of $31 million.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Billion -- $31 billion. Members opposite have corrected me. I don't know -- is this because they're proud of being that far in the hole? It's $31 billion, and according to the auditor general, they're going to add another $1.2 billion to the deficit this year. That's what is projected.

So the evidence of confidence in this government is overwhelming, absolutely overwhelming. This province has gone from first to last with an NDP government. A province that was vibrant and at the top of the pole in Canada, at the very top. . . . The tax-borrow-and-spend policies of this government have driven us to the bottom. The government has said one thing and done another. There has been example after example of this happening. Bill 26 is a good example. The Premier went out and talked to the business community. He said: "We want to know how we can get this economy back on track." He met with a number of business organizations, and I presume they told him what was required. What have we got? We've got Bill 26. That is why I support this amendment.

This amendment tells us exactly why this bill should not be read a second time. It risks further damaging the investor confidence in the provincial economy. Now, I know many of these facts have been spoken of by other members on this side of the House. We continue to do so to try to impress upon the government the seriousness of the situation, because they don't seem to understand how serious this is. They just go on their merry way, bringing in more policies and heaping more problems on the economy of British Columbia.

The Employment Standards Act is a good example. I know that the business community has been trying to get the government to talk about the Employment Standards Act and some of the difficulties that are being faced there. So far, the government has not been receptive. They don't seem to care about trying to work through some of the issues around the Employment Standards Act.

Bill 14 was the other bill that we debated this year. It adds 51 pages of new regulations -- so much for the government's talk about decreasing regulation and red tape. There were 51 pages of regulations with Bill 14. Then there was Bill 44, which we saw last year. It was so outrageous that the people rose up and said, "Take it back," and to the government's credit, they did. They took back Bill 44, they took another look, and they brought back Bill 26, a so-called modest bill with modest proposals. But we've seen what Bill 44 was, and elements of Bill 44 are clearly in Bill 26 -- many of the elements. Most of the important elements from Bill 44 are in Bill 26, and certainly the sectoral bargaining is here -- in one sector, as opposed to seven, but it is still here. When we saw Bill 44, I think we saw exactly where the Premier and this government want to take

[ Page 9980 ]

All of these proposals that the government has brought forward really impact on the confidence that we talked about earlier. Investors don't come to a jurisdiction that has uncertain policies in place. They will not invest millions of dollars in a province that doesn't seem to understand what is required to build an economy, to provide jobs and to provide the stability that is required to invest that kind of money. Look what happened to the mining industry. Lots of money needs to be put into mining exploration, and what we've seen in British Columbia is that this government drove mining right out of the province. They've made some changes. We'll see whether or not mining comes back. We'll see whether or not they have in fact killed mining in this province and whether or not it's able to resume its former economic opportunities in this province and the opportunities to provide those high-paying jobs that all of us desire for the people in British Columbia.

Bill 26 opens the door to sectoral bargaining across the board. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Premier, on the one hand, to say that he is reaching out to the business community and, on the other hand, to bring in a labour law that is so clearly biased against job creators. Again, the words do not match the actions. What this government doesn't understand is that the cumulative effects of government policies, practices, procedures and legislation are destroying the spirit of entrepreneurship in this province. The government continues to favour its friends and insiders, and this is just the latest example. The government makes decisions based on ideology, not good public policy. That is what is fundamentally wrong with this particular government.

The Bill 26 amendments will allow unions to organize in the high rise residential sectors through the back door. If any residential construction project has a commercial component, it will fall under the one-size-fits-all agreement of the commercial sector. This means less flexibility for employers and workers and higher costs for consumers. The B.C. construction industry has been one of the most stable labour environments in recent years. No one has asked for these changes, and there is no need for them -- except for this government that likes to pay its friends and insiders. Everybody knows that Bill 26 is a political bill -- a political payoff to the big union bosses. The Premier has said on more than one occasion that his nineteenth cabinet minister is Mr. Georgetti. What could be more obvious? Here it is; this is the payoff: Bill 26.

Even the Minister of Finance agrees that this is not the time to take a chance on introducing measures that could damage the investment climate; she said that. It seems that the Premier and the Minister of Labour and the B.C. Federation of Labour can't understand what they're doing to the provincial economy. There are over 135 small businesses in my riding that will be affected by the Labour Code changes, and this means that hundreds of workers may lose their jobs, because the government is interested in nothing more than pushing its ideology agenda. We can't afford any more investment-killing, job-killing and business-killing policies in British Columbia.

Look at what some of the different groups around the province are saying. I'm sure the government is probably aware of them. Perhaps they are; perhaps they're not. Who knows? They may not be answering their phones; their fax machines may be burning up; they may not be reading their mail. But I know that numbers of people have been calling my office. As a matter of fact, I had a couple of mailouts -- and this is just the first two weeks. It says: "Labour Code changes: what are the issues?" The question was: what issues are of most concern to you? Here's what some of them were: Labour Code changes and enforcement of Labour Code, employment standards, too much government, deficit spending, high unemployment, negative business attitude. At the bottom, it says to get rid of the NDP. There are all kinds of issues that people are concerned about: provincial deficit, health care, and on and on it goes.

[2:15]

So the government has already imposed new red tape and new costs on business this session -- certainly through the introduction of Bill 14, which amends the Workers Compensation Act. They didn't do any business impact studies on Bill 14. They haven't done any on Bill 26 either, and that is why our economy is in such bad shape. This government keeps introducing legislation that has a negative impact on the economy, for which no economic impact analysis was done. Members on this side of the House absolutely support this motion, because this motion clearly sets out what is wrong with Bill 26 and with the principle of Bill 26.

Capital spending in British Columbia is declining. That's happening in only two other provinces: Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. B.C.'s taxes and labour laws do not make investors around the globe want to invest here, and I think we've seen, time after time. . . . People have said: "Oh, we're going to get Nike." Well, what happens? Nike doesn't show up. Then we're going to build another aluminum smelter. That doesn't happen.

An Hon. Member: Three.

L. Stephens: Yes, I forgot the other two. Three aluminum smelters. There's lots of "if-come-maybe" but nothing's happening. Companies are actually fleeing the province and its anti-business government. We've seen all kinds of evidence to support that. We know for a fact that B.C. stats say that 145 companies left British Columbia in 1996, and 107 in 1997. We'll find out what happens in 1998. How many are going to be leaving here this year? Some have already left. Certainly one of the major businesses in British Columbia, which is in my riding -- Finning Tractor -- has left for Alberta.

Good corporate citizens provide lots of good-paying jobs in this province and help to build this province, and there's a lot of good corporate citizens that do that. But of course, this government doesn't like corporate anything, doesn't like profit, doesn't like business, doesn't like anything that they believe is. . . . What? Exploitive. Is that what it is? All they like are the big banks. They'll give $8 million to a big bank, and they'll give -- what was it? -- $359 million to Skeena Cellulose, in one of their cabinet ministers' ridings. I think that last Friday there was another announcement of $8 million for that same cabinet minister's riding. He's doing pretty good.

You know, it's a shame. It's this government's policies that have forced these forestry and resource-dependent towns

[ Page 9981 ]

So what have we got here? B.C. lost 19,000 jobs in January of this year, and Alberta created 20,000. B.C. has the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec. Again, that's nothing to be proud of. Today the average family of four in this province pays $2,300 more in taxes than it did in 1992. Again: tax, borrow and spend. That's all this government knows how to do -- and favour their friends and insiders. You know, we had fewer people working in January this year compared to last year. As well, private sector investment dropped to last place among the six largest provinces in the country. Investment confidence: last. These are provincial statistics. Surely government members read the statistics. Surely they're aware of what is happening. I don't know, hon. Speaker, whether they don't care or they're simply marching down their path in lockstep, determined to imprint on this province their version of. . . . What? Socialism? Utopia? I don't know what it is.

So this amendment is critical. This is an absolutely critical amendment. Let's look a little bit more at what's happened in this province and what the numbers say -- not what the opposition is saying, but the various economic and financial sectors of this province, country and internationally -- about the province of British Columbia. Let's look at Alberta. I know that Alberta is near and dear to this government's heart. We've talked at length about the corporate capital tax on a number of occasions. What's the difference between British Columbia and Alberta? Well, British Columbia's corporate capital tax is 0.3 percent; Alberta has none. That's very attractive. The unemployment rate -- Alberta is at 5.4 percent. That's better than British Columbia. Ontario is doing fine too. So are Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Everybody except this province -- everyone.

Now let's talk about taxes. The top marginal tax rate, the highest in the country, is in this province. Alberta's is 45.6 percent and reduced. They had a meaningful reduction this year, not the little tinkering nothing, half a percent, that this government brought forward. What's that going to do? Absolutely nothing, and the numbers show it. Small business tax: 9 percent in British Columbia; 6 percent in Alberta. Gasoline fuel tax: 11 cents in B.C.; 9 cents in Alberta. Sales tax: 7 percent in British Columbia; in Alberta, nothing. It all adds up. We saw on the weekend, in one of the major daily papers, the number of people that are leaving the province. What is it -- the first time in 20 years that we've had an outflow of people from British Columbia? Usually people are wanting to flock to British Columbia. We have marvellous scenery, a fabulous climate. . . .

Interjection.

L. Stephens: The only problem is that we have a lousy government. The Minister of Advanced Education is absolutely right: we have a lousy government.

The provincial debt watch here. . . . More debt means more taxes, and that's one thing this government has been really good at: raising taxes, fees and licences. Everywhere you look: fees, taxes, and licences. But what have they done with it? They certainly didn't pay down the debt. They certainly haven't balanced the budget. So where is the money going? It's not going into services either, because the Ministry of Human Resources social services funding is 48 percent less than it was in 1989. So this government can't talk about social democratic principles. They cannot defend their social democratic principles, because they don't have any. If they did, a 48 percent reduction in social services would not be something that a social democratic government would be talking about. Those are the kinds of governments that like to say: "We defend the poor. We stand up for the ones who are disadvantaged." Not this government, hon. Speaker.

Personal tax paid by households in British Columbia rose by 156 percent. Direct provincial debt in British Columbia has increased by 145 percent since 1991; that's the year this government took office. The total tax-supported debt has increased by 132 percent. This is absolutely shameful! This government should be humiliated by these kinds of numbers. They should be humiliated that they're the only government that hasn't balanced a budget. The rest of the country knows what needs to be done. If you look at those other provinces, they are now in a position where they're able to spend money on programs in health care, education and social services. Those are the kinds of things that are needed in this province, but until we get our fiscal house in order, until you get the debt and the deficit under control, you're not going to have any money to spend on those kinds of programs. Those debt payment costs keep increasing. Every single British Columbian's share of the provincial debt is $7,609. Every single person in this province is in debt $7,609. That's absolutely nothing to be proud of. British Columbia has the worst economy in the country; that's not right for British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: It's not right at all.

L. Stephens: That's absolutely right. Talk about denial. That's what this government. . . . I don't know. They're in a box. They can't see; they can't hear; they can't think. They have no understanding of what is going on in the rest of this country and certainly not in this province. Here again: the Toronto-Dominion Bank. You've heard this before; you're obviously not listening and don't believe it. The Toronto-Dominion Bank said today that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year -- and not just this year but for the next two years after that.

[2:30]

L. Stephens: Well, members opposite say: "Wrong again." I've been in this House seven years, and I have never been wrong. This side has never been wrong. We have said that there are no balanced budgets. This government has said: "Oh, balanced budgets -- we've got two balanced budgets." Was that true? Absolutely not; that was not true. The fact that there's a projected deficit of $95 million for this year, I would suggest to you, is wrong as well. We will see next year. We will find out. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin will have to eat his words.

An Hon. Member: Again.

L. Stephens: He will have to eat his words again.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank is forecasting zero percent economic growth this year, 0.5 percent next year and only 1.5 percent in the year 2000 -- the worst of any province in

[ Page 9982 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

L. Stephens: So, hon. Speaker, I support this amendment, and I urge all members to support it as well.

D. Symons: I must say that I've waited quite a long time for my place in the speaking order, but I'm very pleased to speak tonight on the motion that's before us. Basically, this motion says: ". . .for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging the investor confidence and the provincial economy." This is really what we've been speaking about on this side of the House for the last two weeks. Although we've had a motion to refer this to committee and a motion to hoist this bill, behind those motions was the firm conviction on the part of members on this side of the House that this bill will further hurt the economy of this province. We have that concern.

I got up at 5:15 yesterday morning to get out to the 7 o'clock ferry to come over to Victoria for the beginning of Monday's sitting. It's been a rather long time from 5:15 yesterday morning to now, which is a little bit after 2 a.m., to have my turn to speak, but I'm very pleased to have that opportunity.

One of the real problems in dealing with this question of the provincial economy is not only that we have facts to show that the provincial economy in British Columbia is in poor shape compared to almost all the rest of Canada, but also that we have the idea that for investors, perception is terribly important. We want to discuss the fact that perception counts for as much as fact when it comes to the investor sector outside of Canada, who are looking for a place to invest their money. The perception of what's going on in a province is important to them.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Labour made that comment when he was talking about the bill and introducing it. He said something to the effect that. . . . He explained that the reality of the modern economy is that it functions to a huge degree on perception as much as anything else. So besides the fact that the economy of British Columbia is in trouble, it's a fact that in the minds of many business people, this government is not business-friendly. Besides that, the perception is there that those things are true. That is very important. We've been hearing lots of comments from members opposite that many of the things the members on this side of the House have been saying are really just our opinion and that we're wrong.

Well, I'd like to read you the opinions of a few other people. One is from Jerry Lampert. It's a Business Council of B.C. press release from April 29 of this year. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: The motor-mouth from Cowichan-Ladysmith says that they're non-partisan. It doesn't really matter whether they're partisan or non-partisan; what matters is what's going to happen to the economy of this province. Anyway, he said:

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

"It is in British Columbia where things are the worst. . .government policies which investors see as favouring organized labour, combined with high tax rates and seemingly inept management of the province, has led investors to shut off the flow of new funds. Growth this year should be negative, and while there appears to be a change of heart by the government" -- notice that he said "appears," because we're now seeing that that's not so -- "investors, because of a profound lack of credibility in the government, have adopted a wait-and-see attitude."

". . .business people and others blame the government. 'The local business climate is a complete and utter disaster,' says Richard Groome, president of brokerage firm Groome Capital Advisory Inc." -- who has moved his firm to Montreal. "Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws, I think its actions are window dressing."

Well, a researcher for Angus Reid said in the Vancouver Sun, on May 23: "An overwhelming 88 percent of business people" -- and that's business people, not the Liberals on this side of the House; that's the people who create jobs in the province -- "believe that the government's economic agenda is having a negative impact on business investment in B.C. . . . That there is such a significant gap in what business feels government should be doing and the direction it is heading speaks volumes to businesses' lack of confidence in the current government."

You see, hon. Speaker, when we've been speaking on this side of the House, these are not some negative sayings from the Liberals here. We're repeating what the government should be hearing over and over again from the people in this province who bring the money into the province and put the investment into the province and create jobs in the province.

Further, from the Globe and Mail, in May of this year: "Companies in B.C. are not happy with the government. They believe [the Premier of the province]" -- they name him here -- "has single-handedly driven the economy from high growth to low growth during his tenure." Single-handedly, he's done a good job of wrecking the economy, according to that particular one.

[ Page 9983 ]

D. Symons: A one-man wrecking crew indeed. We're dealing with Bill 26. We're debating this legislation because the government ignored the advice of job creators in this province. They were basically telling the government, when they were looking at Bill 44 and the aftermath of Bill 44 and suggesting they might be bringing in something this year. . . . The Premier actually went out and consulted this time, but the message they were giving was: "Leave the Labour Code alone. Don't change the Labour Code." What did the government do? They ignored that, and they've begun to fiddle around again with the Labour Code.

If there's one thing my constituents are telling me, it's that they're concerned about any changes in labour legislation. They perceive any change to be anti-business. Whether that's true or false doesn't matter. The perception is there that this is the case. I happen to believe it's true, but nevertheless, we've got to deal with the perception.

It's interesting that the Richmond Chamber of Commerce up till the last year really has been a non-partisan organization. It took this government and its anti-business legislation to turn that around and turn them into a partisan group -- not only the Richmond Chamber of Commerce but almost all the chambers of commerce within the province; the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, certainly, as well. I also meet periodically with the. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith is again concerned about what I'm saying. I think, hon. Speaker, that you will recognize -- if she doesn't -- that chambers of commerce are a very important agent for job creation in this province. They're the small businesses that create jobs in the province. It's not big business; it's not government. In British Columbia it's traditionally been small businesses that are creating jobs. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith should pay close attention, because I suspect that her chamber of commerce will agree with many of the other chambers around this province that this legislation is not good for investment in the province. It's not good for business. If I'm wrong, I'd be delighted to have a letter from her chamber saying so.

Also, there was some research done for the Urban Development Institute. I know that the government members will feel that that also is a biased organization. But they also are interested in investment in this province; it's their bread and butter to have investment in the province. They did a study on the economic impact of sectoral bargaining in British Columbia prior to the introduction of this bill, back in last March. Roslyn Kunin and Associates did the study. The report showed that the threat of increased unionization through Labour Code changes has pushed up the cost of doing business in B.C. In her analysis of the research Kunin said: "The combination of a poor business climate and the threat of new legislation -- in most cases, in that order -- is causing a continued flow of construction industry capital, effort and jobs out of the province. . .many potential projects will be considered unfeasible or unfinanceable if changes to the Labour Code are tabled and passed." Well, they have been tabled. We're speaking about them tonight, and unfortunately, as things go along, it's likely that this government is intent on passing them.

The government has done a great deal to hurt the economy of British Columbia in the last few weeks, and they've continued the process that they began seven years ago. They imposed new red tape and new costs on businesses through the recent changes to the Workers Compensation Act -- Bill 14, which we dealt with just a week or two ago. Those are also going to create more concerns, more expense and more red tape for businesses. They didn't do any small businesses favour when they introduced Bill 14, and they didn't do any when they introduced Bill 26.

That's really why our economy in this province is in pretty poor shape. This government keeps introducing legislation and policies that are going to have a negative impact on the economy, for which no economic impact analysis has been done. That in itself speaks volumes -- that the government didn't do an economic impact analysis of the bill that's before the House today. If you combine the actions with what the government has done in the past seven years, it becomes easy to understand why the investment and business community says, "Thanks, but no thanks," to investing in B.C.

What have they done in the past few years? When they were running for government. . . . Maybe I'll come back to that later on. I'll talk right now about what they did when they got into government.

First they increased taxes in the province. In the first year, I think we had roughly $800 million of new taxes, fees and revenues generated by this government. The next year they added another $800 million, for roughly $1.5 billion of new taxes, fees and so forth for the people of British Columbia to pay. That's still in place. The Finance minister at that time was the man who is now Premier.

[2:45]

The corporate capital tax is one of those taxes that was introduced and that certainly is a disincentive to people offshore who may want to bring business and money to this province. There were fee increases going on -- some of them small, some of them major, some of them in the hundreds of percentages. There were regulations, piles of regulations, added on -- so much so that the government finally recognized that they've overregulated, and now they're trying to cut out some of the red tape that they brought in with those regulations. Of course, the regulations and government bureaucracy have caused much delay in many parts of British Columbia, where a person can't even get a simple little bit of land out of the. . . .

An Hon. Member: Agricultural land reserve.

D. Symons: Not the agricultural land reserve -- I'm not thinking of that one. I'm actually thinking of Crown lands; the name escaped me for a moment at this late hour. They've been trying to get title to Crown land, and it's taking them years when it should take weeks. That's the sort of bureaucracy that's going on. If you're a business that wants to invest in British Columbia, you find out that by the time you jump through all these hoops and deal with all this red tape, you get so tied up in all of it that it takes months and months and

[ Page 9984 ]

I would say that the government has now at least recognized -- at least they admit they've recognized -- that this is a problem, and they're dealing with it -- slowly, mind you, but they're dealing with it. But what they're dealing with is a pile of regulations, red tape and bureaucratic delays that they created in the last seven years. They're trying to undo some of the damage that they've created -- but not all of it.

We know that capital spending is down in B.C. That's happening in only two other provinces in Canada right now: Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. We're down to the level of those provinces. The NDP's labour policies have helped to create an unstable business climate in this province. As a result, B.C. has experienced a crash in job-creating capital investment over the last few years. B.C.'s capital spending for 1998 is projected to be a paltry 1.3 percent, compared to 6.2 percent for the nation as a whole -- the average for Canada -- 9.8 percent for Alberta, 5 percent for Ontario, 8.4 percent for Quebec and 8.1 percent for Saskatchewan.

I must say that I'm from Saskatchewan, and I'm delighted to hear that Saskatchewan is doing so well. We have another member from Saskatchewan as well. So let's give three cheers for the economy of Saskatchewan. It's just too bad that it couldn't be repeated by this NDP government here.

It's interesting that when Mr. Romanow won the election in Saskatchewan -- he happens to be NDP -- he made some comments that he's going to bring the best liberal government to Saskatchewan that Saskatchewan has ever had. That was an NDP Premier who said that, and he's proving that he's right. He's done quite well there.

So investments are flowing to Saskatchewan and to Manitoba -- 6.3 is the projection for Manitoba. And what do we have in British Columbia? A little over 1 percent. Compared to all the other provinces, we're doing very, very poorly. B.C.'s taxes and labour laws do not make investors around the world want to invest in British Columbia. Companies are basically fleeing the province. They're going the other way, because they perceive that this government is anti-business.

B.C. Stats indicated that 145 companies left in 1996, and 107 companies went to Alberta in 1997. Those are only the ones that have left, not those that closed their doors, saying: "Let's close down; we're just not going to continue in this province." Of course, it doesn't include the capital that could have flowed into this province. Those figures I read a moment ago, showing where investment in going -- not to B.C. but elsewhere. . . . If you consider what that investment could have done for the province if we didn't have this government that's perceived to be anti-business running the show here -- if we didn't have bills like Bill 44 last year, which they had the good sense to remove but now have the poor sense to bring it back in a shortened version. . . . If we didn't have that happening, maybe a lot more of that money would have been coming here, and we wouldn't be dealing with the unemployment and with the recession that this province is rapidly going into. Businesses are fleeing British Columbia, and this government has done much to help them flee, rather than encourage them to stay.

This government has really made no effort to find out why companies are leaving. If they did, they wouldn't be bringing in these labour legislation changes. Bills like Bill 14, which increased red tape and the cost of doing business in B.C., mean that companies won't hire people for fear of falling into a different category of business size and cost. Bill 26 does the same thing for businesses that are somewhat concerned about what that's going to mean to them in the future. So not only are companies leaving because of the government's anti-business attitude; they are choosing not to invest in British Columbia as well.

We really have to ask why on earth this government would not do an impact study on proposed legislation and regulations. If they had done that before they brought in the Forest Practices Code, maybe the forest industry wouldn't be anywhere near the shape it is in today. But they didn't do that then, and they're not doing it on this bill. Maybe they don't do impact studies, because they don't want to know the results. They know the impact will be negative, so why bother doing a study that's going to show what they already know?

Then I have to ask the question: if they do know that it's going to have a negative impact on the province and that's why they're not doing a study -- because they know the result -- why on earth would they intentionally bring in a bill that's going to hurt the economy of the province? I don't really have an answer for that. I don't know whether the minister was going to give me an answer. Maybe they know -- the ones at the helm, who are driving this ship of state downhill.

According to a StatsCan survey, 1998 investment intentions in B.C. are way down. In April of '98 an economic study determined that B.C. and Quebec are the worst places to invest, according to Canadian money managers responsible for over $140 billion in total assets under management. The survey of senior investment managers ranked Alberta first among the provinces and Ontario a close second. Forty-nine percent of the money managers had negative views with respect to the investment climate in B.C., and further, only 3 percent of the respondents had a positive view of investing in B.C. Only Newfoundland ranked worse than B.C., and that's saying something for British Columbia.

B.C.'s unbalanced, undemocratic labour laws are among the reasons behind our province's declining investment and economic competitiveness. B.C. has gone from number one to number ten in Canada in terms of economic growth, and we're losing investment and jobs to competing jurisdictions like Alberta, Ontario and Washington State. By driving investment away, the NDP's newest Labour Code changes will only serve to make B.C. even less competitive.

Has the NDP's war on job creators had an impact? You bet it has. In my constituency you can feel this lack of optimism in the business community. There's a feeling of uncertainty and lack of trust in the government. When I go to the Asia Pacific Business Association or the chamber of commerce or a Rotary Club dinner -- or anything -- people take me aside and want to talk about what's happening in the province. Basically, I'm afraid, they say, "We've got to get rid of that NDP government," because they feel that it's driving the economy of the province into the ground. If we look at this government's record of economic destruction, we find that back in 1991 -- before the seven years of NDP rule -- B.C. was number one in economic growth. Now we're number ten. If we look at per capita economic growth, the amount each person has in their pockets to spend on the things they need, in only one of the last eight years has per capita economic growth in B.C. been positive. British Columbians are getting poorer every year. They're working harder, but they're getting poorer. Looking at British Columbia's after-tax personal

[ Page 9985 ]

What about job losses? From January '97 to January '98, B.C. lost 19,000 jobs; Alberta gained 22,000 jobs -- just the reverse. What about the province's credit rating? In 1991 we had the best credit rating. We're now the only province in Canada in recent history to have our credit rating downgraded. In 1991, B.C. had the lowest per capita debt of any province. Now we have the fastest-growing debt of any province in Canada. I think it is a shame that we in this rich province, this great province of British Columbia, should be suffering through that type of situation mainly created by this government.

I am going to skip many of the things I want to say here, because I think that one of the things I must get to is that what's really tied in with the fact that the economy is going down the tube is trust -- and this bill doesn't help a great deal. Before the election this government made promises about cutting taxes, cutting red tape and making business-friendly. . . . They did exactly the reverse. After they were elected, they increased taxes and brought in many more regulations and much more red tape. This is the government that brought us two balanced budgets, you may remember, hon. Speaker. I'm talking of trust here. Do people trust this government? Well, those budgets certainly weren't balanced.

This is the government that brought in a debt management plan. They were going to manage the debt. They were going to get, in 20 years, back to the point where they got in just four years. That debt management plan went down the tubes in two years, because it was all wacky, and they couldn't even keep to that.

This is the government that promised that they would give municipal governments certainty in funding. Two years later they changed the bill and basically reduced municipal funding by over 60 percent in my constituency.

This is the government that, when they brought in Forest Renewal B.C., said it would only go to incremental -- I think that was the key word they were using -- investment in the forest industry. They would not use it for things that the Forests ministry was already using or for other things that were already on the books. Well, how long did that last? One year. This is the government that also brought us Bingogate and Hydrogate. We have a lack of trust in this particular government.

The Minister of Labour has been telling us that this bill is really very minor, that there will be no real effect. I think he used the term modest. I am reminded that a gentleman named Jonathan Swift used the term modest, too, when he had a modest proposal that was quite a whopper of a proposal, actually.

Let's take a look at the bill. I'd like to read just a couple of parts of the bill, because I think it's important that we consider this. I'm looking at the "Definitions" part: " 'Unionized construction employee' means an employee who is employed by a unionized construction employer and with respect to whom a trade union has established the right to bargain collectively with the unionized construction employer." That's the definition of unionized construction. . . . Oh, my goodness! That's Bill 44 from last year that I was reading from. I'm sorry. Let's read Bill 26: " 'Unionized construction employee' means an employee who is employed by a unionized construction employer and with respect to whom a trade union has established the right to bargain collectively with the unionized construction employer."

An Hon. Member: Even more sinister is that they've both used black ink. Both bills have black ink. Did you notice that?

[3:00]

When we're given assurances by this government that this bill is just modest, I think we can take that with a grain of salt. We've seen too many other areas where the trust in this government is just not there. I could not really take any assurances they give us other than with a grain of salt, because they haven't proved to follow through on things they've said before. I doubt very, very much whether they'll do it again.

Noting the time, I move adjournment of the House.

Deputy Speaker: Did the member mean to move adjournment of the House?

D. Symons: Yes.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 6
Farrell-Collins	Reid	Stephens
Thorpe	Symons	Krueger

NAYS -- 25
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Priddy
Petter	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Ramsey
Farnworth	Waddell	Hartley
Sihota	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht		Janssen

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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