1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 2

[ Page 9013 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Jarvis: It is a great pleasure to announce the Member of Parliament for North Vancouver, Mr. Ted White, and his wife Sue White. Would the members please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Madam Speaker, I rise today on a sad note. Last week Kay Stockholder, the president of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, passed away after a courageous battle with cancer. I had the opportunity to meet with Kay on many occasions and as recently as March to hear her views and the association's position on very difficult issues. I appreciated her position on a range of issues affecting British Columbians, such as legal aid, the police public complaints process and a sex offender registry.

Kay was a champion for advocating freedom of expression and civil liberties for all British Columbians. She was passionate, tireless and committed to her work. She will be greatly missed by all British Columbians. I ask the House to join me in conveying our deepest condolences on her passing.

V. Anderson: I would like to ask the House to make welcome students from Sir William Osler Elementary School in my riding of Vancouver-Langara. Eighteen students are here, along with their teacher, Ms. Flynn, and those who are accompanying them.

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise today to welcome one of my constituents, in the gallery, who has become a very good friend. Would the House please welcome Kehar Sekhon.

G. Hogg: We have three guests in the House from the Shawnigan Lake area. Two of them from Discovery Elementary School, Sara Kubica and Erin Chessal, are skipping school today to learn about how we in the House operate. They are accompanied by Sara's mother C. J., who is their mentor and tutor for the day. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: Visiting us in the gallery today are Joe Cooper, who is the business representative from the Allied Hydro Council of British Columbia, and Bruce Ferguson, who is president of Labourers Local 1611. They are here to listen to the debate on Bill 26. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from the beautiful Alberni Valley are Beate and Henny Granneman. I ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I rise today to introduce a special constituent from the Shuswap. My son Brant is seated behind the protective glass; I think it's more to protect the Hansard folks from him than to protect him from the vigorous debate that will undoubtedly ensue here today. I'd like the House to make Brant welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce Pension Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998. This bill will amend the four public sector pension plans -- the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Teachers) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Municipal) Act -- as well as the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, to extend pension benefits to same-sex partners.

These amendments are a response to the growing number of court and human rights decisions that recognize same-sex spousal relationships. The amended legislation will affirm a fundamental principle of this government: that all British Columbians must be treated fairly, regardless of their sexual orientation. The government of British Columbia will not sit by and wait for our courts and our tribunals to force us to catch up with the changing social values; instead, we are going to amend the public sector pension legislation now because it is the right thing to do.

College instructors, teachers, public service employees, municipal workers and members of this assembly will now be protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation in the allocation of their pension benefits.

British Columbia is the first province in Canada to bring legislative changes to extend public sector pension plan benefits to same-sex partners. I'm pleased to announce that through these amendments, the government of British Columbia confirms its commitment to justice, fairness and equality.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF LABOUR BILL ON B.C. ECONOMY

G. Farrell-Collins: According to the latest version of B.C. Stats, from January to March of this year, for the first time in almost 15 years, more workers left British Columbia than came here. My question is for the Minister of Labour: can he tell us why he and his government, despite all the signals that indicate the damage they've done to this economy, continue to ignore those items, continue to ignore the statistics and bring in labour legislation like we saw last week? Why is it that when all the signals are pointing to a drain of skilled workers in this province, he's doing everything he can to try and damage the economy further?

Hon. D. Lovick: We are bringing forward the measure with regard to Labour Code amendments because, first, it is

[ Page 9014 ]

fair; it is the right thing to do. It's a minor amendment; it's a matter of repairing something that's wrong with the Labour Code that people in the province have recognized for at least a decade.

The second point to make is simply that introducing this legislation will have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem that the member alludes to. I've attempted to explain that on numerous occasions. The problem is that members opposite, as I have pointed out before, are bound and determined that there will be a war; they continue to throw gasoline on the fire. Sadly, that shouldn't be the case.

The legislation will be absolutely neutral, as far as we can make out, with regard to investment and economic activity.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I heard exactly the same reassurances by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin when he was the Minister of Labour in 1992, and now we're in a recession.

But it's not just that people in B.C. are leaving the province; it shows that a record number of people are not coming here. The number of people coming to British Columbia, moving to British Columbia, is at its lowest level since 1982 -- the heyday of the last recession in the province. Can the Minister of Labour tell us what studies, what analysis, his department has done to measure the impact on British Columbia of the bleeding off of so many thousands of our highly skilled and highly trained workers to other provinces? What effect is it going to have on the economy?

Hon. D. Lovick: One truly has a sense of déjà vu in this House. We did have that question last week ad nauseam. I would answer the question again the same way I did: our projection is that the bill will be absolutely neutral. We did indeed listen to the concerns of business. We responded to the three points made specifically by the Business Council of B.C. regarding the ITAC board -- the training and apprenticeship business -- regarding sectoral bargaining, and also talking about maintaining that level, competitive playing field in terms of the construction industry in the province.

[2:15]

I would finally point out that the member is quite wrong in his assumption when he talks about the '92 amendments to the Labour Code being problematic. Indeed everybody, including the people they love to quote, has said that the Labour Code has worked very well, thanks to those amendments to the code.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: In April, B.C. Stats reported that last year British Columbia lost 7,600 people to the province of Alberta. They called this "the largest new outflow to Alberta in 20 years." At the current pace, we're scheduled to lose 18,000 workers to Alberta. I have a copy of a newspaper

article that shows that Bob Nicoll, a senior research consultant with Alberta's Ministry of Advanced Education and Career Development, is actually holding seminars on Vancouver Island encouraging people about Alberta's investment boom and how to take advantage of it and recruiting construction workers to go to Alberta. Can the minister tell us how anything he's brought in is going to stop the bleed-off of skilled workers from other parts of the province and how it's going to turn the economy around?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, my cold is too heavy for me to be combative, so I will try to be pleasant and polite.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, members. It's nice of you to finally acknowledge that. I will try, rather, to be very nice and make just this point: this is an amendment to the Labour Code; it is not an economic plan for British Columbia. It is a very small amendment to the Labour Code, which deals with a subset of a subset of a subset in terms of the construction industry. All reasonable examination and reasonable analysis leads to one simple conclusion. We already have master agreements in place that are carried out by the Construction Labour Relations Association and by the Building Trades Council.

All we are doing is expanding this ever so slightly. It is not a big issue. I'm sorry the members refuse to accept that rather simple conclusion.

M. de Jong: My father, when he decided to come to this country and this province, attended seminars about the promise that B.C. held. Now we're having seminars that encourage people to leave, to seek opportunities elsewhere. That's an embarrassment. Over 3,500 more people left this province than came in the first three months of this year. My question to the Minister of Employment and Investment is: what's the figure now? Is it 6,000, 7,000, 8,000 or 10,000? How many more people have fled this province in the face of the NDP's attack on just about everything they hold sacred?

When will this minister stand up for the people that want to earn a living in British Columbia and withdraw this labour bill -- advocate the withdrawal of this labour bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Every day we listen to the opposition and their doom-and-gloom mentality. They say how things are nicer in Alberta and that everyone is leaving for Alberta. Well, you know what? Since February, 37 percent of all the new jobs in Canada have been created right here in British Columbia. The help-wanted index is at its highest level in years. Just for the benefit of the members of the opposition, that's about the intent of companies that intend to hire new workers.

British Columbia faces many challenges from what's happening in Asia, but we're not facing any challenges from the opposition.

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, people are voting with their feet, quite frankly. The B.C. stats reveal that people are leaving this province. For the first time in 16 years, more people are leaving than are coming to the province of British Columbia -- and it's the job creators, the investors and the skilled workers. They don't see a future in this province under this government. If he wants to reverse the outflow of capital, of ideas, of entrepreneurship, he's got to get out of the way of the workers and the people of British Columbia.

It's time for him to stand up for the people he's supposed to represent and advocate the withdrawal of this labour bill. If he won't do that, then let's have an election, and we'll see how many of those people who he relies upon are supportive of this government.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again the oppositions slags this province, and once again . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: For their own political gain.

[ Page 9015 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: For their own political gain, as the member says.

I'd just like to point out that the member says that the people of British Columbia are voting with their feet. A couple of points. First, more people are moving to British Columbia than ever before. The population of this province is growing. Second, businesses in Alberta are voting with their wallets and investing here in British Columbia. The day after the Labour Code . . . . High-Alta Capital plan to double their sales and investments here in British Columbia and make an investment of $6.7 million in the Okanagan region.

G. Plant: This is one occasion when I think I'm with the Minister of Forests. I think I'll believe the government statistics, and the government statistics say that people are leaving British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: By the thousands.

G. Plant: By the thousands. In fact, last week we learned that Campbell River has seen its housing starts drop by 91 percent from the first quarter of 1997-98. We know why housing starts are so low in Campbell River: everyone's going to Alberta. In fact, they don't have to worry about guessing their way there; they get to go to seminars.

They get to be told by people: "We want to bring this information to Campbell River for people who want to go where the work is." Well, my question for the Minister of Labour is this: what has he done to provide and create a positive economic climate for the hundreds of workers in Campbell River who are leaving an economy that has failed them and moving to Alberta?

Hon. D. Lovick: The Minister of Labour is part of a cabinet that made a number of decisions to try to encourage investment in this province, to try and improve the business climate to make it more business friendly. From my particular perspective, in terms of the Ministry of Labour, we did a number of things. For example, we looked at making changes to the Employment Standards Act so that we could accommodate the legitimate concerns of certain businesses -- notably, the high-tech sector.

I'm happy to note that we also listened to the position pointed out by the Business Council of British Columbia when they talked about changes to the Labour Code. They asked for three things specifically, and I'll repeat them. They asked, first of all, that we put the issue of training and apprenticeship in a body that is arm's length from government. We did so; it's called the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission.

Secondly, they asked that we maintain the competitive environment, so that workers belonging to all three kinds of unions could indeed continue to do so -- that freedom of choice would be granted. Thirdly, they said, "Please don't bring in sectoral bargaining," and we did that as well. Its seems to me that we have done what they asked.

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

G. Plant: Yes, the minister is a member of cabinet. For six or seven years it's made all kinds of decisions, and the result is pretty clear: we're on the verge of a recession, and thousands of people are voting with their feet and leaving the province.

The unemployment rate on Vancouver Island stands at almost 11 percent, and North Island is even worse. In the face of high taxes and overregulation, in the face of a job-killing labour relations policy, can the Minister of Labour give me one reason why the workers of North Island should not accept the invitation and go to the province of Alberta?

Hon. D. Lovick: I would just point out to the member opposite: God help anybody who went to Alberta and there was a crash in the oil and gas boom there. It was only about two and a half years ago that Calgary was the bankruptcy capital of Canada and Albertans were coming to this province in record numbers. We shouldn't forget that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: As well, I would just point out that if those workers happened to be laid off and were unemployed, they wouldn't get a lot of comfort from social services in Alberta or from the fact that Alberta has, I believe, the lowest minimum wage in Canada. That's not the kind of place I would want anybody to go to.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, there is another question coming. Let's have some order, please.

C. Clark: Among the statistics that the minister does not mention is the fact that housing starts in British Columbia have gone down by 7,000 over the last year. According to Greater Vancouver Home Builders, that means 17,500 jobs. If the minister wants to put that in context, since 1993, if you look at the spinoff jobs -- two and a half for every job -- that is 43,500 jobs lost in the housing sector alone. Can the minister tell us why, instead of doing something to stop this hemorrhage in the job market sector in British Columbia, he is introducing changes to the Labour Code that will only destabilize the economy and make this problem much, much worse?

Hon. D. Lovick: I've just been handed a briefing note, and I want to quote it into the record. It may give the member some comfort. "In contrast to Canada as a whole, in which there was a decline of 3.6 percent in residential building permits, the value of residential building permits in British Columbia rose by 8.1 percent in April."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The minister will wind up his remarks, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: I will wind up. You know, hon. Speaker, anybody who has ever watched proceedings in this House knows full well that they are seldom, at least from that side, about substance and about principle. They're about theatre, and they're about tactics. The tragedy is that it's even bad theatre, friends.

Petitions

R. Thorpe: I rise to present a petition from 147 constituents from the riding of Okanagan-Penticton.

Interjections.

[ Page 9016 ]

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I recognize the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

M. Coell: I rise to present a petition from 172 residents in my community, requesting that the government act on . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Let's hear what the petition says.

M. Coell: . . . treatment services for substance-abuse people who cause car accidents and death.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 26. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

[2:30]

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading continued)

J. Doyle: I'm pleased to speak in second reading of Bill 26. Something I would like to know is just what the desperate B.C. Liberal opposition has against workers and unions in our province. A recent example from our brave B.C. Liberal opposition to do with workers and unions: they changed their minds at least a couple of times on Skeena Cellulose. This government stood up with good union jobs in Prince Rupert, Terrace, Hazelton, Smithers and Stewart. Some further examples: in November 1997, the brand-new B.C. Liberal member, the member for Peace River South . . . .

That is the member who was trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records . The ink had not yet dried on his B.C. Liberal membership, and of course, he's got quite a collection of memberships. This new B. C. Liberal MLA . . .

An Hon. Member: Peace River South?

Interjections.

J. Doyle: . . . was in Revelstoke, and he said that a Liberal government should, to quote what he said in Revelstoke . . . .

Interjections.

J. Doyle: Did I say Peace River South? I apologize to the member for Peace River North. Peace River South . . . .

Interjections.

J. Doyle: I apologize. Anyhow, the hon. member, who is not present in the House today . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke mind just taking a moment. I need to talk to the rest of the members, who are being a little overly noisy. If you'd just take it easy, we'll get to hear what is being said.

J. Doyle: When he was in Revelstoke in November of last year, the hon. member -- the brand-new Liberal MLA -- said that the B.C. Liberals would not have bailed out Evans Forest Products in Golden. That is another example of bashing unions and communities, the B.C. Liberal way. Our government did not change our minds, like you. We backed up Evans Forest Products, and we backed up the communities in the north. We didn't change our minds like the B.C. Liberal opposition.

Another example. Even on the minimum wage . . . . Some B.C. Liberals said they ran for office in the past election because the minimum wage in British Columbia was too high. This is what they think of B.C. workers.

The former B.C. Liberal member for Richmond-Steveston said in this House that unions were bad. Union workers, he said, did not work as hard as non-union workers. I ask the members opposite: just what do you think union members do with their union-wage cheques? You know what they do, hon. Speaker? They buy houses; they buy cars; they go on holidays; they eat in restaurants. Yes, they spend their money in the communities in British Columbia in which they live.

Let us look at how the B.C. Liberal opposition treats the staff who work for them. They pay them poor wages. Let's look at the opposition when it comes to themselves as MLAs, compared to how they treat their workers. The B.C. Liberal opposition over there take the fair wage that they get as B.C. MLAs, and they take all their benefits: B.C. Medical, paid by the taxpayers; extended medical paid by the taxpayers . . . .

Interjection.

J. Doyle: Even as I speak, hon. member, the opposition B.C. Liberals are signing up for the pension plan. Of course, that's the one that they signed for before the last election, saying that they would never take that pension plan. As we speak, the same Liberal MLAs that said they would not take that pension plan -- including their leader -- are now signing up for the pension plan. Shame on them!

Do we remember how the Leader of the Opposition treated the House Leader last year when there were some discussions going on about a pension plan for Liberal MLAs and all other MLAs in the House? This B.C. Liberal opposition believe in one law for B.C. Liberal MLAs and another law for their own workers.

I would say also, hon. Speaker, that it's time for the B.C. Liberal opposition to retire their plaid shirt. Do you remember the outing that plaid shirt had during the last election? It had its outing in May 1996. The people of B.C. knew your stand when it came to B.C. workers and its union workforce; they know whose side you are on. Their idea of how to look after labour is, to quote from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- this is in Hansard, July 9, 1996 -- to "whack them." And if they don't listen, you whack them again and again.

And if they still don't listen, "you turf them right out." That is the same member who on April 2, 1997, during a speech on the budget, referred to union members in our province as "union goons." That's what the opposition thinks of labour and union members.

Why don't the Liberal opposition just add a tenth point to their nine points of light -- that being that they just plain don't like unions and workers? That's what you say again and again in this House and in the speeches you give in the province. I would ask you to put that in there, because that's what you say every day, again and again, even when we're speaking of minimum wage.

[ Page 9017 ]

The official opposition say that they are Liberals. Just today I looked up the definition of "liberal" in the dictionary: "given or provided in a generous and open-handed way" -- that's sure not those people -- "broad-minded" -- not them either -- "generous; warm-hearted; readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift" -- and last of all, "open-minded." I say that the B.C. Liberals are not liberals. The definition just does not fit.

Some other people have used this in the past, but I would say that I know some Liberals, and those people over there are not Liberals. I would say they should have a competition to find their real name. It sure shouldn't be Liberal, the way they act and vote in this House.

I would say to the opposition, read Bill 26 -- read it. Throw away your old speeches that you had for Bill 44. God forbid if the present Liberal opposition ever form a government in British Columbia. They will enact legislation straight from the right-to-work southern United States: Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi. Of course, there'd be no minimum wage, they hate this minimum wage so much.

I would suggest also . . . . At the same time as they want to bash workers and they feel the minimum wage is too high, they feel it's fine to give a doctor $1,000 a day to be on call. The same people that want to give doctors $1,000 a day to be on call feel the minimum wage is too high. Whose side are they on?

I would suggest to the official opposition that when you visit a community, just don't listen and talk to the chamber of commerce; talk to workers. Get down to the local labour hall; listen to those people. Don't just talk to the chamber of commerce; talk to the workers too. I would bet you that even former Premier W.A.C. Bennett would be horrified to listen to this B.C. Liberal opposition. Mr. Bennett brought in the Allied Hydro agreement for all the work in the Columbia basin -- the Hydro agreement on lines being built out of there. Our government used that agreement when they built the Island Highway.

I say to the B.C. Liberal opposition: open your eyes, turn on the light and read Bill 26. If they read the bill, they will find that a separate

section is added to the Labour Relations Code regarding the construction industry, as other jurisdictions have done in Canada both provincially and federally. The

section establishes a multi-trade, multi-employer bargaining structure in that part of industrial, commercial and institutional construction which is certified by craft bargaining units. Participation in a bargaining structure is mandatory for both craft bargaining units and their employers. The joint council model would not apply to other construction areas such as residential. It does not apply to non-union or industrial-union, organized contractors in industrial, commercial and institutional construction.

The plan for resolving jurisdictional issues must now be included in all collective agreements involving craft bargaining units, to promote industrial stability. An industrial, commercial and institutional contractor that is newly certified by a craft bargaining unit will automatically be covered by the standard agreement, except that provisions must be made to accommodate projects bid on or before certification.

All construction workers can freely choose between non-union, craft union and industrial union models. The waiting period, when employees can switch between unions, will be July and August, when the greatest number of employees are working. Voluntary-recognition collective agreements must be ratified by the employees to ensure that their wishes are respected. Unions applying for certification will be required to show fresh support when they make application to the Labour Relations Board. Hon. Speaker, I suggest that this is good legislation. I am pleased to support this legislation.

S. Hawkins: Last week the Minister of Labour said that he had heard from businesses and employers in the province, that he had consulted them and that he had heard them. He may have heard them, but he failed to listen to them. We know that because I wasn't able to go anywhere during the last few days when I was home that I didn't have some employer or small business person come up to me and say: "Isn't this government listening? Bill 26 is the last thing this province needs." Unlike everyone else in the province, this minister has the distinction of being the only one who believes that it is not going to do anything to the economy. Unbelievable!

We have a Minister of Small Business who sits over there and says that small business is the engine . . . . He realizes that small businesses are the job creators, that they are the engines of the economy. But we have a Minister of Labour who brings in one of the most ill-advised, narrow-minded, investment-killing, job-killing and small business-killing bills we've seen in the last few years. Unbelievable!

Our economy is in recession. We're on the brink of recession. This minister doesn't understand. We've been sitting here for three days, debating this bill. This minister doesn't understand that. He says: "Don't talk about the economy. This bill is not about the economy." Well, where do workers work? They work in businesses which drive the economy. This minister doesn't seem to make that connection. Unbelievable! For three days we've been trying to get through to this minister that this bill is about the economy. He has his head in the sand, and he just refuses to listen. We hope he listens, but again, I think he's going to fail to listen.

We've been telling this minister and this government that this bill comes at the worst possible time. We've heard reports that the Atlantic provinces -- Newfoundland -- are outperforming our economy this year. Now, that is incredible. We are a wealthy, resourceful province with individual enterprise, especially in the constituency that I represent. We are not wholly government-dependent in the constituency that I represent. People do have a sense of individual enterprise. We rely heavily on small business to be job creators in the riding that I represent.

And you know what? I mean, maybe the minister doesn't believe. Maybe I should invite him to my constituency, so he can actually hear the people that create jobs in my constituency, because everywhere I went . . . . I got stopped when I was shopping for groceries in Overwaitea, when I was on the golf course, when I went to see a play in Kelowna this weekend. People are saying to me: "You take that message back. You stand up, and you tell the government they are wrong to bring in Bill 26. Bill 26 is going to damage our economy, our business.

It won't affect only the industrial construction, but it will also impact on residential." These guys just don't get it, hon. Speaker. You know, instead of actually consulting with people, they chose to ignore people; that's wrong.

[2:45]

I think that is why we see, hon. Speaker . . . . I'm looking at a full-page ad that is asking the Premier of the province to listen to B.C.'s job creators. "Stop Your Changes to B.C.'s Labour Code," it says. "We Want the Government to Work With Us, Not Against Us." They say: "All we want is a fair chance to succeed" -- full-page ads that the job creators and businesses around the province have to run to get this govern-

[ Page 9018 ]

ment's attention. That is remarkable: ordinary people having to do extraordinary things and going to extraordinary expense to try to get a government to listen. There are numerous associations on the bottom of this ad. It says: "A Message from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses: Speaking Up For the Job Creators of B.C." We know that this government says they met with some of these associations; we know they said they did that. But I wonder if they actually heard or listened to what these people said. Now they're having to run ads.

Then, hon. Speaker . . . . Maybe I shouldn't be surprised anymore. You know, we saw an auditor general's report that estimates that the government spends $2 million to $3 million of taxpayer money a month on government advertising -- I guess it's to tell everybody what a good job they're doing. We have a government now that . . . . Yesterday I saw an ad in the Province , a half-page ad that was advertising the government's position. Well, if their position is so good, if it's sellable to the public and if the public is buying it, why do they have to advertise it? Why do they have to spend public dollars?

We have the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, which is putting out full-page ads trying to get their position out, because they think the government doesn't listen. And we have our government spending their money -- taxpayers' money . . .

An Hon. Member: Our money.

S. Hawkins: . . . our money, trying to say it's a good solution.

You know, the ad is fairly misleading, because it says that the problem is "outdated labour rules in unionized construction," and the solution -- the socialist solution -- is to "bring B.C. rules in line with Ontario, Alberta and the rest of Canada." It's misleading because it doesn't say that those provinces have the secret ballot for union workers; it doesn't say that. You know what? B.C. doesn't have a secret ballot.

If Ontario and Alberta labour codes are so good, bring them all in. Let's bring the Alberta Labour Code here, because -- you know what? -- we know that Alberta's booming. I went home for Mother's Day, and I was absolutely surprised. We lived in Alberta for almost eight years; we lived in Alberta at a time when the economy was down and then saw it boom again. There were hard times there. But, you know, Alberta has done okay. In May when I went there, I couldn't believe the boom. I think I saw two for-sale signs in the area in Calgary where I was driving. I mean, that just absolutely amazed me.

Roads that weren't paved when I was living there three or four years ago are major roadways now. Where my parents lived was sort of on the edge of the city. There are huge housing developments way past there.

It's interesting that this weekend, when I was watching the news, a story that struck me was one that was mentioned earlier today in the House. That was about Alberta companies coming and doing seminars on Vancouver Island -- the member for North Island should pay special attention to this -- in Campbell River and saying: "You know what? Alberta has a huge problem. You know what the problem is? We've got too many jobs; we don't have workers." Gee, I wish B.C. had that problem. I wish we could say that we've got too many jobs here in B.C., that we don't have enough workers. That is what Alberta is doing here.

They're coming to B.C. and asking for our skilled tradespeople, because they're booming.

What makes me really sad is that the husband of one of the workers in my office was unemployed here for a long time. A year ago he left British Columbia and set up in Calgary. He took one of their daughters with him. So she's living in Kelowna with one daughter, and he's got the older daughter in Calgary. You know what? I'm very sad, because I'm now losing a worker in my own office. She is leaving and moving to Alberta with her husband, who has work there for the next three years or more. I've seen my friends leave; I've seen my business friends leave Kelowna. It hits close to home when we see our own friends and employees leaving this province.

It's no surprise that they're leaving. British Columbia has gone from number one to number ten in Canada in terms of economic growth. That's not something we can be proud of at all. There are a lot of reasons why that has happened. We've been losing investment, and I think we'll continue to lose investment, because the government just doesn't get it. We need to be attracting business investment; we need to be attracting that kind of investment so that we can create jobs in B.C. We need to say to investors: "We're open for business.

Come on in; we want you." I understand that Alberta is celebrating over $34 billion in capital investment. Boy, if we could brag about that . . . . I've heard figures -- and I could be wrong, hon. Speaker -- of something like $700 million for B.C. What a shame! We've been losing jobs to Alberta, Ontario and Washington State because of the gross incompetence of this government.

Earlier this year we saw these splashy headlines and pictures on the front pages of the papers of the Premier meeting with business leaders and saying: "I'm going to listen to these business leaders, because I am the new sensitive, caring kind of Premier. I understand the economy, and I'm going to listen to business leaders." I understand that business leaders told him two things. One was that taxes are too high. If you want to get business investment back, you'd better do something about taxes. What did we see when the budget came down? They tinkered with it. I mean, they did basically nothing.

For personal taxes alone, people don't even get a break until January, and then it's a minuscule break. What they did was up the fees so much that people are paying more in fees and everything to this government than they are getting from a reduction in taxes.

The second thing I heard that business leaders said to the government was: "Don't tinker with the Labour Code. Leave it alone." We went through this last year. I guess I could say that maybe they are a bunch of slow learners, but I thought they had learned. We went through this last year with Bill 44. It was tabled, and then the uproar started. The business community wasn't happy. They felt that they hadn't been consulted, and they weren't. This government said that they would pull that bill so that they could consult some more with the business community; that's what they said. You know what? A year later, in Bill 26, we have the son of Bill 44 before the House.

The minister wants to work with the business community. That's what he says, but all he does is dump on them all the time. I just don't understand. I don't think they've learned from their mistakes. I hear the minister going on and on about how this bill isn't about the economy. We've heard those arguments from that side of the House.

Hon. Speaker, I have an article, a quarterly economic letter from the Hongkong Bank of Canada, which the NDP are very familiar with. It's interesting -- they pick and choose; they cherry-pick about what they are willing to accept and what they aren't. But here is the "Quarterly Economic Letter" from the Hongkong Bank of Canada about the economic outlook in B.C. I quote from it. It was from May, 1998, so it is fairly recent. They say: "It is in British Columbia where things

[ Page 9019 ]

are the worst. The ending of the migration flow from the rest of Canada has dampened the housing market." I hope the minister is paying attention. "The record low prices of commodities such as copper, lead, zinc, aluminum and forest products have led to layoffs and temporary mill closings.

Finally, the downturn in Asian economies has had a very significant impact, because B.C. sells more of its products -- 37 percent -- in Asia than any other province." Here they say, notwithstanding that: "However, government policies which investors see as favouring organized labour, combined with high tax rates and seemingly inept management of the province" -- those aren't my words -- "have led investors to shut off the flow of new funds."

That's coming from the Hongkong Bank of Canada. It's not coming . . . . Those aren't my words; that's coming from people who . . . . Investors read that. Imagine how they feel about investing in B.C. when they read that "government policies which investors see as favouring organized labour, combined with high tax rates and seemingly inept management . . . . " "Well, gee, I really want to invest there. You know what? I think I'll go to B.C. and invest there. They have policies that aren't very favourable to business, and they'll tax me to death. The province isn't very good at managing its finances. Hey, that's a place where I'd like to invest." You know, it doesn't make sense.

Bill 26 is just another failure factor to add to the NDP's failing attempts in what they say will revive the economy. Now, if they accept and this Minister of Labour accepts what his colleague the Minister of Small Business says -- that small business is the engine that drives the economy, that small businesses are the business creators -- then how come they're not listening to business right now? How come they're not listening?

You know, the construction industries are small businesses. The construction employers run small businesses. For the minister's information, I'll be reading from small businesses involved in the construction industry that say they will be affected. Bill 26 is going to do to the construction industry what the NDP has already done to the forest industry and the mining industry. They've decimated those industries. Their government policies, their red tape, their interference, have decimated those industries. They weren't satisfied with ruining just those two. They've decided to move on. Where we see success . . . .

"Ho, ho, ho; we'd better not let them get too successful, you know. We've got to stop that. We've got to do something."

So Bill 26, thanks to the Minister of Labour and his colleagues over there, is going to drive the economy down to lower levels and bring on the recession that everyone's been worried about. We are on the brink of a recession. Everybody has been worried sick about it. But it's not just me or the opposition trying to get this government's attention. Many people and businesses and my constituents are speaking out. We hope he's listening, because we know he wasn't listening before.

[3:00]

Maybe I can bring some of those voices into the House. Here's one, hon. Speaker. I represent Okanagan West. There are two chambers in that riding. The Westbank and District Chamber of Commerce has, I believe, over 300 business members. I have a letter here from the president, Mr. Bruce MacPherson, who wrote me a letter the day the bill was tabled in the House. He says: "The Westbank chamber voices the concerns of the West Side business community in denouncing the proposed changes to the Labour Code, as proposed in Bill 26. To facilitate further new construction, a healthier business climate is needed.

We need more jobs, and this can only come about through increased activity in the construction industry, which is dependent on increased investment."

You know, it makes sense to me. But if the minister doesn't want to listen to that, here is the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce. They wrote a letter to the minister on June 1, before the bill was even introduced: "Re: B.C. Labour Code." This is Steve Thomson, who is president of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce -- which, by the way, is the largest chamber in the province and has, I believe, over 1,800 business members:

"There is no other piece of legislation that has the same potential as the B.C. Labour Code to drive job-creating investment away from this province. Given the significance of this legislation, coupled with the looming shadow of a provincial recession, we urge you not to introduce any more Labour Code amendments that would further undermine investor confidence, such as blanket certification provisions, within any sector of the economy.

"The needs of business to innovate and adapt in an increasingly competitive world marketplace are realities that none of us in either business or labour communities can afford to ignore. Simply put, the laws of economics cannot be legislated, and existing job-creating investors -- as well as potential new investors -- are increasingly looking elsewhere to locate their businesses. The corresponding loss of employment opportunities, government revenues" -- which they should be interested in -- "and related economic benefits cannot be ignored when changes to the code are contemplated.

"For all of these reasons, please exercise the leadership required to resist pressures for change which may serve the short-term interests of some of your constituents but which, in the long term, will undermine the general interests of British Columbians."

That was from the chamber president before this minister tabled the bill in the House.

They really tried hard to get this minister's attention. In May, a month earlier, they wrote this, and again, they hoped that this got the minister's attention:

"We want to reiterate our position that the chamber is not against unions but against poor labour laws. At a presentation to the labour review panel last fall, we expressed our concerns that the legislation would create unbalanced labour laws and prevent employees and employers from negotiating conditions of employment. This would negatively impact job growth and the economy in general. We continue to support balanced legislation.

"The chamber also asked the panel to consider ways to facilitate a more collaborative and less confrontational relationship between business and labour, which is certainly not exemplified in this latest tactic against our business community.

"There are a number of key points to remember. This issue is not about unions; it's about bad public policy. The provincial government's proposed labour legislation is flawed. It hurts the rights of workers and job creators alike by taking away their right to freely negotiate a collective agreement suited to their individual needs. B.C.'s Labour Code was completely overhauled in 1993 and is already more than fair to unions. No changes are needed."

I wonder if the minister read that. I wonder if the kinds of messages he was getting from business could have been any clearer. "Don't touch the Labour Code. It's already tipped off-balance to one side. We are heading into a recession. We are on the brink of disaster. People are frightened. Jobs are leaving the province. The economy is hurting. We are barely scratching by. Don't touch it." Did they listen? No, they didn't. And it begs the question: why?

I have another letter, hon. Speaker. The Canadian Home Builders Association . . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 9020 ]

S. Hawkins: If the minister doesn't read these, I'm going to read them for him. I'm going to make sure he's going to listen while he's sitting here.

This is a press release issued the day the bill was tabled. It's from the Canadian Home Builders Association of Kelowna. Ray Wynsouw, the president, said:

"B.C.'s Labour minister is wrong when he says the residential construction industry is exempt from the amendments introduced today to B.C.'s Labour Code.

"The Canadian Home Builders Association of Kelowna says the flaw in the minister's argument is that the typical home builder also performs work in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sectors of the industry targeted under the new legislation.

" 'Imagine a window installer whose crew works on a new retail space in the morning and then a residential subdivision in the afternoon,' says Ray Wynsouw, president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of Kelowna. 'The same crew does the same job on both projects. Residential workers would have to negotiate a separate agreement, but the likelihood is that all workers in the company would end up with the mandatory industry agreement that applies to all firms certified in the ICI . . . . ' "

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Just listen. He's had his time to talk, Hon. Speaker. I'm trying to read him what people are saying. Obviously he hasn't read this. If he would just listen . . . . We know that the businesses are feeling that no one listens, because they're running full-page ads to the Premier and to this government, saying: "We want the government to work with us, not against us. Stop your changes." I'm trying to put on the record for them what they're saying, because they don't feel they've been heard by this government.

I will read the last paragraph again, and I hope he listens this time:

" 'The same crew does the same job on both projects. Residential workers would have to negotiate a separate agreement, but the likelihood is that all workers in the company would end up with the mandatory industry agreement that applies to all firms certified in the ICI sector or something very similar,' he noted."

What they're worried about, in case the minister hasn't caught it, is that it's going to drive costs up. The workers are not going to get the work, because the investors aren't going to be able to develop. You know what? We're going to be further down than we are now.

I've just seen a report that says that housing starts in May of this year were 42 percent lower than in the same month last year. It's from CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It came out on June 8, 1998. I'm trying to personalize this to my constituency. The monthly housing starts in Kelowna are half of what they were last year. Earlier we heard the Minister of Employment and Investment stand up and brag about Kelowna and how it's booming. You know what? That's in spite of this government. We have a lot of people in the valley who value individual enterprise.

In spite of the heavy-handedness of this government and the red tape and regulation that they've imposed on business, in spite of the taxes they've imposed on businesses, and in spite of the labour burdens they've imposed on small business, those people are committed, and they're trying to make a go of it in my constituency.

But they can only go so far. What we've seen is that the housing starts are down by 50 percent compared to last year. It's 90 percent in other parts of the province. Campbell River is 90 percent down. That is shameful. We see people, as we heard earlier, voting with their feet. They're leaving this province, this beautiful province that you always thought people came to rather than left. I'm from a province that is relatively poor. I grew up in Saskatchewan, and I know what it's like to have to move away from home to find a job. I had to move away from Saskatchewan to find a job in Alberta.

Then I came to B.C. seven years ago. When I came to B.C., there were no jobs here for me. I had to retrain, and I did retrain.

I feel for young people today, and I feel for displaced workers who find themselves in a position where they've always lived here . . . . This was the province that everyone came to; this was the land of prosperity and wealth. You know what? Guess where they're moving, hon. Speaker. They're moving to Alberta and to Saskatchewan.

And what did I read in the paper? People are moving to Winnipeg. Winnipeg is booming -- Winnipeg and Saskatchewan. They're moving to Saskatchewan -- and an NDP government, I might add, that has tabled its fifth balanced budget. You know what we've got here? We've got a government that has left its . . . . It's something historic. We always hear the government talking in historic terms. It's something historic for this province: the seventh deficit budget was tabled in this House in March of this year. It's unbelievable -- unbelievably shameful. That was historic.

I have other letters from constituents in my riding, and I sincerely hope I get the opportunity to stand up again and read some of their comments. Earlier, the minister had indicated in the House that he felt that he had heard some voices of reason. One of the voices of reason was that of Suromitra Sanatani, who happens to be the director of provincial affairs for the B.C.-Yukon

chapter of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Here's a quote from this voice of reason, who the minister obviously thinks is a very reasonable person. She has a guest column in Mehfil Magazine , which is an Indo-Canadian magazine, in the June 1998 issue. I was fortunate enough to get it in the mail yesterday. She says:

"While other governments of various political stripes are getting their spending in line, the NDP in B.C. have brought in seven deficit budgets since being elected to office. Deficits mean more debt and taxes tomorrow. By contrast, Alberta's government rolled back the provincial income tax to 44 percent of the basic federal tax. Ontario's recent budget announced that the promised 30 percent income tax rates are coming ahead of schedule, and both Saskatchewan and Manitoba have announced income tax cuts of 2 percentage points. The fact that Saskatchewan . . . . "

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

S. Hawkins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm sure I'll get an opportunity to stand up and speak again, and I'll make sure I raise some of the voices from the constituency. I will not be supporting this bill.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The minister will come to order.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: Just over a year ago I had the pleasure of attending at the Mennonite Educational Institute when that facility was opened. Today I have even more pleasure introducing about 60 students, who are here with their teacher, Mr.

[ Page 9021 ]

The Speaker: In the debate, I recognize now the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: We're here today to talk about Bill 26 . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Good.

R. Thorpe: But let's just step back, if we could, and see where we really are today in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Lovick: In other words, another speech that never mentions the bill -- right?

The Speaker: The minister will come to order.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry. My patience . . . .

The Speaker: The member has the floor. The minister will have an opportunity to rebut all these remarks at a later date. Member, continue.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Speaker; I do appreciate that. You know, the minister did say he was feeling ill earlier today, but now he's demonstrating that illness here. Perhaps he could relax and give his body a chance.

Anyhow, we are here, and I want to talk just a little bit about where we are today, and then I'll talk about where we're going. You know, it's about our economy. If we don't have a strong economy, how are we going to provide the schools for our children? How are we going to provide the hospitals for those who need care in the hospital? Under this government, we've seen our economy go from number one to number ten. We've seen unemployment rise to just under 10 percent, the highest west of Quebec and twice as high as any other western province. We see youth employment today just under 19 percent, the highest west of the Atlantic provinces. That is shameful, given the riches of this province.

[3:15]

We see capital investment today and for tomorrow running at 50 percent of the national average. You know, this government, when it talks about Bill 26, talks so proudly about the selected parts of Alberta it wants to refer to, but it fails to mention that Alberta has $34 billion in new investment. That is why they are in Campbell River recruiting unemployed, skilled British Columbians. People are investing in Alberta because there is a reason to invest in Alberta.

Over the last four or five years, 391 businesses have left British Columbia. With that departure the capital goes, the entrepreneurial spirit goes and many of the skilled workers go, creating undue and unnecessary long-term hardship for the province of British Columbia. B.C. Stats, as was said earlier today, says that we now have our lowest migration since 1982, with a net loss of 3,500 people coming to British Columbia. What's happening is that 8,700 British Columbians are going to Alberta. It wasn't that long ago, hon.

Speaker -- and I'm sure you can recall it -- that there was a slogan: "Go west." The slogan we hear in British Columbia today is: "Go east." How could one government led by one man do so much damage to this great province -- taking us from number one to number ten? What an accomplishment. What a sad, sad accomplishment.

What we should be doing, and what we should all understand . . . . It's about the economy; it's about jobs. But with this NDP government it's just broken promise after broken promise after broken promise. I don't want to get into the long list of broken promises. That's why so many British Columbians are so concerned about this bill: we never get the whole story with this government.

Some people may recall the broken promises related to Bingogate or to Hydrogate or to two balanced budgets; the breaking of the Criminal Code of Canada; the promise to build new schools, which have never been built; the promise to reduce portables across British Columbia. In fact, they've increased 100 percent. But we don't hear this government talk about those broken promises, nor do we hear about the broken promise that they were going to cut waiting lists in hospitals.

I know personally that this government has lengthened waiting lists in hospitals, because I deal with constituents every day that are ignored by this government.

I'm not talking about those broken promises. But what about the promise that was made in the most recent throne speech: "These challenges call for a renewed commitment on the part of government to listen to British Columbians"? We have to ask ourselves: is this government really listening to British Columbians? Are they listening to the small and medium-sized business owners who will create the jobs in the future?

I look forward to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, who committed -- on February 26, 1998, in Kelowna -- to be a strong advocate for small and medium-sized businesses in the province of British Columbia . . . . I hope he has more courage than he did with Bill 14. I challenge him to come into this House and defend those small and medium-sized businesses against Bill 26. Let us see if the man who made the statement on February 26, 1998, in Kelowna is really going to advocate for those small and medium-sized business owners.

Let us see if he will stand up with this opposition and with the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who are asking that Bill 26 be stopped.

In the throne speech, hon. Speaker -- and I know that you're interested in this -- it says: "My government is determined to respond to these challenges by taking necessary steps to build a strong and competitive economy." That was the promise. More gobbledegook from this government and more broken promises.

Over the last few days, we've heard the minister talk about how proud he is of this bill and how he has truly consulted with British Columbians from the east to the west and from the north to the south, with small businesses and medium-sized businesses, and yes, even with some of his union friends. But just for the record, let's see what some of the small business organizations across British Columbia have said about changes to the Labour Code. Let us start with COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. I think it's important for the minister to listen to this: "No changes to the Labour Code."

Let's hear what the chambers of commerce throughout British Columbia had to say: "No changes to the Labour Code." Let's hear what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had to say: "No changes to the Labour Code." Let's listen to what the B.C. Real Estate Association said and to the thousands and thousands of individuals who work in that industry throughout British Columbia and who represent the families who aspire to have homes, who represent the families who want to sell their homes and perhaps move into new homes: "Any changes to the Labour Code will negatively impact housing affordability." That's not what we need in British Columbia today.

Interjection.

[ Page 9022 ]

R. Thorpe: Perhaps if the minister did less interjecting, he could take pencil in hand and take notes and listen to some of these things. I don't think he's listened to these British Columbians. But we're only a quarter of the way through, so he still has a chance to pick up his pencil and take notes if he's really interested.

What did the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia say? "No changes to the Labour Code." Let us listen to what the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of B.C. said: "No changes to the Labour Code."

Before some of the members leave, perhaps they want to listen to what an organization from . . . . Let me see. What riding is this from? Oh, Kootenay -- a government-held riding. Let us see what they had to say.

"Is it any wonder that British Columbia is finding it increasingly difficult to encourage the establishment, retention or expansion of businesses when business persons and entrepreneurs are faced with such a regulatory climate as the government" -- this was written to a government member -- "of which you are a member, has created?" They say in their closing paragraph -- as some members leave the House: "Stop tinkering with regulations for purely political purposes, and let's get down to returning B.C. to its rightful place as one of the engines of Canada's economy, instead of its current placing at the bottom of the provincial economic activity heap." That is from the Sparwood and District Chamber of Commerce.

That was written to the member for Kootenay, and we look forward to the member coming in and speaking on behalf of her constituents. I'm sure she'll want to read that letter into the record.

Let me make a few comments on what people in the riding of Okanagan-Penticton are saying. I listened to the people in my riding, and I sent them a notice asking them to "please share your views with me." Of course, I'm not going to identify any of these folks, because we know how this government works. Let me just quote: "I personally know of people who are not expanding their businesses or starting a business in B.C. due to the policies of this government."

Another one says: "Small business cannot afford any more costs. Please reduce, not increase our costs." Another one goes on to say: "It rules out any new jobs as promised and will curtail new enterprises." Another small business operator says: "Increased cost and regulation and the threat of unionization are extremely detrimental to the survival of small businesses like ours." Another one I'd quote is: "This could put some small businesses out of business.

Small business cannot afford this extra cost." This is what constituents in the riding of Okanagan-Penticton are saying to this government; these are the messages that my constituents have asked me to bring into this House and share with the government.

The last one from my riding that I'd just like to read into the record is: "This just adds to the overburden imposed by our Big Brother provincial government . . . to impose on all businesses, showing the lack of foresight and uncaring attitude this government practises." Quite frankly, that is shameful.

And now today -- and my colleague from Kelowna mentioned it earlier -- in the paper in Penticton, the builders -- the people who are actually in the business of building homes, who understand what is happening . . . . These are not fearmongering people; these are people that are working hard every day to look after their families.

An Hon. Member: You're fearmongering.

R. Thorpe: I'm reporting the facts, if the hon. minister would like to listen.

Let me just say that the Canadian Home Builders Association for the South Okanagan -- and I have attended many of their meetings, and I know many of these individuals -- are saying that the cost of houses could go up 15 percent. We have the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec, thousands are moving to Alberta, housing starts are down and now this government has the gall to not even listen to the people that do it for a living. That's unacceptable.

The gentleman who leads this organization goes on to say: "We see that this is just the thin edge of the wedge that will ultimately migrate right across the board to the home-building industry as well. This legislation is totally unwarranted, and it will just undermine the affordability of housing in the province."

If this government would get off its pedestal . . . . They think that they're looking after the working people of British Columbia when in fact it is them, that NDP government, that is penalizing and destroying the dreams of young people and people who aspire to have a nice home for their families. This is a government that promised to listen, but who did they listen to? If you are a small or medium-sized business owner, the NDP did not hear your voice, nor do they care. It's just another broken promise in a list of broken promises. And we know where that list started -- but we're not going to get into the finances of the province now; we'll have opportunities later.

I've given you but a few voices calling for this NDP government to stop Bill 26 and the payoff -- the payoff to the nineteenth member of the cabinet.

What are the major investment papers of the world saying? You know, there's two that are very highly respected. When you mention the American ones, of course, the government goes kind of snafuey on you over there . . .

An Hon. Member: A little sensitive.

R. Thorpe: . . . a little sensitive, because they have a hard time dealing with the facts. But you know, we do live in a global community; there is competition for the investment.

[3:30]

What is the Wall Street Journal saying about this government? Let me just quote: "British Columbia's socialist government, led by former union leader" -- beep, beep . . . . I know the rules of the House, and I wouldn't want to say that, but I believe he has the position of Premier. But what are they saying? Further in this article: in coffee shops in Vancouver, "business people and others blame the government. The local business climate is 'a complete and utter disaster' " -- it goes on.

You have to understand the importance of the Wall Street Journal . All the major investment dealers in the world read this each and every day. All the leaders of major companies that are searching the world for locations to invest in read this paper every day. The last paragraph is, to say the least, depressing: "But many remain troubled by the province's track record and its continuing budget deficit. 'Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws, I think its actions are window dressing . . . . ' " That's the Wall Street Journal. I bet you that really makes global investment players feel comfortable about coming to British Columbia.

Remember, hon. Speaker, why we need that investment -- because when people invest today, it creates jobs tomorrow. And when we have jobs tomorrow, people pay taxes. It reduces our social costs, but more importantly it helps us

[ Page 9023 ]

build a strong education and health care system. We know what's happening to health care and education under the leadership of this government; it is deteriorating and fraying. People are not getting the services that they rightfully deserve.

Often you get attacked when you just quote from the New York papers. So let us see what the Financial Post -- the premier investment paper in Canada -- is saying. The headline says: "Rocky Labour Relations Cloud B.C.'s Business Climate." Well, isn't that just going to make all the investors across Canada rush out here tomorrow and put more money into our economy. It closes: "The government would have been wise just to leave its labour laws alone and spend that political energy on issues that would improve the business climate."

But of course, they choose not to do that. They choose to drive our economy down from number one to number ten. They choose to continually drive down working people and families of British Columbia's standard of living. It should be going up, not down, but it's going down under this government and its policies. What's happening to people's take-home pay? Down and down and down. At the same time, this government increases fees and fees and fees. They are not looking after working people. In fact, they are abusing the working people of British Columbia.

Taxes continue to go up, and of course, the saddest reality of all is they do not understand the economy. They do not understand business; they do not understand what investment is. Thus, we have the results that we have: a disaster here in British Columbia today.

The minister talked about a balanced approach, about a reasonable approach, about a modest approach. He talked about trust; he talked about promise. If it could only be so. But it can't be so, because we know the record of this government. We know that this government has lost the trust of British Columbians. We know that it's not if they're going to break another promise; the question is when. We know that the promise in this Bill 26 is not a promise. We know that this government will break it.

You know, there was a cartoon in the paper . . . . I think it was the late Premier who said that they couldn't run a peanut stand. I realize the current operator of the NDP peanut stand doesn't understand how to run a business or build a business. But he does know how to destroy a business and that very well could be from eating the peanuts himself. But surely the NDP and the Premier understand that it's about investments for jobs. Surely they understand that no investment means no new jobs. And surely they understand that we need those new jobs to protect health care and education.

Or is it the goal of this socialist government to ensure that there is no new investment in British Columbia and that there are no new jobs created in British Columbia? These very policies haven't worked in countries like Russia or Cuba, and they certainly aren't working here in British Columbia.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: Some members over there laugh. Well, James Carville said: "It's the economy, stupid." Perhaps some of the government members should be listening to James Carville. It's the economy, stupid!

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: It's too bad that you don't understand. I guess that's why you now have a new portfolio.

If it's not broken, why is this government going ahead and trying to fix something that's not broken? Why are they doing that? Is it political? Surely it's not because of the politics. Surely this government is not just doing this to shore up its leader and the Premier within his own constituency group. Surely it's not because these are the folks that financed his leadership campaign. Surely we're not putting the whole province at risk because of that. Are we?

So often in this debate they selectively they use what used to be the dreaded A-word; now they selectively use the A-word when it's appropriate for them -- and it is "Alberta." And they talk about how we're so comparable to Alberta. But they don't talk about the secret ballot, do they? I don't understand this government that's supposed to be for working people. That's what they say. So why are they against a secret ballot? It's part of democracy. What part of democracy are they against?

So it's not really about the Labour Code of Alberta. Or, as one of my colleagues said earlier, "Just bring it on over, and let's put her in," and perhaps we will get $40 billion in investment. But the way we're going now, we're just going south and south. As I said earlier, the old adage of going west to get a job, to get your future, is now go east. Go east to get a job. That's very, very troubling for the young people of British Columbia.

In my community of Summerland, and in Peachland and Penticton and Naramata, more and more of our young people are having to go to Edmonton and to Calgary. When I was home this weekend talking to people about this bill, I was most disturbed when I heard of three major companies in my riding -- three major companies -- that are so fed up with the actions of this government that they are seriously thinking of moving -- two to Alberta and one to Washington State. And that's wrong. Because who is hurt in all of that? The entrepreneurs, the investors, they're going to survive.

But all three businesses are union plants, and those workers are the workers that are going to be put out of work. Their families are going to have to face hardships. That is wrong.

I hope as we continue through this debate that we will see this government start to listen; that they will want to show British Columbians that this is not about politics, that this is really about caring about British Columbians and British Columbia families and caring about the unemployed youth and the unemployed families of British Columbia, caring about the growing wait-lists in our health care system and caring about undue hardships that are being put on people in the British Columbia education system.

Surely this government will come to its senses about the son of Bill 44 and do the right thing with this bill, which they did last year with Bill 44 -- and that's to withdraw it. If they are truly listening to British Columbians -- not just listening to their friends but truly, truly listening to British Columbians -- they will withdraw Bill 26, because we do not need that in British Columbia right now. People are telling us that the investment climate does not need this negative impact.

The issue is not just Bill 26; more importantly, it's about what we should all be doing: focusing our resources on the economy, creating jobs and creating an investment climate for today and for tomorrow. This government must stop their policies now. It's about giving to families in British Columbia. It's about giving families a chance to get to work so that they can provide for their children. Surely they can get over the fact that they must stop their politics and that they must stop now.

Bill 26 is the thin edge of the wedge. The Premier and the NDP know they can't impose Ken Georgetti's entire agenda all at once, so they are imposing it piece by piece. Our economy here in B.C. is on life support, and introducing Labour

[ Page 9024 ]

Code changes now is like us pulling the plug on life support systems. We cannot afford any more job-killing, investment-killing, small business-killing policies here. Every time the Premier and NDP try to bring in a law that will kill jobs and investment in B.C., the official opposition -- of which I'm proud to be a member -- will stand up and fight those bills. It's about the economy, it's about jobs, and it's about the families of British Columbia. Please, I trust that one or two or three members of the NDP are listening, and that they will talk to their caucus and pull this unneeded legislation now.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: You know, I'm sitting here listening to the members opposite, particularly the member who just finished speaking, and I'm wondering if we're talking about the same bill. One would think, listening to them, that the sky is falling. Chicken Little says: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." Well, hon. Speaker, this does not apply to a vast majority of the sector that the member was talking about.

This bill -- Bill 26 -- applies to the part of the construction industry called industrial, commercial and institutional. ICI construction workers build sawmills, schools, hospitals, shopping malls and office buildings. They do not -- I repeat, they do not -- build condos or houses or roads. When you listen to the members opposite, they try to instil an element of fear in every taxpayer and homeowner out there -- the thought that they too could see their housing costs rise in the province. Well, it just isn't so.

[3:45]

What this is -- and the member before me talked about this bill being for purely political purposes . . . . This opposition is purely political. If you want to see a political opposition, this is it. The members opposite . . . . The people that he's been talking about and quoting were opposed to this bill even before it was introduced in the House, even before they understood what was in the bill. There was huge opposition saying that the province couldn't handle this, that this was going to devastate the provincial economy. Well, how can they say that when they haven't even seen the bill?

Surely you recognize, surely the public out there understand, that this is opposition strictly for the sake of opposing a bill. In fact, the members over there are so anti-union right now that I think you would find them opposing virtually anything that had to do with the union movement, anything whatsoever.

In 1996 the member for Vancouver-Quilchena stated: "This government should rewrite the Labour Code to recognize that the vast majority of workplaces enjoy a cooperative spirit between labour and management, and it's not the class warfare that the union organizers in this province are trying to perpetuate." [Applause.] It's amazing that the members over there actually applaud this. There's four of them sitting there, and four of them applaud this. I'm sure they would all be applauding the fact that they see union organizers as people who are trying to perpetuate class warfare.

I happen to be someone who believes that the union organizations in this province have done a tremendous amount to assist workers, a tremendous amount to assist workplaces be safer and a lot to help get better wages for individuals, and yet the members opposite would like to see us go back to the days when management had all the rights and workers had nothing. Bills 19 and 20 tried to do some of that, and we corrected that when we brought in the changes to the Labour Code.

You heard the previous member asking: "Why aren't you listening to the people?" Well, this legislation came about as a result of recommendations from an independent panel that consulted widely with B.C. employers, workers and communities. Had they come out with something that was different from this, something that said, "We are going to eliminate all unions," then the members opposite would be saying: "Implement that; let's do that. Why are you holding back on those recommendations?

Why are you letting this report sit on the back shelves?" But they came up with sound recommendations that address issues that the construction industry, the workers in the construction industry have been dealing with for years.

Clearly anybody that knows what goes on in the construction industry and knows what goes on with workers in the unionized work forces in the industry recognizes that you can do all the work you want, that you can get the workers signed up, that you can have a majority, that you can have virtually every single employee on that site saying that they want to become a member of that union, but if they are unable to get a contract during the phase of work that that construction is in on that site, then it's gone. This brings into British Columbia the same rights that the unionized employees have in Alberta -- amazing!

It's amazing that suddenly it's not good enough for British Columbia even though it happens in Alberta.

The member before me asked: "Who have they spoken to?" Well, what about asking who they have spoken to? What about the CLRA, which is the Construction Labour Relations Association -- the employers of the unionized workers? What about them? They say that this is good legislation and that it should have been in place a long time ago. But did the members opposite talk to them? Do they relate to them? No. What about the unionized workforce? Do they talk to them? No, they don't talk to them. Do they talk to the Building Trades Council? No.

In fact, the member who spoke just before me presented a petition in the House today, but he failed to tell us who put that petition in his hands. Where did that petition come from? The members opposite never miss an opportunity to tell us what petition they have, where it came from, who they're representing and what point of view they have, but for some reason or another they failed to do this. I'd like to hear them speak up on behalf of the unionized construction workforce. I'd like to hear them saying what they are telling them, what the Building Trades Council people are telling them.

Are they saying: "Oppose this bill"? No.

If you want to listen to some people, listen to everybody. That is what the review team did. The Kelleher-Lanyon team went out and listened to employers, unionized construction workers, employees and the general public. They came forth with recommendations that we're implementing. I'm proud of the fact that we are actually implementing recommendations that came from that report.

Hon. Speaker, this is not the type of legislation that the members opposite would have you believe. This is not going to destroy the economic climate in the province of British Columbia. This merely says that workers who have decided that they want to unionize and who have made that clear by signing their union cards have a contract once they have unionized -- once they are recognized as having a contract, the same standard contract that is in other sectors out there. This is not draconian legislation; this is legislation which exists in Alberta and Ontario. It's good legislation that will assist each and every worker out there.

I wish just for once that the members opposite would not make this into a political game, that they would not take the futures of workers in British Columbia and make them into a political game for themselves. That is what they are doing. This is not draconian legislation. This legislation is not the

[ Page 9025 ]

type of thing that is going to result in British Columbia's economy falling through the floor. This is sound legislation, based on recommendations from a panel that went around British Columbia, listened to individuals and gave recommendations to government. I believe that if the individuals over there read the legislation, they'll recognize that it is not a reincarnated Bill 44 but a new bill and a modest bill that does not impact on the rest of the public the way that those individuals want people to believe.

It really is quite horrendous when you hear the type of fearmongering that is going on by the members opposite, with them trying to imply that people's houses are going to be expensive to do, that condos are going to be expensive, that nobody's going to be able to afford to build or to purchase in British Columbia anymore. That's just not true. I wish that the members opposite would read this bill and recognize that the changes being made to the Labour Code are modest and stand up for the workers in the province for once. Put aside your anti-union hats and stand up for the workers of British Columbia.

If the members opposite would for once show that they weren't anti-union and that they didn't take the stand the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena did, who clearly believes that unions are draconian organizations, if they would recognize just once the good work that has gone on by unions, work that has made the lives of workers in British Columbia better, I think we would all be better off in this House.

This is good legislation and modest legislation. I will be supporting it, as will all my colleagues. I trust that some of those over there may actually have the strength of mind to recognize a piece of good legislation and stand up to their colleagues and vote in favour of this, not just oppose it because it happens to be something that comes from this government.

B. Barisoff: I rise today to speak on Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. Unfortunately, it would be impossible for me to support this legislation for a number of very good reasons. I believe that most of the reasons just reflect good old-fashioned common sense. I think the member before me, the Minister for Children and Families, said that we are against unions. That's not true, hon. Speaker. We're looking for the economy of British Columbia to improve.

I'd like to review the reasons and the rationale for my statements in the hope that I can convince the Minister of Labour and government to reconsider their position. Here are some of the top ten reasons for opposing this legislation. The first one is that it's a one-size-fits-all approach. It's bad for labour. It's bad for business. It's bad timing. It's undemocratic. It's behind the times. It's misleading. It's destructive. It's insensitive. And it's simply unnecessary. But that's consistent with the way the NDP operates.

Bill 26, the one-size-fits-all approach, will dramatically expand the power of unions in the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors. The new law makes it easier for trade unions to recruit new members by allowing them to offer a single standard collective agreement rather than requiring a newly organized unit to negotiate a contract from scratch. Mandatory sectoral bargaining means that any employer in a specified sector that is unionized or becomes unionized will be forced to accept a one-size-fits-all, industrywide collective agreement. That's what we're against, hon. Speaker: a one-size-fits-all approach.

An Hon. Member: You're just against the workers.

B. Barisoff: No, we're not against workers. The member across the way says we're against workers, but we're not. I think the members on that side of the House are against workers.

According to the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, there's another alternative, and I quote:

"In a modern economy, companies and workers succeed when labour relations decisions are made in a cooperative fashion, from the bottom up" -- not from the top down. "Using this cooperative approach, collective bargaining works best when an individual company and its employees negotiate an agreement that is specifically tailored to their unique circumstances, such as location, customers, work schedules, etc."

Mind you, we know that this government doesn't do that. We've seen that in the education system of this province. They don't believe that things work from the bottom up. They believe that things work from the top down. They interfere. They're interfering in all kinds of things. It's unbelievable that they would interfere in collective agreements.

The construction industry does not need a one-size-fits-all contract. What they need is exactly the opposite. The government is acting against the recommendations of experts in the labour relations field. I think the member who spoke previous to me mentioned that Vince Ready and Stephen Kelleher made some decisions. In 1996 labour mediators Stephen Kelleher and Vince Ready wrote a report on the construction industry.

They concluded that "sectoral bargaining should not be imposed on the construction industry or any other industry." For the members across the way, I might just read that again: they concluded that "sectoral bargaining should not be imposed on the construction industry or any other industry." This is sectoral bargaining. Whether you like it or not, that's exactly what it is.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Well, it is. The member across the way wants me to explain that it is sectoral bargaining. When you're making a contract for one

section of the economy, it's sectoral bargaining.

An Hon. Member: One-size-fits-all.

B. Barisoff: That's exactly it. I quote: "One size does not fit all." In fact, the economy is moving in the opposite direction. Increasingly, contractors and unions are making contractual arrangements on a project-by-project basis, so the taxpayers of British Columbia can get the best deal, the best bang for their buck. We know on that side of the House, with the Island Highway, which cost an extra quarter of a billion dollars . . . . Can you imagine what could have been done in this province with a quarter of a billion dollars?

G. Janssen: What happened to those $500 million you were spending on the Coquihalla?

B. Barisoff: Imagine what could have been done in the north, in Peace River North and Peace River South with a quarter of a billion dollars.

G. Janssen: Five hundred million on the Coquihalla.

[4:00]

B. Barisoff: The member for Alberni is talking about the Coquihalla Highway. Isn't that amazing? We're going

[ Page 9026 ]

back . . . . How many years ago was the Coquihalla built? It's got a toll booth on it. I don't often notice that the member for Alberni would like to put a toll booth on the Island Highway. I'm glad to hear that he's indicating that that's what should be done, because that's what's on the Coquihalla. I'm glad to hear that that would be a direction . . . .

Somebody wants to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave approved.

I. Chong: Joining us today and listening to this debate -- with much interest, I might add -- are 28 visitors from the University of Victoria ESL program, along with their instructor, Ms. Sherri Williams. I met with them earlier, and I know that they're quite keen on seeing the proceedings today. They asked me what legislation we'd be debating, and I expressed to them that it would be a very enlightening process. They're joining us now, and I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

B. Barisoff: There's no doubt that it will be an enlightening process when you see what happens with the members on the other side of the House.

Another committee made a recommendation that the sectoral bargaining model as envisioned in Bill 44 does not provide solutions to the problems facing the industry. The member prior to me from the opposite side of the House indicated that Bill 44 is something that they took away. They only took that away because this side of the House pushed and pushed. Bill 26 is no better than Bill 44. It leads in the same direction. Nobody wants sectoral bargaining. No one is recommending it. Why is this government pursuing it? It's an avenue they want to go down.

It's payback time for all the money that was donated by the big unions to get them elected. Perhaps the answer to the question will become apparent as we move along. One thing is very clear: one size simply isn't going to fit. No matter how we look at it, one size doesn't fit.

Now, the other side of the House, the government, talks about how much this is good for labour. But you know, Bill 26 is bad for labour in British Columbia. Any piece of legislation that will ultimately undermine the investment climate of British Columbia and eliminate jobs is not good for labour. I don't care whose books you look at. When you start eliminating investment, you eliminate jobs. It doesn't matter . . . . There are no jobs for people; it's not good for labour.

An Hon. Member: What's Alberta got?

B. Barisoff: Alberta's got jobs. I'm actually glad that you mentioned that, because the other members have mentioned that Alberta had people in Campbell River last week recruiting people to leave British Columbia because there's actual work in Alberta.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: No one is against labour unions. But common sense dictates that bad labour laws which undermine the collective bargaining system aren't in anyone's best interest. By supporting the legislation, organized labour is essentially saying that it's okay to take the rights away from the individual companies and their employees to freely negotiate their own collective agreements. Hon. Speaker, you tell me how this is good for labour. I'm sure the people out there understand that this is not good for labour. If you take away the investment climate, it's not good for labour.

Will the B.C. Federation of Labour and the building trades unions say that this legislation is necessary to increase the rate of unionization in B.C.? Well, let's just look back and see what's been said. In a speech to the Steelworkers convention in April, Ken Georgetti said that his goal is to see 60 percent of the B.C. labour force unionized. That's interesting. In fact, B.C. already has a higher rate of unionization than the Canadian average. Workers already have more than adequate protection to join unions.

This claim by Mr. Georgetti ignores some of the obvious trends that are taking place in the B.C. economy. For more than a decade large unionized businesses, such as those in the resource sector, have been downsizing, thereby reducing overall union representation. About 20 percent of B.C.'s labour force is now self-employed. This sector is almost entirely non-union, and it continues to grow. Self employment in B.C. has grown by 4.1 percent in the last year. Do you think this labour legislation doesn't affect small business? Well, when you see the growth in self-employment, it does affect small business; it has to.

Since the 1992 changes to the B.C. Labour Code, there has been a significant trend toward greater unionization in small and medium-sized businesses. Seventy-seven percent of British Columbians believe that workers should have the right to a secret ballot vote on the issue of union certification. Now these people have been saying that we should jump at the Alberta model. I think the Alberta model has in it that a secret ballot will take place. I don't hear the members commenting on that. They seem to be silent when we talk about this.

They say: "Adopt the Alberta model." The Alberta model does have the secret ballot. That's the heart of democracy. But we don't have this in Bill 26, in this labour legislation.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No, no, no. We don't have it in this labour legislation. You were the ones who were throwing up the big "A" word -- Alberta.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please, members.

B. Barisoff: Sorry, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: I'm just telling you that the Alberta legislation has the secret ballot. I think it's very important that we look at all these kinds of things.

So while overall unionization rates might not be growing as fast as organized labour would like, they are in fact doing well in the target market of small- and medium-sized businesses. Building trades unions have difficulty because they insist that employers sign a standard agreement which contains excessive and inflexible demands for wages, benefits and work jurisdiction. That's sectoral bargaining. Whether you like it or not -- you can cut it any way you want it -- that is strictly sectoral bargaining. It makes it impossible for many businesses to compete for work.

If the building trades unions, like other unions, were willing to negotiate collective agreements that are customized to the needs of the employers and employees, they wouldn't need the government's help. But

[ Page 9027 ]

for some reason, they decided they need the government's help. The Minister of Labour calls this a modest bill: "This isn't Bill 44. This is something entirely different. It's modest; it doesn't have an effect . . . . " Well, if it's different from Bill 44 . . . . The Minister for Children and Families said: "We threw that out because we knew that wasn't any good." Then why is he bringing in this modest change? "This is just a modest change" -- but it will have a big effect.

An Hon. Member: It's not modest.

B. Barisoff: As a member on this side of the House said, it's not modest. We agree that it's not modest. It's the thin edge of the wedge.

The fact that this government is moving to impose a standard agreement on employers shows an extreme lack of faith and commitment to those who create jobs in this province. It also shows contempt for the consumer. Investment isn't going to come to this province if we continue down this path.

Let me share some facts, and throw some water on the argument of organized labour, particularly on some of the arguments of Mr. Georgetti. B.C.'s workplaces have unionized at an average rate of more than one per day; 54 percent of workplaces of between one and ten employees are now being unionized.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I didn't say it was bad, hon. Speaker. What I'm trying to say is that that's what's happening here. So why do we need this legislation? It seems like, for whatever reason, this is happening without this legislation, as the Minister of Labour keeps talking about. "It's just a modest change; it's not very much. We really don't have to worry about this stuff. It's a modest change, but let it be. Over 90 percent of all new union certifications in the past five years have occurred in workplaces of 50 employees or fewer. The average size of workplace being certified is about 23 employees.

Of the more than 400 union certifications granted by the LRB in 1997, 25 percent are in the construction industry. Now we're beginning to see why the Minister of Labour, with these modest changes, is trying to make things happen. Another 26 percent of new union certifications were in service-related industries, including the retail, accommodations, and food and beverage sectors.

So who is organized labour trying to kid when they say this legislation is required to increase the rate of unionization? I think this is purely payback time, by the Minister of Labour and probably the Premier of the province, for some of the things that happened in the last election. They must be fooling the Minister of Labour and the Premier, though, but it just doesn't wash on this side of the House. We're not prepared to let small business in this province go by the wayside because the Minister of Labour and the Premier have to pay some debts that they owe to some of the labour movement.

The way I see it is that it isn't good for labour because it will accomplish just the opposite of job creation. When you take the investment away from the province, there are no jobs. We don't have to worry about labour. We've seen what this government has done to the forest industry -- it's brought it to its knees. Even with the billion-dollar FRBC fund, there's still not enough money to keep it going. Money's being wasted; mills are closing. It's disgraceful; what's taking place is simply disgraceful. It must be good for somebody -- probably Mr. Georgetti. He wants more union members.

I think the members on that side of the House figure that's the only way they could get elected. And it's good for the Premier, who also needs the support from the labour movement. It's just common sense if you're trying to understand the real reason why Bill 26 is on the agenda. Shame!

Bill 26 is bad for business. We've all seen that. It's truly bad for business. Why is Bill 26 bad for business? It sends a message to the world -- the would-be investors in the world. The health of B.C.'s economy depends upon an open, vibrant construction industry. Bill 26 does exactly the opposite. It does not do those kinds of things. Investment is going to leave the province of British Columbia. We're seeing it happen every day. The cost of the B.C. government's fair-wage law has already eliminated some 5,500 construction jobs over the past six years, according to the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. It raises . . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Hon. Speaker, the member from the opposite side of the House said: "Who said?" The Coalition of B.C. Businesses said. We've lost 5,500 jobs in the construction industry in the last six years. It raises the cost of public construction through mandatory wage and benefit rates that are above the market rates. We've seen that in spades on the Island Highway, a highway that's cost a quarter of a billion dollars extra. I mentioned that earlier in my speech, but it's worth mentioning again -- about how much we have wasted on that. How many roads could have been built in the province of British Columbia?

In listening throughout the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, people from both sides of the House were complaining about their areas and the number of roads that aren't being done. But we saw fit to waste a quarter of a billion dollars on the Island Highway.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I don't think that the people were working for nothing. I think what happens is that we don't have the competitiveness in bidding for jobs.

The minimum wage is a benefit raise for unskilled help on fair-wage projects . . . . Listen to this: for unskilled help, the fair-wage projects are $23.90 per hour. Now, for the people out there that are wondering where some of our money is going in government, an unskilled labourer on a fair-wage project gets $23.90 per hour. That doesn't include any benefits; that's just simply the market wage. Now, you wonder why we can't build highways? That's because we're spending money like . . . .

An Hon. Member: What would an MLA's salary work out to? Or do you think you're worth more than they are?

[4:15]

B. Barisoff: No, I didn't say that we're worth more than they are. I said that unskilled labour gets $23.90 an hour.

The government says that residential construction is exempt from the sectoral system, but in fact, many firms that work in residential areas also work in light industrial or commercial construction and may be affected by this agreement. A building that has retail stores or offices on the ground floor and apartments above is an example of a type of building that would likely be subject to sectoral bargaining. These

[ Page 9028 ]

workers and businesses could have a master agreement imposed on them, with the residential construction consumer ultimately having to pay.

The previous speakers have said that no, it doesn't affect residential construction. But we see a lot of buildings nowadays where all the bottom floors are commercial. Are we going to tell people after they get to the second, third or fourth floor, where the residential part starts: "Now we're going to pay you a different wage. We can't have the same thing"?

B.C. already has the highest housing costs in Canada, so adopting a master agreement plan will only make it worse. It certainly will not improve the situation. Housing will become less affordable. We're having a hard time with housing in British Columbia as it is, but it will become a lot less affordable when Bill 26 is imposed upon us.

So what happens next? I strongly suspect that this government will try to expand sectoral bargaining, because the precedent will already be set. The Federation of Labour is pushing for it, and it's clear from the introduction of Bill 44 last year that this government agrees with it. If the government hadn't brought in Bill 44 last year . . . . It got left by the wayside because of the public outcry. It was truly a public outcry -- from business, from everybody. This is just the start. Bill 26 is the fat-free version of Bill 44: "If the people won't accept Bill 44, then why don't we give them Bill 26?" It will be a little slower, but they'll eventually get what they want.

I see the Minister of Labour is here. I'm sure he'll be listening to that -- the fat-free version of Bill 44. That's talking directly to the bill.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: It's simply a backdoor approach. It's bad for business, it's bad for investors, and it's really bad for the economy. Bill 26 is bad for the economy of British Columbia, and I hope the Minister of Labour is listening, because it truly is bad. These are the kinds of things that are going to drive investment out of this province.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No, I'm just telling you the honest truth. The fact is that it's going to drive investment out. Without investment, we don't have jobs.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Yeah, we won't be able to build hospitals and schools, because we won't have any money to do that. Our economy, which is truly on the brink of a full-blown, made-in-B.C. recession and is an economy that was envied across Canada, is now number ten. It's hard to believe that just a few short years ago we were number one in Canada. Since the NDP took power in '91, we have gone from number one to number ten. That's a sad commentary about what takes place in British Columbia.

I think the member for Okanagan-Penticton was speaking about how it used to be: "Go west, young man. Go west; you'll find a job." Now you don't have a hope of finding a job. Young people are leaving British Columbia. Where I live in the Okanagan, when kids get out of school they head to Alberta. They have no opportunity to get a job here. They're absolutely heading to Alberta.

Friends of mine who are in the high-tech industry are saying that the university students coming out of school now are going across the line. They're not prepared to stay here and live with these draconian labour laws, as the Minister of Labour says . . . . They're not here to put up with the high tax rates. They take their skills and leave British Columbia. They head for Washington State; they're heading for all parts of the U.S. and other parts of Canada. It's a sad day when we have a made-in-B.C. recession.

H. Giesbrecht: You're starting to believe your own speech.

B. Barisoff: Well, it truly is. I do believe it, because it is a made-in-B.C . . . . Actually, it's a made-in-B.C.-by-the-NDP recession. It's more like that: made in B.C. by the NDP. That's a sad commentary about what's taking place in the province.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story recently about B.C.'s economy and how the socialist B.C. government is driving our economy into the ground and driving jobs out of the province. They're not driving them out of the province; they're taking them by the truckload and by the busload. It's unusual to command such negative attention, but it said: "Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws . . . its actions are [merely] window dressing."

It's merely window dressing, hon. Speaker, what's taking place here. When you get the Wall Street Journal telling us that people are leaving . . . . This is a major newspaper telling us why and what's happening. The socialist government . . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: We are in shock.

It's driving the young people away from British Columbia. We don't have jobs for them anymore; they're heading away -- window dressing.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: Would that be the same as the Premier holding an economic summit around the province and asking for input, and then introducing Bill 26?

I was at the economic summit in Kamloops. The groups up there said: "Listen, we can't have any more red tape; we need less red tape. We don't need tougher labour legislation; eliminate that stuff." Why did we go to the economic summit in Kamloops, when the Premier -- immediately when we get back -- introduces Bill 26? We wonder why. Was he listening? I mentioned in my local paper, the Osoyoos Times , that it was simply a photo op for the Premier. Members from the other side of the House criticized; they said: "How could you say that?

How could you say it was a photo op for the Premier?" Well, I was proven right, because of what takes place here. Everybody at that summit was saying: "Don't do these kinds of things." What did they do? The Minister of Labour, a few weeks later, brought in Bill 26. If he was listening to people from the interior, he certainly wouldn't have brought in Bill 26. So all we can surmise from that is that it was a photo op for the Premier: "I'll invite everybody up to Kamloops, and we're going to listen to the people of British Columbia."

But the government didn't listen. This side of the House was listening. We tried to tell the members from the government what was being said. Everybody was there listening. But all of a sudden what happens is that we get the Bill 26 Labour Code amendments. Unbelievable, simply unbelievable!

Everywhere the Premier went, the same message was delivered: "Stop destroying our economy with high taxes, red

[ Page 9029 ]

tape and inflexible anti-business labour laws." Supposedly this government is listening; at least, they say they're listening. Well, they weren't listening at all. We were all in Kamloops; many members of cabinet were there. They could not have been listening -- and then simply brought in Bill 26. I can't remember whether the Minister of Labour was at the economic summit or not, but I'm sure his colleagues would have informed him that these were the kinds of things that were said: "Stop destroying our economy" -- that's what they were saying. "Red tape and inflexible, anti-business labour laws . . . . "

Was he listening? Is he listening now? I think he is. I think it's starting to sink in a little bit there. He's got that smile on his face; we're starting to see some movement.

An Hon. Member: You move me to laughter.

B. Barisoff: Unfortunately, their actions speak louder than words. They responded by introducing Bill 26 -- another decision that will ultimately take the construction industry the way of the forest industry and the mining industry. It's sad to think . . . . I happen to be the Agriculture critic. On Agriculture Day they had people here saying: "We're now No. 2 in the province." You know why they're No. 2? It's not because they've done any more and gone ahead of mining; it's because mining has almost been destroyed in this province. They haven't gone anywhere. They're destroying the province one step at a time, and Bill 26 is the start of one step at a time.

Hon. Speaker, I guess I have to close. I thought I would get through. I've got about another six or eight points to make, but I see that the red light is on. I'm sure I will get an opportunity to speak again.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Chilliwack.

Another point of order, member for Alberni?

G. Janssen: Not actually, but the hon. member opposite was saying that he had some more points to make, and I ask the House to give leave that he be allowed to continue to make those points.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Chilliwack.

B. Penner: I wonder if we should put the member for Alberni's motion to the floor.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you have the floor.

B. Penner: I am certainly eager to hear what my colleague the member for Okanagan-Boundary has to say in addition to the excellent points he has already raised. However, I'm sure we'll have further opportunity in the days and weeks ahead, when my colleague the member for Okanagan-Boundary continues, to hear more examples of how Bill 26 will hurt British Columbia.

Today, though, it's my opportunity to address Bill 26 in principle. Most visitors to British Columbia, when they come to our province, think that we're blessed to live in what is truly the most beautiful part of the world. We have a generally mild climate, a pleasant population and a very skilled workforce. We're blessed to live in a province that, at least until very recently, has been the economic envy of virtually everyone. From the snow-capped mountains along the eastern and western extremes to the roaring rivers and majestic forests, B.C. combines physical beauty with industry and economic know-how.

But as most British Columbians know, all is not well. B.C. has gone from being number one in economic growth in Canada to being dead-last under this NDP government. While the rest of Canada and the United States are enjoying an economic boom, B.C. is teetering on the brink of recession. In fact, if you speak to most small business people in your hometown, they will tell you that they believe we are already in a recession.

For individuals in our province like my friends and neighbours, this is felt in terms of fear for their jobs, trouble paying their bills and, ultimately, reduced opportunities for their children. B.C.'s unemployment rate is already close to 10 percent -- almost twice as high as Alberta's and double the rate in Washington State.

What are we here to talk about today in Bill 26? Essentially, what Bill 26 does, in my view, is change the Labour Code so that there is one, and only one, contract for every project in the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors in this province which is built by a union contractor. It imposes a one-size-fits-all contract on an industry that desperately needs the opposite. They need more flexibility. Bill 26 means that if a contractor is unionized, the workers don't have to negotiate a first contract; it's simply imposed.

This gives union organizers a leg up in recruiting new members, because they can point to an existing contract with existing wages that reflect previous employers' abilities to pay, not the current employer's ability to pay. That means less flexibility.

What's most frightening about all of this is that the NDP is acting against the recommendations of some of the top experts in labour relations in our province. In 1996, labour relations mediators Stephen Kelleher and Vince Ready wrote a report on the construction industry. These men are not B.C. Liberals. They are not seen as pro-business in any way. Yet the conclusion they came up with was that sectoral bargaining should not be imposed on the construction industry or any other industry. Their exact words were: "One size does not fit all. In fact, the industry is moving in the opposite direction.

Increasingly, contractors and unions are making contractual arrangements on a project-by-project basis."

[4:30]

[ Page 9030 ]

employees and workers the freedom to negotiate their own contract. We need to restore the secret ballot for workers, and we need to open our doors to investors. But we're not getting these things in British Columbia. That's not what Bill 26 contains within it.

Why, you may ask, doesn't Bill 26 recognize the economic realities we face in Canada, in North America and around the world, where employers are seeking greater flexibility? I'll tell you why. The NDP and the Glen Clark know where their loyalty lies. It's with Ken Georgetti, not with working people, consumers and investors -- and certainly not with small business operators.

I want to set the record straight. B.C. Liberals support the right of any group of workers to join a union by exercising their democratic rights, but democracy needs a secret ballot vote based on good balanced information. I don't know who could stand up and legitimately say that they were opposed to a secret ballot vote for any process. What's wrong with democracy? Who can be afraid of that? Who can be against it? Evidently, this government -- the NDP -- is against the secret ballot vote for certification. I think that does workers a disservice.

What the NDP government is telling workers in British Columbia is that they know better, that they don't trust workers to make a decision in the secrecy of a ballot booth without somebody looking over their shoulder, twisting their arm and asking them to sign a union membership card. That's what this is about.

In Bill 26 we see that there will be sectoral master agreements that companies will not have the right to negotiate on before they are imposed. Therefore, if a company cannot afford one of these master agreements, it will be forced into bankruptcy. And the workers will pay a huge price; they will lose their jobs. That will be the impact of Bill 26. So much for standing up for workers. So much for helping the working class. How does it help the working class when B.C.'s unemployment rate keeps going up and workers have fewer opportunities to pursue employment? Are we looking at fewer choices for workers here in British Columbia? Is that what we really want?

The B.C. Liberal Party supports more choices for workers, more opportunity to find employment without leaving the province. I think it's in the best interests of workers and investors if they can freely negotiate a collective agreement that allows the workers to have fair working conditions and still allows the company to survive. It does nobody any good, particularly the workers, if you have the best contract in the world with all sorts of generous provisions but there's no business that's viable enough to pay for those benefits. If the business goes bust, so do the workers.

That's not what we want to see in British Columbia, but that's what we have seen under this government with our unemployment rate going up consistently. It's almost 10 percent now.

In terms of putting things in further context, I am the youngest member of the official opposition, so I take a particular interest in the youth of this province and the difficulties this government has created for them when it comes time for them to look for work. According to an

article that appeared in the Province dated May 28, 1998, the province's unadjusted jobless rate for young people between the ages of 15 and 24 stood at 19.7 percent in April. Where in Canada is the unemployment rate for young people higher than that? Is it Ontario? No. What about Quebec? Is the youth unemployment rate higher in Quebec than it is in British Columbia? No. B.C.'s youth unemployment rate is even higher than Quebec's. In fact, you have to go all the way to the Maritimes to find provinces in Atlantic Canada that have a youth unemployment rate that's higher than ours in British Columbia.

Is Bill 26 going to help that situation? I defy the Minister of Labour to tell us how Bill 26 will create one additional job in British Columbia. Tell me how it will help young people who are looking for work. I know that many young people, including my brother, when they got out of high school found their first job in the construction industry. That's where they often find meaningful employment with pretty good wages.

This legislation will do nothing to increase private sector employment in the construction industry in British Columbia. I think it will do the opposite, by raising costs and scaring away investment. It takes money to build projects, and without that money the projects don't get built. The money that goes into investments doesn't have to stay in British Columbia. Capital is fluid. Some people have said that capital is a coward. It goes where it's not afraid to go; it goes where it feels safe. At the present time capital and investment, the things that lead to real and lasting jobs, do not feel safe in British Columbia. It's leaving the province.

It's been said that British Columbia ranks sixth out of the six largest provinces in Canada, in terms of attracting private sector investment for large-scale capital projects. That is not good enough -- to be last place in attracting new investment. Without that new investment, young people in British Columbia don't have meaningful jobs to look forward to. I don't think the NDP can ever understand that. They're simply not intellectually or -- pardon me -- philosophically equipped to understand that equation: investment equals jobs.

In Alberta they have the lowest youth unemployment rate in Canada, yet they don't have any particular government-funded youth employment programs. In British Columbia we've got a government that spends millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars on television commercials and other forms of advertising, telling everybody what a great job they've done to increase job opportunities for young people. Yet in the amount of time that our Premier has been the Minister Responsible for Youth, the youth unemployment rate in British Columbia has gone from about 14 percent to almost 19 percent.

That's the Premier's track record as Minister Responsible for Youth. He's driven them out of jobs, and he's driving them out of the province.

I know, for example, of a person who lives in my constituency, who told me not too long ago that he has quite candidly advised his children to actually leave British Columbia and go to the United States as they pursue their careers. His children are now at the stage where they've graduated from high school. One of them is already in university; another one is about to start university in September. He has come to the point where he's advising his children not to consider British Columbia as a place for their economic future. That is shameful. I hope the day never comes when I have to tell my children to leave British Columbia to find work.

That's not the way it was meant to be, and that's not the way it should be. We should be the most prospero