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)

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 14

(Part 2)

[ Page 9601 ]

The House recessed from 6 p.m. to 6:37 p.m.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to take this opportunity to inform the House that we will be sitting tomorrow. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and then Aboriginal Affairs. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 26.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading continued)

On the amendment (continued).

S. Hawkins: Just before the supper break, we were debating the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 26. The amendment now reads that this bill be hoisted for six months. I'm pleased to speak on the amendment to put the bill back for another six months.

Before I give my reasons, I just want to perhaps make some comments on some of the things that the Minister of Labour spoke to before the House broke for supper. He said that the government had done their job, that there was no reason for this bill to be hoisted for six months and brought back at a later date. He said that for the last year the government had done their job and that they had consulted people and that they had brought back a bill that was going to be widely accepted by the general public, workers, business and job creators.

Well, I don't think the minister has been listening. He certainly hasn't been listening in the last few weeks; he certainly hasn't been listening in the last few months; he certainly hasn't been listening for the last year, if that's what he believes. What I've been hearing -- and I've been hearing mostly from this side of the House -- is a lot of opposition to this bill. If there is so much support for this bill, then the members opposite should get up and tell us who's supporting this bill, because we haven't heard that. In fact, yesterday we were debating a motion on whether this bill should come back.

We didn't hear from one of the government back bench or any of the cabinet ministers on why this bill should come back -- not one. We heard from the House Leader, but we didn't hear from anybody else.

He says they've done their homework. Well, we ask: "Where's the economic impact study?" Part of the reason we think the bill should be hoisted and brought back at a later date -- if that's indeed what should be done -- is because this government did not . . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: The Minister Responsible for Northern Development says we're wasting time. You know what? They're wasting time. They're wasting businesses' time; they're wasting workers' time; and they're wasting the time of this House by bringing this bill forward. When this bill was dead and in its death throes, they're the ones that brought it back.

You know, we have been listening to those that have been closely affected, and we're bringing their concerns forward in this House. The minister says we're wasting the House's time when we bring the voices of business, workers and job creators into this House for this government to finally hear what they're saying. They have failed to listen in the last year, because if they had listened, they wouldn't bring this bill forward.

The minister also said that a lot of the people that are opposing this bill are anti-union -- they're anti-union, and they're unreasonable. Well, the people that are opposing this bill have been forced to try and get their message through to this government. They've been forced to run ads to try and get this Premier's and this government's attention.

I have before me now an ad that ran in the paper a few weeks ago. It says: "Premier Clark" -- or Premier; sorry for using proper names -- "listen to B.C.'s job creators; stop your changes to B.C.'s Labour Code." Here's all the anti-union groups that the Labour minister referred to, that he characterizes as anti-union. These people that he characterizes as anti-union are the people that create jobs in this province: Association of Canadian Travel Agents -- gee, real anti-union; the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada; B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association; B.C. Automobile Dealers Association; B.C.

Chamber of Commerce; B.C. Horticultural Coalition; B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association; B.C. Restaurant and Food Caterers Association; B.C. Shake and Shingle Association; B.C. Trucking Association; Building Owners and Managers Association; Building Supply Dealers Association; Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C.

Just a few of these . . . . You know, I'm reading them. These are all the people that this Minister of Labour failed to listen to, and now he's saying: "Well, they're only speaking up because they're anti-union." Here's some more: Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association, Canadian Retail Hardware Association, Canadian Steel Service Centre Institute, Council of Tourism Associations.

I have difficulty buying the minister's argument that these associations are all anti-union, but that's what he says. I wonder who he listened to. He said that the government took a year and listened, and that's why they brought this bill back. They listened, and they said that it had the support of people in the province. Yet I've listed off at least a dozen major associations and groups in the province that are job creators, business leaders and investors in this province, and they're saying no. They're saying no to Labour Code changes, to Bill 26 and to this government. They're saying: "Pull this bill."

Another thing I heard the Minister of Labour say which I thought was kind of funny . . . . He was saying that the opposition and a lot of these groups are running around saying that the sky is falling. You know, you're saying the sky's falling. You're fearmongering. You're running around and spreading misinformation about the economy and why the government should bring this bill forward: the government should bring the bill forward because it's not going to hurt the economy. They're saying it and they don't even have an economic impact study to tell us what it's going to do to the economy.

He says that the official opposition and the business groups are spreading misinformation. He says that all this misinformation and bad news about the economy is coming from ill-informed sources. Well, I think the last time I spoke to second reading, I quoted from the Hongkong Bank newsletter. I don't know, maybe the government thinks they're an ill-informed source, but it's also the bank that this government gave a huge, whacking tax break to. Why would they give a tax break to the bank that they think is ill-informed? We can deal with that later, I suppose.

[ Page 9602 ]

Here's what one so-called ill-informed source that this government says is spreading misinformation about the economy and that the official opposition is picking up and spreading fears and fearmongering about . . . . I have a quarterly letter before me -- a February 1998 report -- from the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. This is the national self-regulatory organization of the securities industry -- a real misinformed group, I guess, according to the Minister of Labour and the government. "The association's role is to foster efficient capital markets by encouraging participation in the savings and investment process by ensuring the integrity of the marketplace."

[6:45]

I opened this up, because we look at a lot of sources to try and get an idea of where investors are concerned about the state of the economy according to people that actually contribute to the economy, invest in the province and create jobs. I was very, very concerned when I saw the headers in this report.

On page 1 it says: "British Columbia underperforms." Under "Overview of the Economy," it says: "B.C.'s economic performance continued to disappoint in 1997." It says: "The weakness in investment spending over the past three years has been pronounced in the resource sector, notably the forestry and mining sectors. Low commodity prices, depressed business confidence and the damaging impact of the Asia crisis on exports have been responsible for the fall-off in investment spending." It goes on.

Under the header of "Forestry," it says: "The forestry sector has been seriously affected by burdensome regulations, particularly the Forest Practices Code."

This isn't the official opposition's document; this is a document by a very credible group. This is the information we're using to warn this government that what they're doing is going to significantly affect the economy negatively. Under "Mining," it says: "The mining industry has also suffered under the weight of an overburdensome tax and regulatory regime." Under "Business Confidence," it says: "The continued erosion in business confidence was evident in surveys of attitudes conducted in late 1997.

In addition to re-emphasizing the problem of high imposed costs and overregulation, a large proportion of respondents to an Angus Reid survey expected economic conditions in the province to deteriorate." This is an Angus Reid survey done on people in the province. It goes on to say: "There was little interest to invest in B.C. and that a growing number of Vancouver Board of Trade members polled expressed their intentions of moving their businesses out of the province." This is in black and white.

It says: "Significantly, these views extended beyond the natural resources sector, representing a broad spectrum of corporate interest. Flagging business investment has been a drag on the economy over the past few years and appears poised to continue that role over the foreseeable future."

That's not very encouraging at all for the economy. The authors conclude this report by saying: "British Columbia finds itself in troubled waters. The economic performance over the past three years has been one of the weakest among the provinces, in contrast to an above-average growth rate over the first half of the decade." Now the government members opposite should listen very carefully. "Government policies have exacerbated B.C.'s decline in fortunes. Excessive taxation and an overburdensome regulatory regime have severely damaged business prospects.

With little chance of these policies being adequately addressed in the foreseeable future, business confidence has deteriorated sharply and led to a concomitant sagging in business investment." It really doesn't sound like the economy is in too healthy a state.

This report was written by Stanley Kumagai, an economist for the capital markets department, and Allison Jones, who is a research assistant for the capital markets department.

I must say right off the bat that I am supporting the amendment to hoist this bill for six months, but the question here is: should this bill go forward? I submit that the bill should not go forward. Why shouldn't the bill go forward? We're seeing evidence of significant problems in the B.C. economy. We're hearing from investors, workers and business people around the province that they are concerned that any tinkering or toying with any part of the economy -- changes in the Labour Code, more burdensome taxes or anything -- is going to put us over the brink of recession.

What this government doesn't understand is that the people that are warning this government are the ones who actually work in the economy, who actually drive the economy, and who actually want this government to listen, because they're the ones who are going to make it or break it out there. This government doesn't seem to understand that. They don't seem to listen to the people who are actually driving the economy. What they're saying is that they're concerned.

We have seen this Premier have well-publicized and televised photo shoots around meeting with the business people in the province in the last six months. We saw front-page stories of how this Premier was listening to business. Well, he didn't hear. He must have had earplugs on, because what business said was: "Don't touch the Labour Code." And what did they get in the first six months of this year, as soon as the House came back?

They got slapped in the face with a labour bill that they thought they had put to rest last year, which they fought vehemently last year, and which they find themselves fighting again this year. If this Labour minister can stand up today and say that there's wide support for it in the province, how come I'm seeing huge banners on construction sites when I'm travelling around B.C.? In fact, there's a banner over my office.

My landlord has a building that is commercial downstairs and residential upstairs, and he is telling me that this labour bill is going to damage his business and that he's not going to have work for his workers. We know that construction starts are down. They're certainly down in the valley.

An Hon. Member: Tell the truth. Tell the truth for a change.

S. Hawkins: The Minister of Northern Development says: "Tell the truth for a change." Well, you know what? I am telling the truth. I challenge him to stand up and tell the truth. I tell you, the kind of business confidence that's been eroded by this government . . . . When this government got elected in '96, they ran ads that said they had a balanced budget. You know what? They talk about telling the truth. They ran ads that advertised a balanced budget, and within a week of putting in those ads, they were forced to tell the truth.

They were forced to tell the truth because they got caught; they got caught big-time. What did we find out? The budgets weren't balanced. That is the kind of negative investment confidence that we're talking about . . . .

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, member. Take your seat for a moment. A point of order?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe we're debating a hoist motion, not something that happened a few years ago, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, member, with that note.

[ Page 9603 ]

S. Hawkins: I'm talking about the hoist motion and about why this bill should not come forward for at least six months. This bill should never come forward, because of business confidence. What I was saying was that this government eroded business confidence big-time. They have been doing it since 1996 and '97 when they said the budgets were balanced. They ran ads saying the budget was balanced, and it wasn't. It wasn't, and they were forced to admit that. When this minister sits there and says, "Tell the truth," I think he should look in the mirror and say it to himself and take a lesson from that. I really do. They ran ads, and they are running ads right now, hon. Speaker.

We have business communities, coalition groups, that are trying to run ads to get this government's attention . . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: They say it's fearmongering. Tell those business communities that are running the ads.

So what does the government do? Instead of sitting down with these companies and trying to listen to them and getting their concerns from them, they run ads themselves saying why this bill is going to be so good for B.C., when they know that the job creators are saying that it's not good for B.C. They're saying it's not good for B.C., and this minister is saying that we're fearmongering.

Well, you know what? Here's fearmongering. Angus Reid did a survey in the summer of 1998.

This government has to deal with public perception. They have to because they are supposed to be serving the public. That is what we're all here for. It doesn't serve the public to not tell the truth about budgets. We've seen this government not being able to balance the budget in the seven years that they've been in power. That does not give any investor or business confidence; that doesn't do it at all. This government needs to listen to the people.

Angus Reid did a survey, their summer survey. Do you know what they found out? Their quarterly survey said that jobs has shot back up the public's priority list. It's joined by general concerns with the provincial economy. This is a survey done by Angus Reid, and it says that jobs and unemployment and the economy don't meet the B.C. public's issues agenda for the summer quarter, 1998. A third of those surveyed mention unemployment -- jobs -- as the number one issue for our political leaders.

If this government were so concerned about the workers, they would listen to this. The job creators in the province are saying: "This is a bad bill. This is a bad bill for workers. It's a bad bill for business. Government, listen: pull this bill." We've already lost thousands of jobs this year. We know that Alberta and Washington are just rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of this government bringing in changes to the Labour Code, because more jobs are going to go to Alberta and Washington; they're going to leave B.C. We know that already this year, 107 companies have left B.C.

They've changed their head offices. People, the general public, are getting that message. They are concerned about jobs and the economy, but this government isn't. They are in severe denial for some reason. They just don't get it.

What's really sad is that when we do survey these people and listen to the results of the survey, we find that there are a lot of people who are very, very concerned, and they don't they feel that things are going to get better under this government. In fact, they see their prospects getting worse, and that is really discouraging. I guess what is really sad, when we have a public that is this discouraged and is worried about jobs, worried that the economic prospects are not going to get better, is that we have a government that is going to bring in legislation that will make it worse. It just boggles the mind.

I'm going to read, because the Minister Responsible for Northern Development doesn't seem to think that my words carry any weight; for him they're not convincing . . . . You know what? I'm getting tons of mail, and none of it -- can you imagine this? -- is fan mail for the government. I just brought a few letters from my office, and I hope I get the opportunity to read more. I'm sure I can go back to my office and get some more. It's interesting, because these are constituents of mine. These are businesses; these are the job creators. These are the people the government should be listening to.

They feel they haven't been listened to, so what I'm going to do is read from some of their letters.

I think it's important. This minister is saying, "Tell the truth," so I'm going to read letters from constituents who actually create jobs and drive this economy. And I'm going to tell . . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: I hope the minister listens, because he's awfully yappy over there. If he wants to . . . . I haven't heard very many of them get up today and defend their bill. In fact, I saw that none of them got up yesterday when we were debating Motion 50 to reinstate this bill. I saw that none of them got up yesterday to defend their bill and say why it should come forward. Today, when they have had the opportunity to stand up and speak to their bill, very few of them have taken that opportunity. Why is that? Is it because they really can't defend it?

Is it because they really do owe favours to the big union bosses? Is it because they're getting whipped, and told: "Just get that bill through and get your butts out of there"?

I think that's what it is, but here are reasons why this bill should not go forward. I hope the minister is listening.

An Hon. Member: In your own words, try to . . . .

S. Hawkins: It doesn't have to come in my words. I speak for my constituents, and I think that the best way to get their concerns across is in their words. These are words that they sent to the Minister of Labour and to the Premier. The first letter is from Mr. Sherwin Goerlitz. He's the president of Acorn Homes in Kelowna. He wrote this letter on June 3, 1998. I'm not going to read all of it; I'm just going to quote from bits of it. He writes to the Minister of Labour.

I have to say something first. I remember the minister and a lot of the members getting up there and saying: "These are all anti-union people. They are big, bad business. All they want is profits." That's such a dirty word. "They don't look after workers."

[7:00]

Well, let me quote from Mr. Sherwin Goerlitz. He writes to the Minister of Labour and says:

"My company, Acorn Homes, is involved in residential construction in the central Okanagan area of Westbank and Kelowna. I have 22 full-time salaried employees and over 150 subcontractors that help us to build 80 to 100 homes per year. Every month I sign cheques totalling $800,000 to $1 million to pay for labour and materials in the projects we are building.

"I believe that the proposed changes" -- now listen carefully; I hope the minister is listening, because this is in his

[ Page 9604 ]

words -- "will adversely affect my business, causing me to close down and move away to a place where we will not be penalized for being an entrepreneur. Several others have already gone, and this option looks better every day. The B.C. economy is already the worst in all of Canada, and when you add this burden to the already sinking ship, it will wreck us."

That is a job creator, a business person in my riding who employs many people and who writes $1 million or more in cheques a month for workers, giving the government a warning.

You know what this big, bad businessman that the government talks about did? You know what this big, bad businessman did? Well, last weekend I had the privilege . . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: No, listen carefully. I hope you're listening. I had the privilege of going to the opening of a Habitat for Humanity house in Westbank. Do you know who donated the land -- worth $80,000, I believe -- for this Habitat for Humanity house for an impoverished family? It was Mr. Goerlitz in Acorn Homes who did that. What a bad man to have in my community.

You know what? I don't agree with the government. I think they're wrong. You know what? I am proud to have Mr. Goerlitz in my community. Do you know what he did? He donated a piece of land in Shannon Lake to an impoverished family of five -- three kids; the middle one is handicapped. The Reynolds family moved into this beautiful home because of Mr. Goerlitz's big heart. And he wants to continue business in the Okanagan; he wants to continue employing people there. He wants to continue being a philanthropist there, and I hope that we can keep him there. I'm proud of people like this in my community.

I am proud to say that he lives in my community. I'm ashamed that this government doesn't listen to people like this, because here is somebody who is a contributor to the community. Here is someone that we can be proud to say is a good corporate citizen -- an excellent corporate citizen. I hope the minister is listening.

Here is another one to the Labour minister. This is from Brian Tostenson, in Kelowna again. On May 25, 1998, he said:

"I operate a small business in the construction industry in Kelowna, B.C. In this business, I employ six employees. I am writing to you to express my concerns regarding proposed changes to the Labour Code, as I believe they will significantly affect my business."

This government says it's not going to affect residential construction. Here's a business person who's saying:

"My business is not restricted to residential construction only. Approximately 50 percent of my business is in the commercial sector as well. I am concerned that the proposed sectoral bargaining provisions of the new Labour Code will draw my company into a process where I will no longer be able to freely negotiate the wages and benefits of my workers, given the unique circumstances of my company."

Here's another one: Mr. Bruce MacPherson, from Kelowna. You know, I'm getting a lot of letters. On June 30, 1998, he wrote to the Premier:

"I am writing to express my opposition to the changes to the Labour Code proposed in Bill 26. This legislation will further hurt our province's ability to attract investment in jobs. As a business with $400,000 invested in this province and responsible for the creation of five jobs, I urge you to withdraw Bill 26 immediately."

Here are people writing to the Premier, writing to the Minister of Labour and hoping their voices will be heard. They are job creators, and they are saying that. They're saying that they're the ones who are driving the economy, who are providing the jobs. Why does the government refuse to listen to them? Why do they refuse?

Here's the Lake Okanagan Resort -- Bill Collins, who's the vice-president and general manager of Lake Okanagan Resort. He wrote to the Premier: "As a business with hundreds of thousands invested in this province and responsible for the creation of 120 jobs . . . . " He urges the government to withdraw Bill 26.

I love this letter, because it's written by a mother. And you know what? I hope the minister isn't saying she's a liar before I even read her letter, because I have a lot of respect for this lady. Theresa White writes to me -- or sends me a copy . . . . She wrote to the Premier; she sent me a copy. I was very glad to get it. On June 25 she wrote to the Premier and said:

"You're the minister for youth. You say you care about the future of the young people of British Columbia. We challenge you to show that you really do care. Your messages and actions have been pushing job creation away from this province. Bill 26 is a sorry example of words that promise help to working people while the reality is that working people will be hurt definitely and seriously. You are proposing to lay backbreaking burdens on businesses that are trying to keep people employed, and you are not listening to them or lifting one finger to help them.

"We have five children in university and high school and would like them to be able to stay in B.C. to live and work and raise their families. Not only our children but hundreds of thousands of young men and women need a healthy, stable economic foundation. You have been elected to give them that much."

You know what? She's absolutely right. This is a mom writing about her five kids and saying that she would like them to have a healthy future in this province, to find jobs in this province. She would like them not to have to move away to find some security in the future. She feels that this government is threatening the prospect of her kids having a healthy working existence in B.C. She is challenging you, Premier . . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you hon. member.

S. Hawkins: I am pleased to be able to speak to this; I'm sure I will again. I support this amendment to hoist the bill for six months.

V. Anderson: The Labour Relations Code Amendment Act 1998: we've been here before. We were here in 1992 discussing a labour code. We've been discussing it ever since. We had Bill 44 last year, which was brought in and then wisely taken off the order paper. We would like that the government be wise once again and take this off the order paper. Though it is only a portion of Bill 44, it still has in it the same principles that concerned people right across the province about the previous bill.

It is interesting to go back and get a little history, because if we try to understand where we are at the moment and why there is a concern about Bill 26, we need to understand the definition of those who are covered by the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, we are speaking to the amendment.

V. Anderson: I am speaking to the amendment, hon. Speaker, but in order to understand why the amendment to hoist the bill for six months is in place, those across the province need to understand what it is that we want to hoist and why it is that we want to hoist it -- so it can have further consideration.

[ Page 9605 ]

I'm convinced that one of the realities is that most of the people around the province are just beginning to discover what this bill is about. And when they do, they're going to have increasing concern. If they listened to the Labour minister as he expressed himself again tonight, he talked about a very minimal bill that has very few results and covers very few people.

We have principles here which have to do with the construction industry labour relations. I want to remind ourselves and the public listening what the definition is of the construction industry labour relations group of people. Simply, this is the definition: " . . . the employers and employees engaged in the construction, alteration, decoration, repair or demolition of buildings, structures, roads, sewers, water or gas mains, pipelines, dams, tunnels, bridges, railways, canals or other works . . . . " That's not a minimum part of the labour force of our community; that's a major part of our community.

That's why this bill needs to be thought of in relationship to all of those areas of the construction industry, because its long-term implications affect each and every one of them. That's why there needs to be an opportunity for the principles of this bill to be taken out to each of those sections of the construction industry, so that they can understand them.

We recognize in Bill 44 that the intention of the principles of this bill went even further. This present bill -- and let's be honest about that -- is not intended at the present time to cover those industries which deliver supplies and materials to a construction project or a routine maintenance work. But those were covered in Bill 44, so we ask ourselves the question: what is the reason why these two sectors are left out? Is it because the government has changed its mind, and the principles which it would apply to all of the groups in Bill 44 no longer are proper to apply in those sectors?

If it's true that it's no longer proper to apply them to the delivering of supplies and materials or to routine maintenance work, what has changed between Bill 44 and Bill 26? And if it's changed for those two facets of the economy, perhaps it also should be reviewed and changed for the other areas which are still being affected by the bill.

They've done a whole host of restructuring in the forest system with the Forest Practices Code, and the forest industry is going downhill.

They did a restructuring in education. They did away with school boards in some areas of the province and amalgamated them into new school boards which they felt would be more efficient and effective. So what do we have but the government having to take over and interfere in the negotiation between teachers and school boards, and on the agenda of this Legislature, legislation enforcing an agreement between school boards and the teachers which over 80 percent of the school boards have voted against.

[7:15]

Just today, when we're discussing this, I received a press release from the Ministry for Children and Families. They are starting a new process of building a new integrated Ministry for Children and Families -- a ministry, by the way, which we supported in concept but not in the way that this ministry went about it. This government set about a restructuring process in the Ministry for Children and Families, and they've destroyed the non-profit societies in many communities because of that. Finally they had to have an independent review done. I'll give them credit for at least doing the review. Let me read what the review -- just released today -- identified:

"[1.] original ministry goals for integrated service delivery were sound;

"[2.] objectives of service improvement and integration became confused with the ministry's financial management objectives;

"[3.] inadequate attention was paid to labour relations and human resource implications;

"[4.] insufficient attention was given to transition and implementation planning;

"[5.] consultation of clients, their families and service providers was not adequate."

All of these things we've said again and again in this Legislature. And the members of government laughed at us as if we didn't know what we were talking about. We're sure that we don't know what they're talking about.

Then the minister states: "I acknowledge the concerns contained in the report, and I am committed to finding more efficient and consultative ways to deliver integration services in line with our number one priority." So effective immediately, as of this day, is the discontinuing of all that they had been doing: " . . . discontinuing contract and program restructuring as undertaken to date; contacting all service providers to discuss contract extensions to September 30, 1999 . . . reviewing all situations where a successful proponent has been announced through the request for proposal process, but contracts have not been signed; [and] withdrawing all outstanding requests for proposals."

This is just another reason why we're concerned about the kind of legislation that is brought forth by the bill and why it needs to be sent back for consultation and review.

They said that they had done consultation and review about Children and Families, about health and about education. They had not -- or at least if they did, they didn't hear and understand what people are saying. That's what we're discovering. They have not now, in whatever consultation they may have undertaken for this labour bill, been able to hear or understand the concerns of the people in the community.

They don't understand that their own principles are not being applied. Let me suggest the principles that are the government's principles. They go back as far as 1990, to an NDP labour policy statement, even before they became government in this province. One of the principles of the NDP labour policy was: "The development of new legislative initiatives will include strong efforts to build consensus between the parties involved and affected." There is no consensus now in labour-management construction. There's been relative peace until this legislation, Bill 44 and Bill 26, was brought forward. Since those two bills were brought forward, there has been no consensus in those industries.

"A policy of pre-collective bargaining between management and labour should be promoted, while minimizing inter-

[ Page 9606 ]

ference from outside parties." The major interference from the outside party is the interference by the government itself. They're not allowing the employees and the employers to make their own agreements between themselves. The policies are there, but they are not being applied. Labour relations policies should emphasize avoidance first and then the effective resolution of conflicts. This very legislation is creating the conflicts, not finding resolution. It's creating the confrontation.

Another one: "Cooperation between labour and business in workplace issues and in economic planning is only possible if there is equality between the two." That equality needs to be found by the two groups themselves, working together to discover it. When those groups come with a common presentation to the government, then the government will be in a position to respond to them.

Those are the principles that were put forward in 1990 by the NDP, but they're not the principles which are being applied in the current situation. From the same press release: "New Democrats recognize that a key element of success in developing a long-term economic strategy for British Columbia is the ability of labour and management to work together in a stable and neutral environment." We have anything but a stable and neutral environment. There is a lot of fear out there among employers and employees, because the economic environment is not stable.

It's been going downhill, as the previous member speakers have indicated, and this government has not responded even to its own principles. But we might say that sometimes there's a difference between the principles of the party and of the legislative arm of that party. If so, I'd remind us of the principles of the Labour Code that was passed here in this Legislature in 1992: " . . . to encourage cooperative participation between employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues, adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity."

As was pointed out, this legislation is not a modern adaptation to modern economic circumstances. It's trying to put an outdated process onto a sector of the economy which it did not even fit in the first place. It's been well demonstrated that the changing times and circumstances in the economic situation of our province must be taken into account. It's been acknowledged that you cannot have one-size-fits-all for all of the construction areas in our province.

A recent study of the Labour Code and its effect was done by a legal firm: "The big fear for a construction employer is that they won't have much say in negotiating an agreement that's specific to their company . . . under the new rules, a small construction firm in Prince George building a minor project may come under the same collective agreement as a big-city firm building a megaproject." That's another reason why this needs to go back for review for another six months: so that the government has the opportunity to consult with people all around the province and to take into account the variations that are to be found there.

They can also consult with big and small companies, with employees and employers working in a variety of those situations, and come up with some kind of flexible legislation, rather than rigid legislation such as they have here. This amendment takes out the rigidity.

People need to review the statement at the beginning of this legislation -- if they're aware of it -- that a union now is a group of employees representing one or more employees. That was one of the structures in Bill 44 as well: that a union is one employee. It's not very hard to have a consensus if there's only one of you; it's easy to get a majority. It's easy to vote as one person and have a majority, but that's not the kind of process that was undertaken historically by labour unions.

One of the purposes of the 1992 Labour Code was "to minimize the effects of labour disputes on persons who are not involved in the dispute." Others were "to ensure that the public interest is protected during labour disputes [and] to promote conditions favourable to the orderly, constructive and expeditious settlement of disputes between employers and trade unions." Well, if you take the negative point of view, we might say that that one's being fulfilled, because it says that you don't have an opportunity to decide yourself; it's all predetermined and pre-mandated.

But that's not the intent of the principles that are here, so we say that this must go back to be re-examined. It needs to go back and be re-examined because of its effect on the attitudes of people in our province and around the world. Representatives of our government have been travelling to China, Japan, Korea and many places around the world, and they have promised that there would be flexibility and opportunity in Canada for them to come and work, or to employ others to work in a climate that is free, open and democratic. But when they come here, they find that's not what is available to them.

They find that there's a burden of taxes: corporate taxes, income taxes, user taxes and consumption taxes. That's the context at which they look, and they go away. Even those companies who come to invest in B.C., having tried it for a while -- some even for 30 or 40 years -- are moving out of province. Just this last year, at least 107 companies have moved out of the province, going to Alberta, to Washington State, to other places in Canada and overseas. Hon. Speaker, this is a grave concern which has been with us for a long time.

In the climate in which we now live, these labour changes are a threat. They are a threat not only because they do not help the employer or the employee but also because they have added to the growing belief and understanding that B.C. is not a good place in which to do business. It isn't that they don't want to come here. Many of those people would like to come and live here because of B.C.'s climate, its scenery and its beauty. They'd like to come here, but they are afraid because of what has happened to so many others who came and had to leave.

[7:30]

When we look at some of the letters that come in -- some of which have already been read out to us in the House -- it's interesting that some people who write are not aware that we have two sides of the House, the government and the opposition. At least it sounds like that when you read the letters. This letter came to me from a gentleman at Country West Construction:

"We are an open shop general contracting firm who has operated in the lower mainland for the past 15 years. As a business owner, I have great difficulty in understanding your perceived need of changes to the Labour Code."

It's interesting that our government has been saying that the Labour Code -- the way they've left it so far -- has created a stable and fair working climate within our province, but even they want to change it. Here is one person who objects to the change, who's giving credit to where we are at the moment.

He goes on to say:

"It is quite apparent as one reads the documents and listens to the news reports, that the need for changes did not arise from the construction industry as a whole but from a specific group of people deeply involved in trade unions. I strongly urge you to seriously consider stopping the passage of this bill for the simple reason of it being to pay back the trade union movement, and not as a result of a troubled labour force. Passage of this bill would, once again, put the provincial government in blatant conflict of interest. Stop this unnecessary bill before all business owners and investors lose total confidence in the province and its government and withdraw their funds."

[ Page 9607 ]

Hon. Speaker, that's the concern that's coming over and over again. We have a concern about the labour climate, and this is part of the concern. That's why we think it needs to go back and be reviewed. Over 18,000 new people have been added to B.C.'s unemployment lines in this last year, between January and April of 1998. Year to year, there are 21,000 more unemployed British Columbians from April '97 to April '98. B.C.'s unemployment remains the highest among the provinces west of Quebec. B.C.'s unemployment rate is a full 4 percent higher than Alberta's, our neighbouring province's.

B.C.'s youth unemployment rate remains stubbornly high at 18.3 percent. Since last year, 8,400 youth have been added to the unemployment rolls, and so it goes on. The employment climate for young people is impossible. B.C. Stats reports that, after adjusting for inflation, per-capita aftertax income in the province declined 2.3 percent in 1997. This is what's happening around our province.

That's why we say that this bill needs to be sent back for consideration. It needs to be hoisted so that people have an opportunity to read it, to understand it and to deal with it. That's not what this government is about. This government is about putting forth principles no matter what they do to the people of our province. All the way across our province, our low-income people are finding their life more difficult. Just today we're hearing about a woman, a widow, who suddenly had to go on social assistance. At 54 years of age, she gets $500 a month. When she pays her rent, she has about $50 a month to live on.

That's the kind of thing that's happening in our province, and it's not acceptable.

They took away the democratic right of people to vote on a final contract. That needs to be reviewed as part of this legislation. That right needs to be put back into the Labour Code, rather than further rights being taken away with forced union agreements. The people in a company, the workers and the employers, have earned the right under legislation to come together and discuss with one another how they are going to work in any given community. They need to be able to do that with each other under fair representation.

The government has promised to reduce red tape, but every time they begin to reduce the red tape, the regulations that come in to reduce it increase it. When Gove did his study of the care of children in our community, he found that there were eight levels of bureaucracy that either the top rank or the bottom rank had to work through to deal with each other. They brought in an integrated process to correct that. As a result of the integrated process, the latest report is that there are now not eight layers to work through but 16. That's the kind of change that this government brings about, and that's the fear that we have with this Labour Code: that that same kind of change will come about.

We must take into account that there is uncertainty and fear across our province. As we've travelled across the province, we've found that the previous legislation that this government has brought into being dealing with unions and the non-profit sectors has destroyed many of those sectors and frightened the people within it. It has not only destroyed the non-profit sector. More importantly, it has destroyed the services that those sectors were providing to people in the community -- to senior citizens, people with disabilities, children, single parents and the unemployed.

It's that kind of wholesale destruction of the social fabric of our community which is a concern among the people of our community. This is just one more plank in that destruction, and that's why it must be sent back for review. That's why it must be reconsidered.

There are better ways to do it than trying to do it in the Legislature. One could set up a committee of the Legislature. One could set up a group which is unbiased politically, or has fair representation politically, to travel the province and hear . . . . We have discovered that where there has been a common approach, there has been a better result.

Hon. Speaker, I support the motion to hoist the bill for six months.

D. Symons: I too rise to speak to the particular motion that's before us, because we do need the government to rethink the advisability of more changes to the Labour Code. The motion says: "That the motion for second reading of Bill 26 intituled Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, be amended by deleting the word 'now' "-- meaning it's going to be read now in the House -- "and adding the words 'on this day six months hence.' " That motion is referred to frequently, and has been by members in the House this evening, as a hoist motion, because it has the effect of putting off the bill until either six months from now or until the House meets again in another session.

It is important that we reconsider the contents and the effect of this particular bill. The minister has characterized the bill as rational and modest. Yet it will impose a master union contract on the non-residential construction industry, creating a powerful and unprecedented tool for unions -- unions that, I might add, have quite handsomely financed NDP election campaigns in the past and probably, if they get this bill through, will do so in the future.

In the bill itself, under the heading "Purposes," it says: "In addition to the purposes referred to in

section 2, the purposes of this Part are to (

a) achieve orderly collective bargaining in the construction industry." Well, hon. Speaker, for the last decade we've had reasonable quiet, as far as labour unrest goes, in the construction industry. So it seems peculiar to be bringing in a bill now, when there have been relatively amiable relationships in that industry for the past decade.

The bill continues: " . . . (

b) establish a labour relations environment conducive to skills development in the construction industry . . . . " The problem with that is that, first, the government has brought in a variety of legislation. They have the Build BC Act and so forth -- all of these things that require employers working on government projects to indeed do skills training. Many other businesses also do that of their own volition, but certainly it's required for any government project.

The situation in the province of British Columbia today is that, in a sense, we're getting people out there that have the skills -- at least in the construction industry -- and the real problem is that we don't have the jobs for them to use those skills in. So I'm not too sure whether this particular one is going to help the job situation. Unless the work is there, the skills are not that valuable to the workers. There are probably more workers now with skills than there are jobs for them, and this bill isn't going to help that situation.

The next part says: " . . . (

c) facilitate the implementation of multi-employer and multi-trade collective bargaining for craft bargaining units within ICI construction." That's industrial, commercial and institutional construction. That is the nub of the bill, and that's the problem most of us are having with this particular bill. No matter how you say it -- and indeed, in introducing the bill the minister kept repeating that this is not sectoral bargaining . . . . Well, if what I just read isn't sectoral bargaining, I'm afraid that neither I nor the minister knows what sectoral bargaining is.

The labour climate in the province has been quite good, as I said, at least until last year. What happened last year? We had a fight over the proposed changes to the Labour Code,

[ Page 9608 ]

which started almost a year ago with the introduction of something called Bill 44. Basically what we're dealing with now could be referred to, as some media people have, as the Son of Bill 44. After a massive outcry and admissions that the proposed changes to the code were done without serious consultation with business, the bill was withdrawn with a promise to reintroduce it after more talks with business. Well, we find out that not that many businesses have been consulted.

As a matter of fact, they only consulted the businesses that they felt were going to be favourable toward this particular one; but there are many others we'll get onto later that have not been consulted. Hoisting the bill will give that opportunity to deal with those particular situations.

In late July of last year, the Premier announced that they would not proceed with Bill 44 -- not because it was flawed, but because they had not undertaken the proper consultative process. The NDP then appointed two committees. One was the construction industry review panel. The other was the

section 3 committee.

Section 3 refers to

section 3 of the Labour Relations Code, which provides a review process for the Labour Code.

The two committees made their reports public in February of this year. Among the many recommendations, the

section 3 committee suggested more research regarding the Bill 44 successorship provisions and the rejection of the return to the secret ballot for new certifications. We referred to that during our discussions of Bill 84 of '92. They also recommended research into a new cooperative approach to labour-management relations in B.C. Well, this bill is not doing that. The employer community rejected any changes to the Labour Relations Code on the grounds that they would further erode our economy. That's the point many of us have been trying to make during the discussion of this particular bill. On the other hand, the trade unions rejected the

section 3 report, because they felt it did not go far enough. We're finding that we're having some real contradictions in how people interpret Bill 44 and its subsequent recommendations.

[7:45]

The construction industry review panel report recommended against sectoral bargaining but then went on to recommend a common master collective agreement for all companies certified under craft unions in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of construction. Again, I'm not quite sure, but that sounds like sectoral bargaining. Under the existing B.C. Labour Code, a craft union only needs 55 percent of the workers in a worksite to sign union membership cards to force automatic certification -- no secret ballot.

Under the new legislation, that employer, if they're working in any of those industrial, commercial or institutional sectors, will be forced into a master collective agreement that will apply to the entire sector. That is sectoral bargaining.

The construction industry review panel concluded that the lack of trust and cooperation between the two sides was detrimental to our economic growth. It also recommended that no changes be introduced at this time. Judging by the reaction to the latest round of proposed changes contained in Bill 26, labour-management relations are as poisonous as they have ever been in this province over the last decade. Even before the bill was introduced, there were press releases out of Kelowna that representatives of the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council went to nearly 200 businesses threatening to boycott their stores if they didn't support the pro-union legislation.

Tom Sigurdson, executive director of the council, was quoted as saying: "We're not going to take a back seat this time." I suppose that has more to do with this particular government's determination to bring this bill forward, because they're being pressured by their union supporters to do so. Sigurdson's use of that phrase "this time" was in reference to the fact that the withdrawal of Bill 44 last year was seen by the union, or by that particular sector of the union movement, as a cave-in to business interests.

Contrast that with the strong message the government received from business representatives when they met with the Premier and his aides in February, in the series of business consultations designed to reverse the province's negative investment image. What came out of that? Well, the business groups were not happy with the introduction of the new changes, and the lengthy analysis by law firm Heenan Blaikie wouldn't cheer them up.

Their report concluded that the changes to the code are "designed to, and will, make organizing easier for the building trades unions, they will limit the flexibility of collective bargaining arrangements and they will entrench the craft organization of construction work." None of these results are good news for employers in the construction industry in British Columbia or, for that matter, for consumers of construction services.

Employers in the construction industry fear the changes to the code will make it possible to improvise a collective agreement reaching from big construction firms in Vancouver to small operators in Kelowna and smaller communities around the province. It appears that those fears are well founded. The fight over the Labour Code is extremely significant. The unions are determined to force the government to honour its commitment to enact changes, while the business community is saying: "Not one more change; enough is enough."

In the past, the business community has provided weak opposition to changes in the Labour Code. This time they feel it has hit the wall. There will be no reconciliation. Regardless of which side people are on, the animosity will result in less growth and fewer jobs in the province. That is not good. That is sufficient reason right there that we should say: "Let's hoist the bill for six months."

I ask, is it worth it? Can we afford to take the chance that Bill 26 will further affect investment in British Columbia? I think not. Therefore the motion to hoist the bill -- to effectively put it on ice -- is the best course of action. If Bill 26 were to pass, it would poison labour relations and reignite the fears that business and investors had last year.

If you look at investment across the country, B.C. gets primarily about half the investment dollars that other provinces in Canada are receiving. Why are we getting a smaller proportion of investment in our province than we have in the past? It's simply because Labour Code changes have taken place here, and this government is perceived outside of British Columbia by the investment community as being anti-business. This particular bill will not help that perception.

At the introduction of this bill, our leader asked how many companies have to flee this province before this government figures out what it has done to the B.C. economy. Actually, he used slightly more flowery language than that. I've toned it down a little bit, but the concern was there. When will the government wake up to the fact that their changes to the Labour Code and their way of running this province is driving business out of the province and driving investment away from the province? We're losing jobs as a result of that.

What has this government done to our economy? Well, for one thing, the provincial debt is up from $17 billion to over

[ Page 9609 ]

$31 billion this year. That's also driven our credit rating down. Unemployment is up in the province, thanks to this government, and our forest industry is down, again thanks to the policies of this particular government. Businesses leaving B.C. are up, and investment in our province is down. Does Bill 26 address any of these urgent issues in this province? No. Does it help education? Does it help health? Does it help forestry? Does it help create jobs? The answer is no. And this is a government that says, oh, those are their priorities. Well, if those are their priorities, they've certainly got their priority on this bill totally wrong.

It is the wrong time to tinker, no matter how minor the government might claim that these changes might be, with a labour code. Businesses are saying that the NDP has made significant changes already to the Labour Code; they've made changes to the employment standards; and they've made changes to workers compensation -- and enough is enough.

The most amazing revelation, I think, when this bill was first introduced, was that the government had not done an economic impact study of this particular bill and its effects. They didn't do one. You would think a prudent government, before they would bring in legislation that could possibly affect investment and job creation in the province, would do a study of the economic impact of the particular legislation they were proposing. But they didn't do it. For a government that talks of the jobs they're creating, they don't seem to care to see whether their actions and policies are killing jobs.

Maybe they know the answer and don't want proof that the investment in jobs and the investments in the province might have a negative effect upon them. Maybe that's the reason they haven't done an economic impact study of this particular legislation. It speaks volumes that the government wouldn't do that, when they talk about the importance of investment and jobs in the province. They just put their heads in the sand and ignore the consequences. That's why I feel it's terribly important that we all approve this hoist motion. I'm hoping that after we've all spoken, the government will see the light and do that.

Of course, this is a government that has brought in a debt management plan. You might remember that, hon. Speaker. Of course, you weren't in the House when the debt management plan was brought in before the last election. They brought in this plan that was going to reduce the debt of the province over 20 years. Granted, they were going to take 20 years to reduce the debt from the point they got it to in just the four years they were in office; but nevertheless, they had a debt management plan.

They found out the first year that they weren't quite on track, and by the second year they were so far off track that they chucked the debt management plan out. You were here for that, hon. Speaker, because that's when they brought in the son of the debt management plan. They called it a financial management plan. What the financial management plan did was remove the goalpost so that nobody could tell whether they were on track or not. That's the way this government does business.

This is also the government that brought us two "balanced budgets." You may remember, because that was being touted during the last election. This is the government that has balanced two consecutive budgets -- the one that's just passed that we haven't seen the books for yet, and the one that's coming in that was promoted in the pre-election budget address that we had in this House. Well, we found out that neither of those budgets was balanced.

This is also the government that a year ago promised 20,000 more jobs -- I almost said 2,000, because 20,000 seems quite optimistic -- with the jobs and timber accord. How many jobs have we created? Do you remember the figure? Well, it seems that we've lost over 10,000 jobs in the period where they were going to be working towards creating 20,000. So we basically have to get 30,000 -- 10,000 to get back to the word "go" and then to carry on to start on the 20,000.

Why do I mention these particular legacies of broken promises? What we have here is really going to be a question of credibility. We have to make sure that our government is credible, and they have proven fairly well by past actions, comments and so forth that much of what they have said has not come true. This government, rather than being credible, is quite incredible.

I'd like to take a look at some of the things that the Labour minister has said. He suggested that there were five criteria that we should use to test changes to B.C.'s Labour Code. But if his criteria . . . . With the reality of B.C.'s economic and labour relations climate, it's remarkable that he hasn't decided to cancel this legislation. Here are his criteria. The minister says first: "We must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplace."

Well, what's the situation in British Columbia today? B.C. has gone from being number one to number ten in Canada in terms of economic growth. We're losing investment and jobs to competing jurisdictions like Alberta, Ontario and Washington State. By driving investment away, the NDP's newest Labour Code changes will only serve to make B.C. even less competitive.

The minister says his second measurement or criterion to evaluate his Labour Code is: "We must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected." Well, I'm not too sure that that's not already the case in British Columbia. The right of workers to join union if they so wish is codified in law in this province.

The NDP has also taken away a worker's right to a secret ballot vote on unionization. That freedom of a secret ballot is one of the most fundamental democratic freedoms that we have in this country. This government that calls itself the New Democratic Party took that democratic right away from workers in this province.

The NDP's new Labour Code changes interfere with the ability of workers and employers to negotiate a collective agreement that is tailored specifically to the unique circumstances of that particular enterprise where the workers are negotiating with their employer and the employer is negotiating with their workers, not through some umbrella organization which is small part of some larger picture.

The third criterion that the minister says we must look at to evaluate this bill is: "We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." Well, we certainly have had reasonable climate stability for labour in this province, but those labour policies have helped create an unstable business climate. As a result, B.C. has experienced a crash of job-creating capital investments over the last few years.

B.C.'s capital spending for 1998 is predicted to be a paltry 1.3 percent compared to 6.2 percent for the nation as a whole, 9.8 percent for Alberta, 5 percent for Ontario, 8.4 percent for Quebec, 8.1 percent for Saskatchewan and 6.3 percent for Manitoba. What was that figure for B.C. again? Oh, 1.3 percent economic growth. Listen to the figures for the other provinces. What else is there about creating a climate of stability that will encourage investment and jobs? Well, further unbalanced investments and unfriendly legislation like Bill 26 are hardly going to help that.

[ Page 9610 ]

The minister also said as one his criteria for judging his bill: "We must consult carefully with key stakeholders before making changes to laws, policies and regulations." Well, you know, they said that before Bill 44 and withdrew it because they hadn't done that. A new poll conducted by McIntyre and Mustel confirms that the public tends to be dubious about the public consultation process of the labour relations review committees.

When asked if the government-appointed committee was truly interested in hearing all sides as it attempted to balance the concerns and needs of all parties, only 25 percent of British Columbians responded that they believed this to be to be the case. Over 50 percent thought the committee had been biased and hadn't properly consulted all parties affected by the changes. So that, I think, would prove at least that the public perception -- and I think perception is important -- is that it was not really true consultation that the government did.

[8:00]

The fifth criterion that the minister said we should look at for evaluating this particular bill is: "We must work to bring business, labour and government together to address issues of common and public concern." Well, I'm not quite sure how this bill is going to do that. The NDP preaches the rhetoric of cooperation, but they still are aggressively pursuing a one-sided labour agenda, and this bill proves that. The NDP's changes include sectoral bargaining in the construction industry and the elimination of strike votes for the imposition of first contracts.

This can hardly be called working together with business. The reality is that the NDP has no good reason for changing B.C.'s Labour Code. Therefore I say leave the bill for six months -- or better yet, for longer. Give the government time to consider the negative effects of Bill 26. Give the government time to do some true consultations with all affected parties or with those that may be affected in the future. We have to see what effects these changes are going to have on the economy of British Columbia.

We all hope that that will be the end of it, that it would be in the provincial interest for the government to do that.

I would like to end with just one more letter. We've been reading letters from various organizations that have some concerns about this, because the government tells us they've been consulting with employers and employees and so forth on the bill. This one is from the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. It's dated June 25, 1998 -- fairly recent:

"Subsequent to a special meeting today, the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association declares opposition to Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. The B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association is representative of the whole heavy construction industry, with member companies that are building trades-certified, alternate union and non-union."

Notice that all three types of labour groups are included in this one organization. I think that's something worth noting here.

"After extensive consideration, it was determined that Bill 26 as presently drafted will harm the B.C. economy, harm the general B.C. construction industry and is highly prejudicial against the welfare of the roadbuilding and heavy construction members of the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. It was determined that if Bill 26 is enacted as presently drafted, unfortunately workers in the roadbuilding and heavy construction industry will be the first to feel the negative impact through job losses, reduced total working hours and uncertainty about the future.

"The B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association is an independent association representing the interests of firms engaged in roadbuilding, utilities, heavy construction and road maintenance industries to all levels of government, the business community, the media and the public. The association is a founding partner of the Western Canada Road Builders Association and is directly affiliated with the Canadian Construction Association."

That is the view of one of the business associations in this province, but certainly the members of that association represent various trade unions and non-union and alternate union organizations. So represented in that organization we have quite a good cross-section of employers with various working agreements with their employees. I think that is a cross-section of the businesses throughout British Columbia.

It's a cross-section like that that this government should be listening to before they introduce bills, not when, as we're trying to do today, we bring in a hoist motion so the government will have time to go out and do their homework later rather than earlier, as they should have done.

Hon. Speaker, I do thank you for the time to make these comments. I would encourage the government members to consider what we've been saying this evening and to support us in the motion to delay second reading of this bill for six months.

B. Barisoff: I too rise to support the hoist motion by my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson. I think that when my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson reviewed this and decided to bring this motion forward -- to hoist this -- it was well prepared. He knew exactly what he wanted to do. He brought it forward in the interest of trying to make it better for British Columbia as a whole.

I want to touch on a few things that I missed out on when we started second reading and get right to the nuts and bolts of some of the things that are taking place. Common sense would dictate some of the questions. How will Bill 26 improve the economy of British Columbia? I think we all know. Bill 26 will not create jobs or stimulate any kind of investment in the province. The answer is simple: it just won't. There will not be any extra investment in British Columbia.

I see here in the House tonight the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We see a lot of businesses in the agrifood industry leaving the province. It is incumbent upon me to mention that last week I happened to be at a meeting in Abbotsford which the hon. minister was also at. I think in question period he mentioned that he hadn't seen me. We were sitting at the same table. He mentioned that I, or some of the members from this side of the House happened not to be there.

A lot of the farmers at that meeting were indicating to the minister that the Labour Code . . . . This is one of the areas that has caused problems. Restrictive labour laws will cause a lot of problems for the agrifood industry. We wonder why they're leaving the province. That's why. Jobs will be lost, businesses will close, and investment will go elsewhere. Some businesses will move to Alberta, where jobs and investment are welcome. We see that all the time. We see them moving on a regular basis. We know that's true because we see a lot of it, particularly in the ministry that I'm responsible for.

In the agrifood industry and in agriculture we've got lists of those moving either to Alberta or to other parts of Canada, or moving on to Washington State. Last year alone, 107 companies left B.C. for Alberta.

An Hon. Member: How many?

B. Barisoff: There were 107 companies. That's almost unbelievable, as my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton mentioned. It's an unbelievable stat to see. We wonder why they're leaving. It's things like Bill 26. These are the kinds of things

[ Page 9611 ]

that are driving industry out of the province. We wonder why my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson brought the motion forward to hoist, to at least have six months to look at this. Hon. Speaker, I don't think that even six months is enough. But in all fairness, my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson felt that that was a fair compromise, to at least have a look at it sometime next spring to see what kind of effect it would have on the entire province. I honestly think that we probably shouldn't be debating this, if democracy were truly where it should be, because of the motion that was brought forward last week. Of course, the government passed Motion 50.

Let me carry on with some of the other things that cause me great concern about Bill 26. Building permits increased in Alberta by 20 percent, but they dropped in B.C. by 10 percent. That's not a good stat to see. When we're worried about the economy of British Columbia, this government brings in Labour Code changes that are only going to make those kinds of stats worse. I don't have to go very far in my riding to talk to people who have threatened to move their businesses somewhere else. Some have operated for 25 or 30 years in the province, and still they're looking elsewhere. They're looking to Alberta, to Washington State, to Saskatchewan or to anywhere else in Canada.

I have friends whose children have gone to Alberta for jobs in the past two years. They are not going there for the climate. We saw what took place with the climate the other day in Calgary; they had that freak hailstorm or whatever it might have been. Certainly they can't be going there for the climate. We have the best climate in all of Canada here in British Columbia. But what happens? People are leaving because there are just no jobs here. It is things like Bill 26 that help drive jobs out of the province.

What is this government going to do to fix the problem? Their solution is to introduce the bill. I think that we've tried to convince them and that the hoist motion is very appropriate. It is appropriate to hoist it, have a look at it, and wait and see if the economy changes a little bit, because the economy has got to change before we can introduce labour laws like this that will actually drive more businesses away. It doesn't matter whether you belong to a union or not: if there are no jobs, it doesn't put food on the table; it doesn't feed the children out there.

We support unions, and we support non-unionized workers. But from that side of the House, they seem to direct it all in one direction.

Let me quote Les Leyne of the Times Colonist . He writes that the last thing this province needs is a labour war, but: "Maybe Clark, the former ironworkers' organizer, feels the need to define himself this summer. Maybe he's desperate for something to take the heat off his government for its inept economic performance. Whatever the reason, brace yourself as a B.C. citizen for exactly the last thing your struggling, debt-ridden province needs right now."

You know, we look at these kinds of things happening on a regular basis, where people from the press, people from business and ordinary people of British Columbia are saying: "Don't do it. Just don't do it. Now isn't the time to do something like this." But what takes place with this government is that they are not listening to the people of British Columbia. For a long time they have quit listening.

They just don't seem to care what happens to most of the people of British Columbia. I think that if they're prepared to bring destructive legislation like this forward, they should call an election. Bring it to the people. See if the people want the Bill 26 type of Labour Code. Let the people decide, if they're that confident that it's the thing to do. When they mention that it's just minor and that it's nothing to serious . . . . I listened to the Minister of Labour earlier on, just before the supper hour, indicating that . . . .

An Hon. Member: Where is the minister?

B. Barisoff: I don't know where the Minister of Labour is. I think he's not paying attention to exactly what's taking place and to why we feel so strongly that Bill 26 should be hoisted. There is just absolutely no doubt in my mind that this bill should be hoisted and looked at again, maybe in the spring session of the Legislature or even later, if the economy doesn't turn. By the looks of things in the forest industry, the mining industry, agriculture -- you name it -- it seems to be getting worse rather than better.

According to a recent news release by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, this labour legislation is bad for the B.C. economy. In fact, a recent McIntyre and Mustel Research Associates poll found that the majority of British Columbians believe that the NDP labour policies have a detrimental impact on the economy. That belief is shared equally among union and non-union households. I think we should look at that from the perspective of union and non-union households. A lot of union people and non-union people know full well that what they need is a job. They don't need destructive legislation that's going to drive investment out of this province and make it so that they can't work.

Our economy is number ten in Canada and approaching double-digit unemployment; in fact, we're at double-digit unemployment for youth. I think we're at 17.2 percent, which is just unfathomable. I can't even imagine that a government that is supposedly a labour government would bring in this legislation when the economy is in the shape that it's in right now. Their agenda obviously hasn't worked to this date. Inflexible labour laws continue to be an obstacle to new investment and job creation, according to Ms. Sanatani, the chair of the coalition.

Let me quote something else that she mentions. She also states that the new sectoral bargaining provisions for the construction industry are precedent-setting because they mark the first time that mandatory industry agreements will be imposed on private sector employers. No matter how you cut it . . . . I know the Labour minister says: "Well, this is minor. This isn't really . . . . This has nothing to do with sectoral bargaining; this isn't sectoral bargaining." We're going to make everybody go by the same agreement and the same contract; it's sectoral bargaining in my eyes.

I see the minister from the north there, from Skeena, is shaking his head saying: "Well, that can't be." But it is sectoral bargaining, no matter how you cut it; that's exactly what it is.

[8:15]

She goes on to say that this special deal between government and the close union supporters should ring alarm bells with every business owner in the province. We're starting to see more and more of it. We're starting to see a reaction, and it's becoming greater and greater throughout the province. In my area in the Okanagan Valley, this has a serious detrimental effect, because we have mostly small business operators that operate in the Okanagan. It has a major effect on them. Even though this government may not believe it, it does.

But I guess by looking at the last polls in the election and seeing that the Okanagan went all Liberal, they're probably not caring about the small business that happens to be from the interior of British Columbia or even the northern part of British Columbia.

[ Page 9612 ]

The Labour minister accused the opposition of being alarmist, of suggesting the sky is falling. Well, I don't know if anyone on this side of the House has noticed, but there's been very little good news to brag about as far as the B.C. economy is concerned. In fact, people in this province are scared and angry. They simply don't understand why the NDP continues to ignore the obvious. The economy is in a mess, and this government is largely responsible for it.

The minister across the way was just mentioning the little industry that he helped in the South Okanagan. I can't help but respond to it, because what's happened there is that even it's having troubles because the economy is getting worse and worse and worse.

An Hon. Member: I don't mind your being unreasonable, but don't be irrational.

B. Barisoff: I'm not being irrational. This government is continuously going in this direction of making things happen that are driving businesses out of this province. You know, I think we all try to help. We all try to keep business there, but what's happening is that they're driving business away. We make the job commissioner help this small industry try to get on its feet. But what's happening? We're going downhill. It's sliding and sliding and sliding.

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: Bill 26 is bad tidings.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. Thank you. Yes, hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson?

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. A point of order. The cabinet ministers who are heckling the member are becoming so out of control that nobody can hear what he is saying, including yourself, I'm sure. I'd ask you to maintain decorum in the chamber, please.

Deputy Speaker: Actually, I could hear quite well, and there was a fair amount of noise on both sides, I thought. Continue, hon. member.

B. Barisoff: I will continue on, and as much as it is . . . . I don't mind some of the heckling, because some of the things that are happening over there just indicate that we do have bad government.

Just getting on to my next point on why the member for Kamloops-North Thompson proposed the hoisting of this bill, it's simply because Bill 26 . . . . It's bad timing. There is a saying that timing is everything. Well, I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that this timing could not possibly be worse. I'm saddened by the fact that the Minister of Northern Development has left the precinct for a second, because I was rather enjoying some of his comments.

The NDP is bringing in sectoral bargaining against all the advice of labour experts and all the pleas from the business community. It is unbelievable, the fact that everybody is telling this government: "Don't bring this in right now; wait. Have a look at it." The Minister of Labour says: "Well, we looked at it since last year." Bill 44 was such an outrageous bill they just simply pulled it. Bill 26 is going right along in the same direction, and you wonder why the members of this side of the House are upset?

We here are for union and non-union people and for all the people of British Columbia -- all the citizens of British Columbia. We want to see this province function in a way that everybody can have jobs. But the way this government is working, we're heading downhill faster and faster.

The business community is the engine of our economy. They asked this government last year to withdraw Bill 44. They pleaded with this government: "Do not do anything else to the labour laws that would deter job creation and investment." Well, they've done exactly that. They don't listen to what the people are saying out there. They simply just keep going. It's obvious that this government isn't listening. The economy is gasping for breath, and the Minister of Labour introduces more labour changes -- another nail in the coffin.

As the opposition leader mentioned, it's like pulling the life support from a dying person. It's unbelievable that this government continues along this path with total disregard for what is taking place in this province.

I sometimes wonder whether we shouldn't have a longer adjournment of the House so that the people from that side of the House can go out and see what's happening to the economy. They certainly couldn't be in the interior of British Columbia or the northern part of the province or the Island or anywhere where small business is suffering dearly. I got a call from a farmer today wondering what's happening. The cherry industry is collapsing around him. They ask the government . . . . There is no money. People aren't buying anything, and when that happens, it affects everybody.

The Minister of Agriculture wonders why it affects agriculture. When there is no money to spend, it affects everybody all the way down the line. The farmers in the Okanagan can't sell their fruit because people all over this province don't have money to spend.

Keith Sashaw, executive vice-president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., doesn't think it's good timing either. We go from person to person to person; everybody tells this government it's not good timing. Let me give you a quote from him. He says: "This is the worst possible thing the housing industry could take at this time. This legislation clearly demonstrates that this government doesn't have the faintest idea how the construction industry works." Well, that is a sad commentary on what is taking place in this province.

You would honestly and truly believe that the people on that side of the House would actually be spending some time looking to see what they can do: "What can we do to make the economy work?"

The Minister of Labour keeps yelling at us: "You're preaching doom and gloom." Well, it is doom and gloom.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: All we're doing is exactly that -- giving the facts. The Labour minister believes that in large part, it's perception that affects our economy. Basically, if people believe the worst, they stop spending and investing. As I just mentioned, we're already seeing that in the farming industry in the Okanagan. People are not spending; they're not buying fruit from the Okanagan. When I picked up some cherries from a friend of mine to bring down to the members on our side of the House, the farmer said to me: "We're going to be dumping fruit out of packs this year, because it's just not going.

People aren't spending money. They just don't have the money to spend." But what are we doing? We're bringing in a labour bill that's going to drive more and more people away, more and more people to Alberta -- just take them out of the province. It's a total disregard for what's taking place.

[ Page 9613 ]

To some degree, you've got to wonder what's happening. Bill 26 is an unbelievable bill. When I think of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson bringing in the hoist motion, I think to myself: "How did it get there in the first place? How did we get to this stage, where we have to actually hoist this bill?" Some common sense has to prevail. When you look around, you've got to say to yourself: "There's got to be some kind of common sense to see that this is a destructive bill for this province."

You would think that when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson made the motion to adjourn, the bill would have been left. But what happened? The members from that side of the House changed the rules; they actually changed the rules. It's their football, I guess, and they play by their rules. It's hard for me to stand up here and speak against this bill when it shouldn't even be here in the first place. The government has the ability to just say: "Who cares? It's our rules; we play by our rules." You have to wonder.

It reminds me of when I was taking my high school basketball team down to Los Angeles last year. At the end of the game, we were down by four points. They played with the ball for a minute, a minute and a half or whatever, and they came and said: "That's not fair." In Canada the rules are that you go by 30 seconds. We told them: "The rules are the rules." But this government doesn't seem to play by the rules. They lose, and they say: "We'll change the rules; we'll make something different." That's fine. Consequently the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has to bring in a hoist motion to take it off the books.

When we can all of a sudden change the rules, this is a real indication of the kind of example we're setting for the young people of this province. You wonder why we want to hoist this bill. Well, there are lots and lots of reasons. I notice that the minister is moving back to his chair so he can heckle a little bit more. I appreciate the fact that he's doing that. I kind of missed the fact that he hadn't.

The business community said: "Don't change the Labour Code. The economy is fragile. Don't do anything to shake investor confidence." Well, we've done everything to shake investor confidence. We just don't have anybody coming into the province. The minister is nodding his head: yes, yes, yes. We agree with him. I'm wondering why he would not support the hoisting of this bill when he's saying yes. He's agreeing with the fact that investor confidence has been shaken.

If it's perception he's worried about, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to fuel the fire of that perception. The minister did exactly what he was asked not to do: he proposed changes to the Labour Code, the watered-down version of Bill 44. They say they're modest changes, but it is strictly . . . . It's Bill 44. No matter how you cut it, it's Bill 44. Timing is everything. The timing couldn't be worse for the people of British Columbia. It couldn't be worse for the construction and housing industry. It couldn't be worse for the investors in the business community.

When you go out and talk to people out there, they tell you: "This is bad timing. The economy is poor." I sometimes wonder whether the members on that side of the House leave on the weekends. They must stay here; they actually must stay here. If they happened to go back to their ridings, I'm sure they would understand how the economy is affected. Timing is everything. The timing couldn't be worse for the people of British Columbia. It could not be worse no matter what you do; it just could not be worse.

"We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs" -- those are the Minister of Labour's own words. I might repeat that so that some of the members from that side of the House listen to it: "We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." Well, we don't seem to be doing that here. We don't seem to be creating a climate of stability, particularly with Bill 26; that does not create a climate of stability. Creating unbalanced investment, unfriendly legislation, is hardly going to help what takes place.

My colleague from Richmond-Center mentioned some of the stats, and I'm just going to re-mention them: B.C. capital spending for 1998 is projected to be a scant 1.3 percent, compared to 6.2 percent for the nation as a whole, 9.8 percent for Alberta, 5 percent for Ontario, 8.4 percent for Quebec, 8.1 percent for Saskatchewan and 6.3 percent for Manitoba. Hon. Speaker, it makes you wonder.

An Hon. Member: What was B.C. again?

B. Barisoff: I hate to mention it, but as my colleague from Richmond Centre indicates he wants to know, again, it's 1.3 percent for B.C. That's a crime. They say we're saying the sky is falling, but you know, all we're doing is giving the facts. We're trying to let the people know exactly what's taking place. These are the simple, ordinary facts: 1.3 percent for the province of British Columbia, when our neighbours just over the mountain in Alberta are at 9.8 percent. We wonder why people are going to Alberta. That's why. We're in a desperate situation.

[8:30]

Bill 26 is undemocratic in a lot of ways, not only because of the fact that they didn't play by the rules. It's just simply an undemocratic bill. The right of workers to join the union of their choice is already protected under the current B.C. Labour Code and the Charter of Rights. But this government over there seems to change anything they want to make it suit them.

The Minister of Labour believes that it's important that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected. So do we. However, the NDP took away the workers' rights through a secret ballot vote on unionization -- a fundamental democratic freedom. But we know that the people on that side of the House don't truly believe in democracy. We've seen it when they changed the rules of the game. They decided that the rules were going to be the way they wanted to play them. Democracy wasn't going to dictate what was going to happen.

We've had rules for hundreds of years, but no -- when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson brought the motion to adjourn, they decided that they weren't going to play by the rules any longer. The opposition doesn't have a lot of rules to play with -- a lot of things to use in their arsenal -- but that was one of them. What did they do? They changed that rule.

From my perspective, that's a disgrace. I would think that there are some members over there on that side of the House who have some integrity and will bring themselves to support my colleague's motion to hoist this bill, to put it away at least for six months, maybe longer -- maybe to bring it back at the spring sitting of the Legislature and see what happens, see how the economy is.

If they're so determined that this bill is so good for the people of British Columbia, then I would suggest that they go to the people. Go to an election, and ask the people of British Columbia about Bill 26. Put it to the people and say: "Is this what you want? Is this what the people want?" If the people of British Columbia vote the New Democrats back into power based on that . . . .

[ Page 9614 ]

An Hon. Member: They deserve it, then.

B. Barisoff: That's exactly right. Then you would know that that's what the wishes of the people are, and we would support that. But I don't think that they have the wherewithal to be honourable enough to do something like that -- to go to the people to ask them.

The NDP has taken away the rights of the workers in a secret ballot. They don't believe in full democracy. They only believe in the part of democracy that works for them. Whatever part that works for them, that's what they want to do. Bill 26 will now remove the right of employers and employees to negotiate a collective agreement that is customized to their unique circumstances. There are a lot of jobs in this province that will be directly affected by this bill. A lot of jobs won't go ahead. We get calls every day from people saying: "Listen, if this bill goes ahead, we're leaving British Columbia.

We're leaving British Columbia until this socialist government is no longer in power, and if they stay in power, we're going to leave. We're not going to spend our money here. We're not going to create the investment to create jobs." So whether it's union or non-union, there won't be jobs. As I said before, this affects the agriculture industry in the Okanagan, in the Peace River and in the Fraser Valley, because people won't have money to spend. They'll be leaving this province in droves.

One new workplace is unionized in B.C. every single day, and they're worried about adding more. They're worried about Bill 26. Over 50 percent of those businesses certified have ten employees or fewer. Access to joining the union isn't a valid reason. There's ample access to join. There's absolutely no reason for this government to bring in Bill 26. I cannot believe that the members from that side of the House would not support the hoisting of this motion.

Alberta and Ontario have a secret ballot vote on union certification. Alberta gives unionized employers the right to operate union and non-union businesses, something denied B.C.'s unionized construction companies. Why is that? Why would this government say that you can't operate? I believe that we live in a free and democratic society. But when you look at some of the things that are happening on that side of the House, you begin to wonder whether we do or not. Some of these bills, particularly Bill 26, are the start of things to come.

They say it's not sectoral bargaining, but we all know it is. It's just the thin edge of the wedge. I remember the Minister of Labour saying that people are jumping up and down, saying it's the thin edge of the wedge. Well, hon. Speaker, it is the thin edge of the wedge. It's going from one thing to the next.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

B. Barisoff: Sorry, hon. Speaker. I only got through one of my points. I'll have to carry on at a later time.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak to the motion by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson to suspend Bill 26 for six months to procure proper bilateral consultation with regards to the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. At this time, it is very evident that time is needed to germinate the novel idea of NDP consultation on aspects of the labour bill. What we in the opposition are looking for specifically is a process, theorem or construct for bilateral consultation -- an enigma, I know, to the government; a rare species that would need time to grow and be nurtured.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

In view of what we've seen, in terms of the way the health accord came down; in view of what we've seen with the education accord, which is going to come into this House in the form of Bill 39, and now with Bill 26 . . . . Suspending Bill 26 and supporting the motion from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson would in fact go a long way towards developing a model or paradigm for some kind of bilateral consultation -- something that would be very welcome in this chamber and that certainly needs to be rejuvenated, as it has starved in the last number of years of NDP government.

From many issues, we know that this government is very athletic in exercising its consultation with favourite bankrollers. We know of the umbilical cords that do exist to the big union bosses. These are well-known, and further time is not needed over these six months to hear their viewpoint, as it is in fact very well represented in Bill 26. There's no question whatsoever that that is a valid point of view. Unfortunately, this does cause a playing field that's not level.

What we need in that six months is to bring in the other point of view and have the opportunity to have that viewpoint melded with the viewpoint of the big union bosses and fractionated into something that could be used as an actual substance upon which we could develop viable labour laws. That would provide people who wish to invest the opportunity to look at B.C. and say, "That is a place I want to put my revenue, my dollars, in order to create, hopefully, some kind of profit in the future," creating the spinoff jobs for people in British Columbia at a time when we have double-digit unemployment.

There hasn't been the opportunity or circumstance for employers, who are not always pro-union . . . . Often government will be wantonly tardy in hearing the viewpoints of those groups. A six-month suspension of Bill 26 would provide a -- I wouldn't say ample -- precursor to the opportunity for consultation. Because this group creates jobs and because we so desperately need those jobs, I think that would be seen as a very, very positive and motivational force to get international as well as interprovincial investors back on course as they look at British Columbia as a place where they may wish to come.

We all know that employers want to come here for almost every reason other than the economic climate and the NDP government. These people need to be heard. They need the opportunity for government to represent . . . . They are not odious taxpayers who have the impertinence to expect that they would invest in this province and, as a result of that investment, create business opportunities. They would in fact, hopefully, make a profit in their enterprise while employing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.

Specifically at this time, we're talking about those British Columbians who work in the construction industry, an industry that brings in upwards of $17 billion to our province and is certainly a very important industry to most of the ridings that I'm aware of.

Many of these job creators have come forth in the last month, when Bill 26 hit the doors of this chamber, and said, "We don't feel that we've been heard," regardless of whether the Minister of Labour said: "That's not true; we've consulted with business." There are, for example, 26 businesses that would very much like to be heard: the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association, the B.C. Shake and Shingle Association, the Urban Development Institute, the B.C. Restaurant and Food Caterers Association, the automobile dealers, and on and on and on. These 26 members represent the Coalition of B.C. Businesses.

These alone would like more time to have the opportunity to discuss their concerns with what the minister calls "a modest change" to the Labour Code. Nevertheless, they would like more time.

[ Page 9615 ]

If the government is so sure that this is the right way to go, then what better opportunity to increase the awareness of business and the confidence of investors than by hoisting the bill for six months and offering them the bona fide opportunity to come forward and say: "These are the concerns we have at this time with this change to the labour bill." There's nothing more that could restore the confidence of all British Columbians, let alone the international market, in the government of B.C.

At this time 66 percent of British Columbians are showing displeasure, let alone those who read the Wall Street Journal and perhaps use that as the information highway for how they hear about what's going on in B.C. and whether their dollars should come here.

If Bill 26 were suspended for a period of half a year, it would provide time for economic impact . . . . As many members before me have mentioned, this is a very, very important area. As is quite common with this government in many of the things we have seen in the House this session with respect to legislation, there haven't been any economic impact studies. Because this area is so critical, what is better than spending the next six months actually looking at what impact analysis could be procured -- perhaps in favour of the government's Bill 26.

If not, use that further information to consult, to hone and refine the bill, so that we do not scare off the investor climate, regardless of where they come from.

It's known and perceived in my community, at least -- the community of big waters, Okanagan-Vernon -- that big labour has its own sort of personal water slide right into the B.C. Legislature, where it kind of lands in the Premier's lap for cuddles. It's really hard, when you have to extrapolate from that kind of model, to see how close the big labour bosses are to the government. It's very hard for those international and interprovincial investors to get around the idea of the socialism that is occurring and is being purveyed by the NDP government at this time.

What better way to get rid of that sort of metaphor and that picture that people might have of the big water slide going into the Premier's Office? If we had six months, we could perhaps -- again by sort of metaphor -- provide those members of the business community who have been unable to reach the Minister of Labour or the Premier himself or the nineteenth cabinet minister, Mr. Georgetti . . . .

They might be able to dog-paddle up to the moat around the Premier's Office and knock on the door, have the drawbridge lifted and perhaps even be let in to speak to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the present Premier of this province.

[8:45]

I think it's fair and justifiable to look at the comments, pro and con, from the pundits on both sides of the labour bill. No matter how you slice it, there are always two sides. I've kept track of a number of the comments that have been made in the press and in the media at various times over the past month, as people have had a very keen and attuned sense of interest in what is going on in this chamber with respect to the changes to the labour bill.

I guess I'd like to start off with the Minister of Labour. His comments of June 18 in the Vancouver Sun were to set the tone for what we were expected to hear and see and regurgitate when we looked at the labour bill. His scenario for us in setting the stage was that this was a small set of amendments, a small subset to the ICI sector, with no significant impact. Well, there are many pundits that I will read from who in fact don't feel that to be the case.

But surely if that were the case, there would be very, very little loss or downside to supporting the motion to hold the labour bill off for six months for further analysis and to develop an acuity for what it would really do to enterprise in British Columbia with respect to revenue generation.

The minister has also said, which I think is very important to enter into the record: "It would be a grave error for any government" -- and he does say "any government" -- "to attempt to manipulate labour laws to favour one party or another . . . . " Now that surmises that if it could be proven, by way of looking at this in a philosophical or logical debate, that in fact this will manipulate the labour laws -- perhaps in favour of employers, but perhaps in favour of employees -- then this Minister of Labour, who sits in this House, would in fact not support his own bill.

I think we need that six months to give him the opportunity to listen to those people who may not have had his ear, or if they did have his ear -- he didn't develop any RNA to take that message onto the neuro pathways. Give him that opportunity and that time to maybe generate some kind of connection between what is actually out there in the big, bad world and what exists between where he wears his glasses.

The other thing that the minister has said is that if the government does manipulate labour laws in favour of one party or the other, whenever this has happened, the result has been a disastrous deterioration of labour relations with severe economic consequences. How wonderful for the Minister of Labour to actually be able to cognitively come to that understanding.

If we can prove to him that this will have the economic consequences of further decreases in investment in the province and increases in the unemployment rate, then surely he will feel -- based on his own words as a pundit of this particular topic -- that perhaps it would be unwise for this House to proceed with Bill 26. Perhaps it would be wiser still for changes to the Labour Code not to occur at this time.

The second recognized expert on this area is Stan Lanyon. I have known Stan for many years. I knew him when he had very long hair. He probably wouldn't like me saying that in this House. But certainly he is a man of tremendous reputation and someone whose words should be listened to with great respect when we are dealing with issues of labour and labour law and amendments to the Labour Code. Mr. Lanyon says that the market will drive competitive bidding, and the unions will allow their contract to make concessions in order to win that bid.

I think what's important for us to recognize there is that although that is correct, Mr. Lanyon has not addressed, for example, the Vancouver situation. In that situation, why would workers on a residential project, for example, accept lower wages than fellow workers on a commercial project when the contractors and the employees are combining both the residential and commercial work in a single project -- especially if the mix is more than 90-10? That's what Mr. Lanyon said in the Vancouver Sun on June 19.

Another pundit, again most definitely in support of this government and its changes to the Labour Code, is Len Embree from the Provincial Council of Carpenters. He says: "This build-it-and-move-on nature of construction, combined with vicious anti-union actions by many employers, makes it extremely difficult for workers to choose a union . . . [and] achieve a collective agreement before the job finishes."

In this House we are often asked, as MLAs, to look into situations that our backgrounds really do not give us immediate information on. I've taken great interest in this area. It's an area that's very foreign to me. I don't have a background in labour. I have belonged to a union and certainly worked as a union member for a significant portion of my career. However, that was just all part of life. So looking into labour

[ Page 9616 ]

laws and the situations of those who are unionized and non-unionized has been very interesting for me and very important. I take the concerns of Mr. Embree very seriously. However, the thing that I found very confusing and concerning was that I had to balance that against other people from the other side who said that one of the reasons . . . . Well, first of all, in other areas there really wasn't the spirit of vicious anti-union action.

Again, we have to look at that vicious anti-union action that has been balanced by vicious union action in this province. Really, when you are looking at both sides of a picture -- in the area of construction especially -- you have to look at how we got there. I think it's very important to recognize that many of the results of one side are from the results and the actions of the other. In the construction industry we have a number of what I think are quite archaic circumstances for the twentieth -- or certainly for twenty-first -- century kinds of workplaces.

Bringing in Bill 26 will, in fact, cement archaic things that do create that incredible hostile response on both sides of the fence -- employees to employers and vice versa. I think we need to recognize that Bill 26 does nothing to address that.

Building unions often have difficulty when they're in a circumstance with inflexible demands for wages and benefits and work jurisdictions that render the businesses unable to compete. It's no wonder that employers often bring their long-term . . . . Even their long-term employees often do not want the standard agreement that they are obliged to accept when the employer comes onto the scene in this kind of circumstance. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses, in the Vancouver Sun on June 18, has said: "If the building unions were as willing, as other unions are, to negotiate [tailored agreements] . . . they would not need the government's help."

I see a problem here, brought forward by Mr. Embree and on the other side by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, which seems more systemic to me. I don't think it will be solved by this Labour Code amendment -- that is, Bill 26. I think it has a lot to do with the archaic circumstances that exist in the construction industry and how they operate along craft lines. Until we look in that area, we are not going to solve the problem. What I often find in non-union shops . . . .

In my own area, for example, I go into value-added wood industries in the Okanagan and say to those individuals who have non-union employees: "Do you pay union wages?" They often say: "We pay much better than union wages. These are skilled jobs; we want skilled people. Minimum wage is not a question here."

I think what we're looking at here is trying to drag an archaic model into the workplace of the nineties. Unfortunately, it's like having a size 9 foot and a size 7 shoe. It doesn't fit; it hurts. Bill 26 will do nothing to ameliorate the pain that comes with something that just doesn't fit the way that the Canadian economy, and specifically the British Columbia economy, is going.

Another pundit in support of Bill 26 is the CLRA, the Construction Labour Relations Association, which represents 300 companies. They say that Bill 26 is a building block to bring stability to the unionized component of the construction industry and to make it more viable in the long term. That was said in the Times Colonist on June 18.

More disturbing to me were Mr. Georgetti's comments. I'm very concerned when I see comments such as those at the December 1997 B.C. Federation of Labour convention. The gentleman who this Premier has said is his nineteenth cabinet minister says: "The labour movement will make the business community pay heavily for their anti-worker attitude. You can count on it. There is no democracy in the dictatorship called the workplace."

Please, this is not what I see in many, many places that I go. My community is fuelled on small businesses. It is not what I see in those communities. If this is something that is occurring, then we need to do all the things we can to improve that, but retribution and Cro-Magnonism and this kind of threatening language and attitude from someone who sits in this government as the nineteenth cabinet minister is absolutely unconscionable to me.

I personally feel that if there was nothing else about Bill 26 that I didn't like, I would probably reject it on this comment alone, based on the fact that I know that that water slide goes from Ken Georgetti's house right onto the Premier's lap. If that is where he's coming from with respect to this bill, then this bill is up to no good.

An Hon. Member: You had Phil Hochstein.

A. Sanders: The member for Skeena has mentioned Phil Hochstein. Quite frankly, I don't know Phil Hochstein; I have never met the gentleman. I have read some of his things. I think that he does have a comment in here, in addition to the comments which I've started with, which were by Mr. Stan Lanyon, Mr. Georgetti, the Minister of Labour and many other people.

The heckling is fine, but what I'm really looking for is a solution-oriented approach, not a bunch of nattering from the back bench.

I'm looking for what we can do here to improve the situation for all people in the province, so that people who are working have jobs, so that employers actually make a profit, so that people in my riding no longer have the largest single employer being the welfare system, and so that the person who ran against me in the last election as the NDP candidate doesn't have to go down to Montana for six months of the year to work and earn a living in the construction industry and live for four to six months in the Okanagan. That's wrong.

If he doesn't figure it out and if this government doesn't figure it out -- and he's run for this party that put him out of a job and sent him to Butte, Montana, so that he could pound nails -- then we've got a problem in this province.

Other comments came forward from the other side of the fence, from the pundits who certainly don't feel that they've been heard. There was an

article that I read. It was an executive

summary on "Looking to the Future," which was, again, a critique on labour by Stan Lanyon and Stephen Kelleher. It recommended a much more restricted version of sectoral bargaining than we saw in Bill 44, which has resulted in the construction of Bill 26. The interesting thing in that critique -- the quote from the critique on "Looking into the Future" by the Russell and DuMoulin law firm -- was that Bill 26 was bringing in a reduced form of sectoral bargaining.

All the members of cabinet and certainly the backbenchers have spent a number of days trying to convince the members on this side of the House that what they were bringing in wasn't sectoral bargaining. Yet the law firm, which is very precise in the language they use -- and I don't think there is any profession more precise, because of the implications of imprecise language to those who practise law -- said that this was a restricted form of sectoral bargaining. Nevertheless, that is exactly the phraseology that they have used -- this is sectoral bargaining.

[9:00]

[ Page 9617 ]

They say that one aspect of this sectoral bargaining that will be criticized is this: if a non-union contractor working on an ICI job is unionized by a craft union, then the contractor would be automatically bound by the CLRA master agreement. The right to move to a different agreement is removed. So again, in their analysis and critique of March 1998, the Russell and DuMoulin law firm is saying that its impression, as legal pundits and people who certainly study and are paid well for looking at labour law, is that Bill 26 is smaller than Bill 44 but most certainly is sectoral bargaining in a smaller form.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: I'll provide the

summary for the hon. member. I'd be very appreciative of his comments. I'm interested that he disagrees, and I know he has tremendous interest and certainly experience in the area of labour. I don't believe he has a law background, but I'd be very interested in his reading of the material and his coaching of me if that is in fact a different case. I do read, and that is what I read in the critique.

The Urban Development Institute . . . . Maureen Enser is, I believe, the CEO there. She says the decision on whether mixed-use projects will be part of the ICI sector will be left to the LRB, which has lost the support of the business community because of its bias towards unions. If we have a change in the labour law and we have a functional LRB, then it may not actually matter that the change in the labour law is a bit tipped one way or the other. When people in any part of the community lose faith in the LRB, then we have a serious problem.

In the Vancouver Sun of June 20, that was what the Urban Development Institute said. The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, ICBA, on June 18 said: "[Bill 26] introduces for the first time sectoral bargaining into the private sector, and it's starting with the construction industry." The Business Council of B.C., on June 18 in the Vancouver Sun , said: "People look at labour law when they make investment decisions and this just has another negative impact. People conclude that B.C. is a difficult jurisdiction to do business in.

It's as simple as that." Bill 26 has created many uncertainties, something the Labour Minister has already told us in fact does create a negative climate for investment -- just the aspect of uncertainty. Vancouver is leaning towards mixed-use construction projects, where only a portion of the project is ICI and the balance is residential. Bill 26 does not determine whether such a project falls under ICI rules and will have to be battled out case by case before the LRB or the labour board staff. Again, we've got a significant problem here.

If people don't trust the Labour Relations Board, it's like going to church and not trusting your minister. It's something that will shake the foundation of the faithful who go. So either we've got to improve what's going on in the LRB, or we've got to hoist this bill for six months and give it time to mature and season and give people the opportunity to come forward and be heard.

The executive of the Canadian Home Builders Association . . . . This is a group that I especially listen to, and I listen to them not because they represent anyone specific in my life but because my riding is one of those areas where people come to retire. The really wonderful thing for Vernon is that people from the lower mainland come to retire. Because they come from the lower mainland and sell their homes and move to the interior, they often have quite a considerable amount of disposable income that they want to put into my riding. Usually what they want to put it into is in the form of a retirement home.

Despite the fact that these individuals may not be at the beginning of their lives but in the good part of their lives, they will be coming to Vernon to build new homes. I am often very interested in what the Canadian Home Builders Association has to say, because they affect a large