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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 5

[ Page 9149 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am pleased to be able to ask the House to welcome a very close friend of mine from India who is a very senior journalist in Chandigarh, which is the capital of Punjab. Herkawaljit Singh is here in the gallery with his spouse Amarjit Kaur and their beautiful young daughter Harleen Kaur Singh, who I love very much. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for New Westminster.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker . . . ?

The Speaker: Oh, just a moment. The Attorney General hasn't finished yet.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think I would not be allowed into my home tonight . . . . [Laughter.]

It's one of those rare occasions -- one of three or four occasions -- that my wife Raminder has been here. Without her, I wouldn't be here today doing what I'm doing. I want to make sure she knows that I want the House to join me in welcoming her here.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Theresa McManus, who is a reporter with the Royal City Record in New Westminster. The Record is one of my hometown newspapers. Theresa is here for the day to see what New Westminster's MLA does over here in the Legislature. I'd ask all members to join me in making her welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today are two good friends from the wonderful community of Savona. They are Bernice and George Craggy, noted as being the sister and brother-in-law of a very important and very special person in Prince George, Mr. Fred Bagg. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a friend and constituent, Judy Carey, and her nephew Robert Jackman. Robert is a student at Semiahmoo Secondary School in White Rock. He is here to listen to question period because he's very interested in politics, and he wants to see how ministers answer the questions that we ask them.

I would also like to introduce to the House another constituent of mine, Steve Oakley, who I met with this morning. I ask the House to please make them all welcome.

K. Whittred: With the 1998 legislative internship program coming to an end, I'd like to recognize the work of the four interns who worked with the official opposition: Elizabeth Harrington, Kristin Patten, Brad Smith and Cynthia Yoo. These four bright individuals have been a tremendous help to us. We thank them for their assistance and enthusiasm, and we wish them the best of luck in the future. I ask that everyone join me in congratulating them on a job well done.

J. Smallwood: I have two introductions to make today. The first guest in the gallery is Graham Steel, who has travelled from coast to coast to be with us in Victoria. Graham is the NDP caucus research director for the newly elected official opposition in Nova Scotia. He is here getting tips on how to form the government caucus . . .

Interjections.

J. Smallwood: It's not practice to heckle during introductions.

. . . as they all anticipate forming the government in the next election. I'd like the House to make Graham welcome.

My second introduction is to welcome 55 adult ESL students. We can see them around the gallery today. Most members . . . . I think we need to take a moment and acknowledge the new faces in Surrey. Surrey is a changing community, and this ESL class is reflective of the welcoming that our community has for a very diverse group. It would seem that we have representation from just about every nation in the world. Joining the adult ESL students is my good friend Ms. Andrea Eaton. I would like the House to make them all very welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: It's an odd contradiction, but in the last ten years the person who has come closest to defeating me in an election is actually a New Democrat. I would like to say to Wayne Peppard, who is here visiting us, that it warms the cockles of my heart that we might both work here at the same time. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I too would like to join the member for Surrey-Whalley in welcoming the ESL students. I'll just say that in Punjabi. [Punjabi spoken.]

B. Penner: It is my pleasure today to introduce Mrs. Myrna Bennett, who is visiting us from the riding of Vancouver-Quilchena. I got to know Mrs. Bennett after becoming good friends with her daughter Jennifer, who I met a number of years ago in Bangkok, Thailand. Would the House please make Myrna welcome.

P. Calendino: I'd like to join my colleagues the member for Surrey-Whalley and the member for Yale-Lillooet in welcoming the ESL students in two other languages. Vorrei chiedere alla camera di dare un caloroso benvenuto agli studenti di lingua inglese in visita a questo parlamento e spero che avranno una buona esperienza. Y ahora en español por todos los estudiantes de lingua española que estudian el inglés me gustaria pedir a todos los deputados de dar un muy caliente "bienvenido" a todos esos estudiantes. Bienvenidos.

Hon. J. Kwan: Following the tradition of the House in welcoming the ESL students, I'll welcome them in my mother tongue, the Chinese language. [Thank you all for coming to attend the B.C. Legislature today. Thank you.]

[Translation provided by J. Kwan.]

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

Interjections.

[ Page 9150 ]

M. Sihota: Don't worry, I won't speak Punjabi. For those of you who could follow my Punjabi, you'll be able to understand what I have to say in any event. I do want to extend a welcome to the people from Surrey as well.

[2:15]

Also, not here with us today due to suffering from a bout of pneumonia is the member for Delta South. I'm sure that all members would like to wish him well, since he's observing the proceedings today on television. Since this now gives me the opportunity to chair the Public Accounts Committee, I'm sure it's a meeting he will regret missing. Will all members please extend their warm wishes to him.

Introduction of Bills

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. C. McGregor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environment Management Amendment Act, 1998.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon Speaker, these amendments to the Environment Management Act will ensure better environmental stewardship of a wide range of products and packaging, through greater industry responsibility and accountability. This legislation confirms and builds on B.C.'s past and ongoing success with industry stewardship and enables us to further encourage this approach to environmental protection.

Stewardship agencies provide industry, consumers, communities and the public with the opportunity to have an enhanced role in the protection of the environment. These groups and people are active participants in managing stewardship initiatives. These amendments provide them with the authorities to take responsibility for environmental stewardship.

Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 40 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL TRUSTEES AND

EDUCATION AGREEMENT-IN-COMMITTEE

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, every three years British Columbians elect school trustees. Those trustees are elected by their neighbours to administer public education, to hire teachers, principals and others and to negotiate contracts with their employees. For the last six months, this NDP government has conspired to cut school boards out of one of the very processes they were elected to undertake: the negotiation of contracts with their employees.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The question has not been put yet.

M. de Jong: As he prepares to table legislation dictating the terms of a settlement he has concocted with the BCTF, my question to the minister is: would he explain to British Columbians why they should even bother electing school trustees and school boards, after he's demonstrated his willingness to yank the jurisdictional rug out from under their feet?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think that this House has followed closely the negotiations with the teachers of the province and the school trustees over the last few months. One part of the member's statement is accurate, and that is that trustees were involved in negotiations with the BCTF for some months. In fact, ever since the first provincial agreement was signed in 1996, they've been preparing for the second round of bargaining and then engaged in it, starting when school commenced last fall.

Regrettably, those negotiations went nowhere, and indeed in February, government first facilitated discussions between the BCTF and the trustees. When that did not work, government stepped in directly to strike a deal which will enhance education in our classrooms, put 1,200 more teachers into schools to help kids learn better, and improve education for our children.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: What he stepped in with was a slush fund -- $150 million that he wouldn't make available to the school trustees whose job it is to negotiate this contract in the first place. That's what he did.

Why doesn't the minister tell us what he's really thinking? That's all we want to ask him today. Why doesn't he tell us that he thinks he's smarter than all of the hundreds of school trustees who are trying to manage public education in this province in the face of his government's woeful mismanagement? They're trying to manage it in their communities. Why doesn't he just stand up and say to those school trustees whom British Columbians have elected that he doesn't care what they think, because he knows best?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will be pleased to tell the member and the chamber what I'm thinking. I'm thinking that the teachers of this province have done a service for the children that they serve by agreeing to put their wage demands on hold for two years so that we can enhance education in the classroom. I'm thinking that any opposition that actually supported public education would be applauding an initiative to reduce class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 and to get kids better attention. And I'm thinking that this government is committed to seeing those resources start to flow into our classrooms this fall. We'll be taking action, whatever it may be, to ensure that.

FOREST SERVICE RECREATION CAMPSITES

G. Abbott: Just three months ago this government announced 1,500 new campsites as the centrepiece for this year's budget. At the same time that this government is bragging about creating 1,500 new campsites, we've learned that the NDP will shortly be announcing the closing of a majority of the 1,400 existing Ministry of Forests recreation campsites. I want to ask the Minister of Environment, notwithstanding her promise about 1,500 new campsites: will she admit today that her government is poised to close 800 recreation campsites in the province of British Columbia?

[ Page 9151 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: While I can't speak for my colleague the Minister of Forests, I can speak to this government's commitment to park creation and the opportunity to increase access to campsites for British Columbians all across our province, in many parts of the province. We announced, as the member knows, that 1,500 new campsites will be created in British Columbia over the next two years -- 500 in this calendar year and a thousand in the next calendar year. I'd certainly be happy to offer the member opposite a briefing with my staff so he'll be aware of where those campsites will be created.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: Only an NDP government would make 1,500 campsites the centrepiece of a budget and then turn around and abandon 1,400 others. Who else could possibly do that? This government would like us to think that British Columbians, when they go camping this year, are going to have more campsites to choose from. The fact is that there's going to be fewer. In fact, when this government announced their 1,500 new campsites, they said it would be an impetus to the commitment to youth, environmental protection and job creation. Will the Minister of Environment explain how closing 800 recreation campsites will create jobs and protect the environment?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm proud of this government and the legacy we've created in park creation since being elected in 1991. It is this government that made the commitment to double the parks in the province of British Columbia. It is this government that made a commitment to protect the biodiversity of our province. It is this government that made a commitment to extend the opportunity for recreation through provincial campsites with the addition of 1,500. In fact, we have more than 2.7 million visitors annually to our B.C. parks.

The member opposite . . .

The Speaker: Minister, wind up.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . . spoke also to the matter of youth. We do indeed, in this ministry, take that matter seriously, as well, through the efforts we're making in environmental youth teams and the employment opportunities we're providing for young people . . .

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

Hon. C. McGregor: . . . who would otherwise not have those opportunities.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: If I am asked any subsequent questions, hon. Speaker, I can expand.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: The two things that this government specializes in are hypocrisy and doubletalk. We know that this government could find $168,000 for a jobs accord advocate. We know that they could find close to a million dollars for the accord advocate's office. We know they could find $2.2 million to force the unionization of silviculture workers in this province. When is this government going to wake up and realize it has to live up to its existing responsibilities to the people of British Columbia?

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but I didn't hear the minister to whom your question was addressed.

G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, I'd be delighted if any of them could answer this question. But let the Minister of Environment try.

Hon. C. McGregor: Our record in park creation and the maintenance of biodiversity in this province is, bar none, the best in North America. There is no government in British Columbia that has lived up more to the commitments that we in this ministry have made to British Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

C. Clark: The Minister of Environment promised that she would create 1,500 new campsites in British Columbia. The Minister of Forests is shutting down 700 campsites. I have a math question for the minister. If there are 1,500 new ones being created and 700 old ones being shut down, how many new campsites need to be created to meet the government's target? Is she considering maybe a campsite jobs accord, a campsite advocate? Or has the promise that they made been misinterpreted: it's really just a target, and they never said they were going to create the campsites?

Will she just admit that this campsite promise is another promise that's going to evaporate, just like every other NDP promise has evaporated in the last year?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd be very happy to offer the member opposite a complete list of all 500 that are scheduled for this year and the other parks that are being considered for year 2.

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

C. Clark: The list that I would like from this minister is the list of campsites that they are going to be closing this year. The fact is that there are going to be fewer campsites this year than there were last year, despite the government's promises. Summer holidays start at the end of the week. There will be hundreds of British Columbia families and tourists getting in their cars and travelling down the road to find that at the end of the road, there isn't a campsite left to go to. When was the minister and when was this government planning to let British Columbians know that they are shutting down half of the forest recreation sites in British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I mentioned earlier, there are more than 645 provincial parks in British Columbia, many of which are on the campground reservation system. I would urge the member opposite, if she doesn't have a place to stay, to give them a call.

Interjections.

[ Page 9152 ]

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Question period isn't over yet, and someone would like to ask a question.

R. Thorpe: The sad truth is that the NDP cannot manage a thing in this province, including the parks. We know that the minister responsible, the Minister of Environment, has seen a decrease of 1.4 million visits to parks in the last three years.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism. What explanation does he have for this decrease . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[2:30]

R. Thorpe: . . . and what impact will the closure of 800 forest recreation campsites have on tourism in British Columbia this year?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm tempted to say that nobody talks that way to the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

Hon. I. Waddell: But I don't know what the consequences would be.

Let me instead answer the member's question. You know, tourism is up in British Columbia, and the member should know that -- mainly through the efforts of Tourism B.C., which the member applauded in the estimates, and also through the efforts of all the small business people, whom I salute. They're the people that create jobs in British Columbia, and they're working hard. Tourism is up in British Columbia due to a number of reasons, but mainly because people can come and enjoy our cultural institutions and our great parks. The Minister of Environment just pointed out that we've created more than almost any other jurisdiction in North America.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: Tomorrow is the last day of school and the beginning of the camping season for thousands of British Columbia families. Today families don't know whether or not they will be able to use those recreational campsites on the Canada Day weekend. Will the minister commit to the families of British Columbia today that those parks will remain open all summer?

Hon. I. Waddell: To answer the question, I want to make as many parks as possible open to people in British Columbia, so that the average family as well as the tourists that come into this province can have a good time in Super, Natural British Columbia -- which we all love. But that's in other ministers' portfolios, and they have to make the proper announcement.

But I'll say this to the member: constantly during my estimates the member advocated spending more money, more money, more money. Then they get up in question period, and they say: "Balance the budget, balance the budget." The opposition's got to be consistent.

The opposition shouldn't mislead those families and campers in British Columbia. We are trying to do our best, within the financial limitations, to provide the best services for people in British Columbia, and that includes those families.

Petitions

B. McKinnon: I have a petition from 183 constituents of mine, regarding Bill 26.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Lovick: I have the honour to present the B.C. Treaty Commission annual report for 1998, along with the financial statements.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 26. In Committee A, I'm pleased to call Committee of Supply; for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading continued)

G. Bowbrick: This afternoon I'd like to address this bill in a few ways. What I'd like to do is offer some historical context for labour relations leading up to this bill in this province -- some present-day context as well as the very reason why this bill is necessary, in my view.

The starting point for modern industrial relations in North America was in 1935, when the U.S. Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, which is also known as the Wagner Act. For the first time in North America, the law explicitly recognized the right of employees to belong to the trade union of their choice. Secondly, it recognized the right of workers to participate in the process of collective bargaining. The rationale for this was quite interesting. I've done some reading, and what I've come across is part of the

preamble to that act. It states this:

"Experience has proven that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce . . . and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.

That was 1935. It wasn't a radical socialist government; it was the New Deal government of FDR. It's very important, I think, to emphasize this again. What is recognized as important in the declaration

section of that act was this: the right of workers to organize in unions of their choice and to engage in collective bargaining. It recognized that this was good for the economy. "It promotes the free flow of commerce."

We followed suit in Canada sometime after the Wagner Act in the United States. In Ontario in 1943 we had the first

[ Page 9153 ]

modern-day labour relations statute. That was followed by regulations under the federal War Measures Act in this country in 1944. By 1948, virtually all provinces in Canada had adopted modern industrial relations statutes. I would venture to say that it has led to a flourishing of enterprise in this country and on this continent. Indeed, in recent years we have had relative labour stability in this province.

Now, what we're trying to do with Bill 26 is ensure that those two basic principles first enunciated in the Wagner Act are applied to construction workers in British Columbia. That's all this is about. When it comes to these two basic and, I would venture to say, almost universally accepted principles, there is a problem in the construction industry in British Columbia. A worker may choose to be a member of a union in the construction industry, but in the vast majority of cases he or she never gets to engage in collective bargaining leading to a contract.

The problem is that negotiating that first agreement often takes longer in the construction sector than it takes to complete the actual project. When the project is completed, the employer-employee relationship ends, and thus there is no contract reached. Thus union membership in that sector often has no meaningful outcome in the overwhelming majority of cases, because workers are unable to effectively exercise their collective bargaining rights. No other workers in British Columbia face this problem. The construction industry is unique, and that's why this bill only addresses the construction industry.

The bottom line is that there is inequality in this province. In effect, construction workers do not have the same rights as other workers in British Columbia. They may have them in theory under the Labour Code, but in effect they do not.

Workers in British Columbia have been raising these concerns for some time. I've heard these concerns raised by constituents. Just yesterday I met with a plumber who lives in my riding. He's just a regular guy. He lives on Dublin Street in New Westminster, a few blocks from where I live on Dublin Street. He wants what I'm sure all of us in this chamber want: to provide for our families, pay for our mortgages and live a decent life. He wants one other thing. He wants the same rights as other workers in other sectors of the economy in British Columbia.

I've spoken to other constituents like him, and as their representative, I think they make a compelling case. So do my colleagues on the government side of the House.

We didn't just concoct this bill after hearing their concerns. Last year we struck the construction industry review panel. It was charged with reviewing collective bargaining in the construction industry and making recommendations. They made a fundamentally important finding: the construction industry is unique, and it requires separate labour relations legislation to take that uniqueness into account.

There's something else that I came across in my readings, before making my remarks here today, which I think is worth reading:

"An analysis of the nature of the construction industry shows that it differs from other industries in certain basic respects and that these differences in large part account for its special labour relations patterns and problems. Accordingly, if there was any approach to unanimity in the views submitted to the commission, it was on the proposition that legislation of general application . . . is not appropriate to the requirements of the construction industry.

"An examination of the Labour Relations Act and its operation confirms the allegations that in some of its main provisions and their administration, it is not appropriate to the construction industry. Like corresponding legislation in other provinces, it was formulated against the background of operations in manufacturing, mining and transportation rather than construction. Accordingly, for its more effective operation in the construction industry, the act must take cognizance of the particular needs of this industry by special or exceptional provisions, but these need not form part of a new and separate construction labour code.

"The bargaining unit envisaged by the act is a group of regularly employed persons engaged by a single employer and working at a particular location throughout the year. Construction employment does not fit this picture. It has no stability. The worker moves from job to job and from employer to employer. The duration of his employment may range from a few days to a number of months, depending upon the size of the project.

[2:45]

" . . . certification under the Labour Relations Act appears to envisage a single employer-single location unit. In the construction industry this means certification for the particular projects. However, the nature of construction employment being as described, project certification proceedings may prove futile because the time consumed in processing the application may be equal to or even exceed the duration of the phase of construction affected by the application.

"Area certification, recognizing that employees of an employer move from project to project in the area, overcomes some of the problems posed by certification for a particular project. I recommend that area certification should be the general rule and that the board should restrict project certification to long-range projects of a special nature and that this policy should be set out in the legislative provisions relating to the construction industry."

Now, hon. Speaker, where is this quote from? Is it from the panel that we struck last year? It's not. It is from the report of the Ontario Royal Commission on Labour-Management Relations in the Construction Industry, also referred to as the Goldenberg Commission. What year was that quote from? It was 1962 -- 36 years ago. Before I was born, these kinds of changes were contemplated by a royal commission in Ontario. That same year the Ontario government of the day implemented the changes recommended in that royal commission. Isn't that amazing?

Here we are in 1998, debating this kind of change, with the opposition behaving as if this is the end of the world. The fact is that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada that doesn't have specialized labour legislation pertaining to the construction industry. I've got a list of provinces that have -- well, every other province . . . . Provinces that have similar models to British Columbia include Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. We're the only ones who don't have it.

Now I hear from the opposition: what about the secret ballot? Well, I've got something else here which I think the opposition would find interesting, because I suggest it's a facile argument that they offer. What we have in Canada is a majority of governments that do not use the secret ballot in their labour relations legislation. British Columbia is not unique. I'll list the provinces: New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia -- and the federal Liberals. The federal Liberal government doesn't use a secret ballot in its labour legislation.

I would suggest that what the opposition might want to do is cross-reference the two lists that I just outlined. What they will find, I think, is that there are other jurisdictions in this country that have similar provisions relating to the construction industry and also don't have a secret ballot. This is not unique in Canada; it's not the end of the world. It's happened in other jurisdictions for some time. In the case of Ontario leading the way, they don't have the secret ballot, but

[ Page 9154 ]

they have special provisions dealing with the construction industry -- just like these ones that were brought in 36 years ago. Let's do a little catching up here.

I'm not going to get into more of the details of Bill 26. My colleagues have done this. I know that the minister will get into more details at committee stage. Suffice it to say, there are three things that I'd like to point out very quickly. The first is that industrial, commercial and institutional construction is covered by this act, not residential. Second, this legislation brings us into step with other provinces right across this country.

Third -- I think this is very important, and I wish somebody on the other side would address it -- this gives construction workers in British Columbia equal rights with every other worker in this province. Every other worker has the right to make a choice to join a union, and then they also have the right to have an effective collective bargaining process that can lead to a first collective agreement. That's everyone in every other sector except this one, and I think there's an issue of equality here.

In closing, I have a few comments about the nature of this debate. I spent some time last night reading through the Hansard transcripts of this debate, and I have to say that I've been disappointed.

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: I'm a bit of a masochist, staying up late, reading what the opposition has to say on this bill.

I know that there are other opposition members who have yet to speak, and I'd like to ask them to do this: try focusing debate on this bill -- not on the economy, not on everywhere else in the country. Try focusing on this bill. Talking about anything but the bill -- which is what I've heard too much of from the opposition -- portrays a lack of depth, in my view. All the members have to do is read the bill and respond to it, not avoid addressing the bill. If they avoid addressing the bill, it suggests to me that they can't find much substantively wrong with it.

I don't want to appear naïve. The truth is that the Liberal opposition wanted a war on this bill. They needed an issue. I think everyone who reads this Hansard should understand that. They're desperate for an issue; they're desperate for a confrontation; they accuse us of confrontation in this province. Here they are, desperately grasping at a labour bill which will bring us into line with every other province in the country and will ensure that all workers in this province have equal rights.

I think that all of our constituents and this House deserve better than the talking points which are continually thrown at us by the opposition members. I ask the opposition members to go and do some reading of their own to try to understand this industry and then to come back and have an informed debate -- not this ridiculous rhetoric. Do you know what I've heard in this House during this debate, hon. Speaker? I've heard terms like neosocialist. I've heard the term neo-Stalinist thrown at us. Now, I want to go back a little bit to the fact . . . .

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: I hear "pinko Commie" coming from the member for North Vancouver-Seymour now. I'm sorry he won't take my advice, but we all deserve -- and our constituents and British Columbians -- better than that level of rhetoric. I mean, come on! I began my remarks today by pointing out that modern industrial relations are rooted in something called the Wagner Act brought in by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Was he a neo-Stalinist? What absurd, ridiculous rhetoric! It does not serve the cause of promoting informed debate in British Columbia.

I've avoided engaging in such debate. I don't label the members opposite; I don't call them names. I don't say the equivalent of neo-Stalinist or neosocialist or that kind of nonsense. The members opposite have attacked unions. They use terms like "big union bosses," and that's a kind of nonsense. One thing I haven't done in my remarks is attack business. I don't think that's useful. I'm trying not to be confrontational. I'm asking the members opposite to extend the same courtesy.

Having said that, it's been a pleasure to speak on this, this afternoon. I simply challenge the opposition to perhaps be more thoughtful in their comments. If they disagree with me, I challenge them to dispute what I have said. That's fair enough. Let's have that kind of fair and honest debate.

In

summary, I see this as being about two basic rights for workers in the construction industry. We've recognized for 50 or 60 years now on this continent the right to belong to a union and the right to engage in collective bargaining that actually has an end result, and that means effective collective bargaining. This is nothing new; it's nothing radical. The construction industry is unique and therefore requires labour legislation that recognizes this uniqueness. It was acknowledged 36 years ago in Ontario. Every other province in the country has recognized that. It's time for British Columbia to catch up.

This is a matter of substantive, effective equality for all British Columbia workers and their rights under the code, and that's why I support Bill 26. I certainly look forward to the remarks of the members on my side and the members opposite in the nature of an informed debate.

E. Gillespie: I take great pleasure today in rising to support Bill 26, a bill which will give access to meaningful collective bargaining for workers in industrial, commercial and institutional construction -- members who choose to join a craft union. Over the last couple of days, we've heard an hysterical attack about the loss of rights of employers and damage to our economy -- debate in which we've heard from the opposition some of the most vitriolic attacks on working people and on organized labour in this province.

What we've heard little about from members of the opposition is the actual substance of Bill 26, so let's talk a bit about that bill. This bill will bring labour relations certainty and stability to the craft-organized portions of industrial, commercial and institutional construction. This legislation incorporates the recommendations of Stan Lanyon and Stephen Kelleher, both experienced arbitrators and former chairs of the Labour Relations Board, and it's supported by the majority of contractors and unions affected.

The changes protect the right of workers in construction to choose between non-union, craft union or industrial union models. These changes will maintain competition and competitive prices in industrial, commercial and institutional construction and will not affect bargaining relations in areas such as residential construction or roadbuilding. The B.C. government's 1993 Labour Code changes helped to create the most stable labour relations climate in decades. This bill brings the construction industry into this modern legislative framework. With this bill, British Columbia becomes the last province in Canada to adopt specific labour legislation for construction.

It's been my experience in this House over the past couple of years to witness the consistent attacks of the opposi-

[ Page 9155 ]

tion on working people, particularly on organized labour in British Columbia. The debate over Bill 14, the occupational health and safety bill, clearly defined a fundamental cleavage in points of view between government and the opposition. This government believes that both working people and employers have a responsibility to ensure a safe working environment, and that working together in health and safety committees is the best way to accomplish this end.

The opposition would have us leave health and safety to the goodwill of employers and have us deal with workplace injuries and fatalities as a result, rather than take a preventive approach. The anti-worker, anti-union sentiment expressed in the debate on Bill 14, and now on Bill 26, serves to divide the people of British Columbia even more, at a time when the cooperation of capital and labour is required to stimulate and stabilize the provincial economy.

This government committed, in its budget address, to help business create jobs by reducing taxes and cutting red tape. That has been and is being done. Taxes on small business are down; the baseline for payment of the corporate capital tax is moving up. We're witnessing single-window opportunities for permitting in the mining sector and in the oil and gas sector. And now for the balance: an addition to the Labour Code that includes the special circumstances of the construction industry, an inclusion which has been seen to be necessary for over 11 years. What was the response to this long-awaited legislation?

The opposition voted against first reading -- their first opportunity to see the bill in its final form. They didn't even want to hear it.

Now let's look at the response to another controversial bill, the bill on pension rights for gay spouses. The member for Richmond-Steveston said this: "Well, I think it's important that you look at a bill -- frankly, to make sure that that's in fact what it's about. I'm intending to look at this bill and, you know, decide what I think the principles are and then make up my mind." Hon. Speaker, I submit that that's a very reasoned response on first hearing of a bill. Perhaps that courtesy might also have been extended to Bill 26.

[3:00]

Let's take a look at what happens in other provinces. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland all have a model for the construction industry. They have a labour relations model for the construction industry, which includes an industry-standard collective agreement. Accreditation models are usually established by sectors -- for example, ICI, roadbuilding, pipeline or residential -- along geographic lines and by crafts or trades. Specific requirements for obtaining exclusive bargaining authority varies by province.

In this province, we are bringing in legislation to address the specific situation that the construction industry is in, in this province.

A little look at the history behind this bill . . . . As I said, for over 11 years there has been seen to be a need for bringing in an amendment that included the construction industry. In 1987, after conducting public hearings, the then Minister of Labour, Lyall Hanson, stated that the unique problems of the construction industry should be referred to an industrial inquiry commission. In 1992 a committee of special advisers was appointed to make recommendations on changes to the Labour Relations Code, including a separate legislative provision for collective bargaining in construction.

In 1995 the Minister of Labour appointed a two-person construction industry review panel to review that industry in particular. That legislation came forward last year in Bill 44 and was withdrawn in order to clarify the interests of the construction industry. The final report of the construction industry review panel of February 1998 rejected the sectoral bargaining and proposed a more limited and flexible approach. This is exactly what is coming forward in Bill 26.

Construction is a complex and unique industry, as the member for New Westminster has already remarked on today. It's an industry with a labour relations environment that needs unique solutions. Two of the dominant features of the construction industry are its project nature and the specialized competitive framework within which it operates. For the individual worker, the project nature means that they usually have a short involvement in any particular project and that they work for a number of employers over a short period of time. Construction workers must be very flexible and mobile to maintain full-time work.

A typical project requires an array of skilled workers who may be active on the project for only a short duration. The construction contractor must quickly adapt to new materials and techniques in order to remain competitive. This industry changes quickly, unlike many sectors where large capital investments and the weight of past practices may slow the introduction of change.

No two construction projects will be exactly alike. Every project is as unique as the location, the materials utilized and the design required. This makes the construction industry highly competitive and subject to constant change. Although there are a few large general contractors in the industry, most contractors are small and highly specialized. Many contractors may be dormant for long periods of time and have only a few employees when they are operating.

The construction industry panel recommendations on the bargaining structure are very clear. We've heard much in this debate about the effect on residential construction of the wall-to-wall union sector. It's very clear what we have right here: no change in residential construction; no change in power line construction; no change in pipeline construction; no changes recommended for water and sewers; no changes for road construction; for the non-union contractors -- no changes recommended; for the contractors with the industrial-style unions -- no change.

The small area within which there is change is contractors with craft unions, who will have the opportunity not only to join those craft unions but to then actually achieve a first collective agreement.

People form and join unions because they want a collective agreement with their employer. But it's interesting to note that for some parts of construction, only one out of five certifications results in first agreements, largely because it takes longer to reach a first agreement than it does to complete a project.

Making fair and incremental change to our labour laws is not about union versus business; it's about building a stable and productive labour relations climate. The debate that we've heard here, which attempts to divide labour and capital, is a debate in which members of the opposition fail to recognize that labour and capital rely on each other, that one could not exist or prosper without the other.

We have only to look at the example of the community of Campbell River in my constituency, where there was an extended strike with CEP -- a strike which was supported by and large by the community and which greatly affected the business environment of the community. Only now, some months after the end of that strike, is the business community beginning to see a little bit of a bounce-back in terms of its activity. So we see very clearly how success for labour also means success for business.

Hon. Speaker, I commend this bill to the Legislature.

[ Page 9156 ]

K. Whittred: It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak against Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. I would like to start out, hon. Speaker, by telling you a story. In my other life, besides being a teacher, we own a small business. Some time ago we advertised for the job of shipper. This is probably the lowest-level job in the shop. It doesn't pay very well; it doesn't have very much status. We received dozens of responses -- something like 80 -- to that advertisement. But what was even more shocking was the quality of the applicants.

There were applications from lawyers, from engineers, from all sorts of people with very specific trades. In other words, a whole array of very, very skilled people were applying for what some people would call a lowly kind of job. I think that, in a nutshell, summarizes the essence of why we are objecting to this bill.

This bill is not about labour relations; it is about rewarding your friends at a time when the economy cannot stand it. The story that I just told tells us about the nature of our labour force. It tells us that we have, first of all, a very well-educated and skilled labour force. It tells us that we have people who are very eager to work. Contrary to some myths, we don't have people sitting around collecting the dole. What we don't have is enough jobs.

I can only conclude, then, that the reason the government introduced this bill had to do with reasons other than wanting to do the best for the economy. In my mind, this is brinkmanship at its worst; it is playing Russian roulette with the economy of the province. It is bad legislation, brought in at the wrong time by a government that says to its citizens: "Let them eat cake."

"Ah shucks," says the Labour minister, " 't'weren't nothing." He would have us believe that this legislation is simply a subset of a subset of a subset of an extremely complex group of circumstances and that it really doesn't make any difference. He says: "The reality of the modern economy is that it functions to a huge degree on perception as much as anything else. If there is an impact, I suggest it will be because enough people, opinion-makers and others, say that it will have an impact." Well, surely to goodness, he knew what the perception of those people would be, and he knew that their perception would be that this is bad legislation.

The minister seems to have ignored the importance of perception in creating history. We are told by the historians that when the workers -- the common people, I should say -- of France stormed the Bastille in 1789, there was in fact hardly anybody in the Bastille. And yet perception started a revolution which we know today, of course, as the French Revolution. Historians tell us that on Black Tuesday -- October 29, 1929 -- there really wasn't anything that happened that hadn't happened in the week or two before. But for whatever reasons, it caused the stock market to crash and ushered in the Great Depression.

We are told of the "shot heard round the world," which launched the American Revolution. All of these have to do with perception and show us the power of perception in our lives.

I suggest that the minister knew from the very beginning that this bill was going to create those perceptions in the opinion-makers of this province, and therefore it was mischievous, at the very least, to introduce this legislation. I repeat that this is the equivalent of the minister saying to the people: "Let them eat cake."

It is ironic to me that the Minister of Finance recognized this in her budget, and in fact the government recognized this in their throne speech. In the budget, there is much talk about supporting small business. I was encouraged that maybe at last this government had got it; they had actually finally got it that small business is the engine that runs our economy.

So the perception was there by the government, and they ignored their own instincts. Who do they think the contractors are if they are not small business men? They talked in the budget about creating a positive business climate. Now, I don't know what you have to do to create a positive business climate, other than to make businesses feel valued -- to feel that the sacrifice that small business men make when they mortgage their houses to start a small business, when they work long hours without a paycheque . . . . What you have to do is something other than giving them one more indication that: "Hey, we don't really appreciate very much what you do."

I looked at the throne speech, and I think I counted at least a dozen times that the word "consult" was mentioned. It was all over the place, talking about consultation. And yet in this instance, the government didn't even bother to do an economic study. It also didn't bother to listen to its own people when they said that timing was everything in terms of introducing this. So perception was something that the government ignored.

[3:15]

The Premier has acknowledged that perception is important. In fact, I can't imagine a member of this Legislature who is more conscious of perception. He loves photo ops, and in recent months he has had his picture taken with business leaders, he has gone on summits, he has sponsored summits, and he has made resolutions -- and then his government turns around and ignores these instincts.

So why are we dealing with Bill 26? Well, I think we're dealing with Bill 26 because the government just couldn't resist rewarding its friends. They ignored their own instincts. Small business creates jobs. They said: "We're going to eliminate red tape." And what did they do? They turned around and introduced a bill that is going to add countless levels of bureaucracy into looking after workplace safety. They accuse us of being opposed to workplace safety. No, we are simply opposed to the red tape. They talk about nurturing the business climate. This bill does nothing to nurture the business climate.

One of my constituents is a small contractor. In talking with him about this bill, he said: "It stinks." The reason is because it could very well put him out of business. Now, how does that nurture small business? How does it help the economy -- to take a small business and put it out of business?

It was not very long ago that the Premier stood shoulder to shoulder with leaders of some of the biggest businesses in B.C. and declared for the whole province that the NDP was changing its tune. Well, it's the same old song. There he was, on the front page of the Vancouver Sun , standing shoulder to shoulder with people like Jimmy Pattison, trying to give us the perception that he was on the side of business.

The second message that the Premier sort of let out, which was given to the Premier by the business community, was that changes to the Labour Code would erode the economy. Did they listen? No.

In recent days, as this debate has progressed, we have heard much from members opposite about the history and the role of labour unions. We have been taken right back into the days of Dickens. One had the feeling that we were once again fighting child labour. I'm afraid we are past that age. We had a

[ Page 9157 ]

lecture here a few moments ago by the member for New Westminster, who actually read to us from his old law text. You know, historians are mixed on exactly where unions evolved from. Some say that they grew from the guilds in Europe; others think they grew more out of the Industrial Revolution and the horrors that were created -- more of the Dickens model. I suspect that it was a little bit of both. But we're not fighting those battles anymore. This is not the Industrial Revolution that we are fighting.

We have now progressed, and we have something called the silicon chip. I was astounded to hear the member for New Westminster bring up the Wagner Act and talk about the rights of workers to organize. We aren't arguing that point, but I would like to point out to the House that he was talking, for heaven's sake, about 1935. He then went on to talk about a royal commission in Ontario in 1962.

Hon. D. Lovick: The same principle.

K. Whittred: The principle is not the same. I keep hearing the minister across saying: "Same principle, same principle." Technology has changed. When I started teaching in the early sixties -- right around the date he's talking about -- we mimeographed on what was called a hectograph -- a jelly-pad, for heaven's sake. Now I'm quite sure the government offices have very fancy computerized photocopiers. Things are not the same. In our shop that I mentioned earlier, we have a computerized machine that automatically cuts things according to what you program into the computer. That is not the same as the worker who worked in 1962.

Last Sunday I had the pleasure -- and I will acknowledge it was a pleasure . . . . It was quite accidental, by the way, but my husband and I have a practice of going to the Lonsdale Quay each Sunday morning, and we have breakfast. On Sunday morning they were launching the new ferry -- and a beautiful ship it is; I will acknowledge that. I have had, again, the pleasure of touring several plants where that ferry was constructed, one of them being Vancouver Shipyards, which is in my riding. One of the things that I was told they are very proud of, and which has contributed to this vessel, is a flexible contract.

What they are talking about is that technology changes. I also was in a profession in a school that pioneered a new technology. We pioneered a whole new outlook toward educating secondary students. That does not come easily. What I heard when I went to Vancouver Shipyards was not that different. Technology is a great equalizer. You deal with, number one, a more educated workforce, number two, a younger workforce. You deal with a gender-mixed workforce -- all sorts of those things -- but it is not the same kind of workforce that it was in 1962.

I'll give you an example. In Vancouver Shipyards there is this huge, impressive cutting machine. Again, it works entirely on computerized technology that cuts the aluminum. What this workforce has acknowledged -- and what we all have to acknowledge if we are going to be competitive in the next millennium -- is that we have to be competitive and efficient. What they mean by a flexible contract is that when the fella who is doing the cutting is finished and the sweeper is busy, the guy who is the cutter is not above picking up a broom and cleaning up the chips so he can get on with his job.

If that industry worked under old union type of rules, that industry could not even begin to be competitive.

I think that the minister opposite . . . .

Interjection.

K. Whittred: I know they are union.

Hon. D. Lovick: Those tradesmen up there are shaking their heads; they can't believe you're talking such nonsense. These are people who work in the industry, asking: "What are you saying?"

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

K. Whittred: This is not nonsense whatsoever.

Interjections.

K. Whittred: Times have changed, hon. Speaker. The other night one of the members made a note of the learned men around the chamber. I cannot help but note that these learned men -- who are supposed to be, I guess, Aristotle, Socrates and the other fellows -- were all men. This is not 1962 anymore. Things have changed, and the models have changed. The models for labour have changed.

I would like to talk a little bit about my own riding of North Vancouver-Lonsdale. It has been pointed out by many members that this contract applies only to the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. In my riding there is, at this time, a huge amount of redevelopment going on. The entire lower Lonsdale

section of my riding is being redeveloped. Virtually every single building is a mixed building. There are apartments above and commercial below. Only a portion of those buildings fall into what is ICI. It's my understanding that each one of these projects will have to be hammered out before the Labour Relations Board, project by project. It seems to me that that is putting up more and more roadblocks in terms of job creation, it is entrenching more inefficiencies, and it is introducing incredible uncertainty into project development in that area.

Let's spend a moment reviewing this government's record of economic destruction, just reminding ourselves why this mischievous legislation, introduced into a fragile economy, is so dangerous. Before 1991 -- that is, before seven years of NDP government -- B.C. was number one in economic growth. Now we are number ten. In terms of per-capita growth, the amount that each person had in their pocket to spend on things they needed was greater than it is today. British Columbians are getting poorer every year; they're working harder but getting poorer.

Let's look at after-tax income. It declined by nearly 2 percent in 1996, and it declined by 2.3 percent in 1997. NDP policies like this bill are helping that along. What about job loss? I've already talked about the number of people that applied for a lowly position. One has to ask: did those people go out and find jobs? I doubt it. Did they find jobs anywhere near their level of training? I doubt it.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I want to talk about the businesses that aren't coming here -- those that are simply not investing. We know that many of these businesses are going to Alberta. Well, I think that I am allowed to speak about Alberta, because I am an Albertan. I was born in Alberta, my family lives in Alberta, and I know quite a lot about Alberta. Believe me, nobody, given a real choice, would choose Alberta over B.C. I say that as an Albertan. I went to a family reunion there a couple of years ago, and they have horseflies that are as big as our hummingbirds. I mean, I swear it. They take a huge bite out of you. They don't sting; they bite you.

An Hon. Member: How big are the horses?

[ Page 9158 ]

K. Whittred: Oh, they're big. They're big. They have mosquitoes that are as big as hummingbirds. They have wind and snow. Do you know that in Calgary you can almost never plan a barbecue -- because, as they say in Calgary, if you don't like the weather, wait five minutes. Inevitably, it rains or it blows or it does something at that particular time.

I may have been a bit frivolous for a moment, but I wanted to make the point that when people do not invest here, I think there has to be a really, really serious reason why they would choose to go to a province other than B.C., because we know that this is God's country.

So why is this government at war with the job creators? I just can't understand that. I made the point earlier that this minister knew that the people who create jobs -- namely, the small business men; those businessmen who are represented through the small business associations, the chambers of commerce and so on -- would not be in favour of this bill.

[3:30]

I spoke to you of the contractor in my riding, who asked: "Why bring in a negative-growth factor?" He just can't understand that. Why bring in a negative-growth factor, which he thinks could very well put him out of business? Why indeed? I can only assume that it was more important for this government to reward its friends in labour than it is to get this economy on the move.

My riding is an interesting riding. In the few blocks along Esplanade, the street along the waterfront, there used to be about 1,000 jobs within the three blocks between Lonsdale Avenue and the 300 block of east Esplanade. Today there are not more than a few hundred, and many of them are wondering how much longer they are going to be there. If we look along Esplanade today, there are still jobs there, and I'm happy that those jobs are there. But do you know what jobs they are, hon. Speaker? Most of them are not jobs that actually make things. There are some; I'm not denying there are some. There is my family business.

Interjection.

K. Whittred: The minister is saying: "What about this? We make things." What I'm saying is that there are only a few hundred workers employed, if that, compared to many, many more a number of years ago. What jobs are there? There are government workers in office buildings. There are health services offices. There is ICBC. While I'm not denying that we want those jobs -- they are good jobs -- I am pointing out that there is a shift in this economy away from jobs where people produce goods for sale in the marketplace to jobs that one way or the other are supported by government.

What else do we know about the B.C. economy? We know that capital spending is declining and that there are only two other provinces where this is happening: Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. We know that this bill, among other labour laws in B.C., together with the taxes, makes it so that global investors do not want to invest here. Once again I ask: why in that climate was it so important to bring in this bill now? Why did this bill have to be brought in at this time, with this fragile business climate? I think it was unnecessary.

Finally, I would like to point out that this government also has a problem with trust. Trust in this government has been broken. So when government sometimes attempts to introduce programs, nobody listens. This legislation is simply one more example of how this government is betraying the people of the province.

Bill 26 is doing nothing. As I said at the beginning, it is a bill that is not about labour relations; it is about rewarding your friends. By rewarding their friends with this bill, the government is saying to the people of the province: "We think that our reward is more important than the economy of the province." This government is saying to the people of B.C.: "Let them eat cake." I remind the government of the fate of Marie Antoinette.

D. Jarvis: I rise to speak, as well, about Bill 26, the Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1998. Needless to say, I shall not support this bill. I feel that it's completely out of line at this time.

I note that the members from the opposite side of the chamber are always trying to spin the perception that we on this side of the House are anti-labour. What it is, ostensibly, is a spin, or a perception on their part, that we are anti-labour. All of us have probably been . . . . I've been in several unions myself. We also look at the other end of it, the employer's side, as well. When this government and their members try to say that we are anti-labour, it's simply not true and it's not a valid argument.

I noted the member for New Westminster brought up the labour laws of the 1930s. All I can say to him is that this is not a class war that we're trying to fight here, although maybe the government is trying to create that sort of premise. We can't understand what his attitude is. This is the 1990s. Soon we'll be into a new millennium, and here we are talking about labour class actions that went on back in the thirties and twenties and all the rest of it. It's certainly not a valid argument, as far as I'm concerned on this of the House, with regard to this bill here.

This bill is, ostensibly, about creating jobs and helping the economy in British Columbia. It's supposed to do that. But there's nothing in the bill that definitely states that we will receive jobs to assist our economy, which is in an ill state of repair at this moment.

I recall the Premier stating in the throne speech that he was going to focus on building the economy of British Columbia. Out of the 29 pages in the throne speech, he used adjectives such as strong, dynamic, healthy and confidence 21 times. We are now four months past the opening of the throne speech, and where is our economy today? Our economy is at the point where we're basically in a recession. Hopefully, if things don't continue on the way they are, we won't go into a really deep recession. This bill brings nothing to alleviate the situation that we have, nothing in regard to helping our economy and creating jobs.

I also noted in the bill that there is nothing being done in this chamber to help our young get work. Our young who are unemployed are mounting well into the teens now and will probably push 20 percent before the next results come out. It's a sad state of affairs. I look in today's paper and note that the Minister of Finance has made an appeal to all the people and the business folks in British Columbia to help counteract the myth out there that B.C.'s economy has a problem. I don't quite understand what the minister is thinking about.

All she has to do is follow the cows around the fields for a few days, and she'll find out what is wrong with the British Columbia economy. We have a desperate problem.

We have a massive debt. At last report the debt was pushing $31 billion. Where are we now? We're probably pushing over $32 billion, when the true figures come out at the end of this year. I think I'll quote. She listed five such myths that need counter-balancing. "B.C. has the highest taxes in Canada. In fact, for most taxpayers our tax system is the second-

[ Page 9159 ]

lowest." Well, that's a blatant almost fib -- that's the expression you can say. We know that right now we have a 54 percent taxation rate. We are not the second-lowest in Canada; we are the highest. Why would she come out and say something like this? Then she said: "The Asian downturn has crippled B.C.'s economy.

While Asia accounts for 20 percent of our exports, other markets remain strong." When you go into Employment and Investment estimates -- which we just finished with -- or you go into Energy and Mines estimates and you ask them, "Why isn't our economy growing?" they say it's the Asian market; it's the Asian flu. This is a government that never blames themselves, by the way; they always blame someone else down the line.

She went on to say that our other markets remain strong. Well, oil and gas is probably the third-highest revenue producer in this province. The report came out today. At this time last year we brought in $237 million. Today we're only at $58.3 million. One-third of the revenue that came in last year from oil and gas is what we're receiving today. The minister is out there trying to spin the story to the people, to tell them that all is well in British Columbia -- when it's not. The problem is that our economy is bad due to the fact that we haven't got enough work for our skilled workers.

Public opinion has shifted again. It wasn't too long ago that the public felt that what was wrong with British Columbia . . . . The main problems were caused by health, education and environment -- and probably in that order. Now it has shifted again, and according to the latest polls, unemployment and jobs have shot back up to the top spot in the public's priority list. This is joined by their overall general concern about the provincial economy. The people out there are worried about their jobs. The two biggest issues are jobs and, as I said, the economy, and they dominate and are foremost in their minds. This is what the public agenda is all about: jobs.

We say to ourselves: "What a testimonial that is to this government's agenda." What a testimonial to a labour government's agenda, when the majority of the people are thinking jobs are the number one issue, and they are afraid of losing their own job within the next six months or so. These are the people who are now employed, the ones who are actually on the employment fronts. Their concern is that we have before us a bill, such as Bill 26, which is an amendment to the Labour Code that will create not work but, unfortunately, probably more unemployment. The businesses that create jobs are afraid that this is going to be one more nail in their coffin, that they will be unable to compete.

[3:45]

The unemployed in British Columbia, according to StatsCan -- and these are the latest figures . . . . We are at 9.7 percent unemployed, and that figure is rising. The people in B.C. are now more pessimistic than optimistic. That is a problem we have in this province: the fact that the people are more pessimistic than they are optimistic, when it should be the opposite. There is no question that this government, instead of bringing the scale of living up high for everyone, has somehow started to bring us down to the lowest denominator. That's a sad testimony for a labour government in this province.

According to the polls, the people believe that the economic situation will worsen over the next year or so. Again, we have a debt which is probably about $32 billion now. How bad can we get? When will we see a change and some order to reduce the debt that we owe, so that investors in this province can see that we have our economy under control and that this would be a good place to come and invest their money -- and, accordingly, create more employment? Again, we would raise more money for operating government services such as health and welfare and education and all the rest of the social benefits that normally you get when you run a government and you call in taxes from the citizens.

As I said, it's a terrible testimonial to this socialist government, which actually represents many resource areas in this province. I wonder what those members on the government side of the House do when they go back to their resource areas and they see people out of work, doing nothing, hanging around.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: The member across the floor made a comment just now, when I said that the workers were probably just hanging around with no work to do. I note that the member has in his area a relatively stable economy, owing to the fact that we have a large aluminum company in there that is providing jobs and has done so for years and years. In fact, the town was there because the company came in. The company came in first and created the town; they created work for the workers.

The other member from the upper Island, who will probably be on the floor any moment now . . . . I noticed the other day on the television and in the newspapers that people in Campbell River in his riding were lined up to go into a meeting to listen to people from Alberta saying: "Come to Alberta. We have jobs for you." These are people who cannot find work in British Columbia, because of this government's attitude towards creating wealth. They have no comprehension whatsoever of creating wealth.

Why people would go to Alberta, I don't know. As the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale just finished saying, she was born in Alberta, and although she probably dearly loves it and all the rest, deep down she would much rather live in British Columbia. I have a friend who lives in Alberta, and he was telling me about that wonderful town of Calgary. I went to Calgary a little while back and saw that wonderful town and came away with the impression that it was surrounded by a wire fence with paper stuck to it. That's about what it's like in Alberta -- all it is, is wind, wind, wind.

What this bill will do to the construction industry is what the NDP government -- the socialist government -- has done to the two leading industries of mining and forestry. We have destroyed forestry. We have not quite done the same with mining, but it's almost a sunset industry right now.

The Minister for Energy and Mines told us well over a month ago that he was bringing in right-to-mine rules for this province. We had a bill -- Bill 12, I believe it was -- and when we had the debate on Bill 12, he said that we will be bringing forward the rules and regulations almost immediately; that this is a done deal and we're going ahead with it. Well to date, some two months later, we haven't seen anything happen. Even the mining industry is now beginning to wonder if they have been hornswoggled by this government once more, because back in 1997 they said the same thing.

It was a different minister at that time, and they said: "We will bring in new rules and allow mining to have a little bit better footing in this province and not be so strict with them -- in the sense that we'll make the rules and regulations so that they can, if they find a mine, start producing the product from it within maybe a year to two years."

Whereas before it had always been -- and is right now to this date -- at least five years before you could get a permit to go out and mine in this province.

[ Page 9160 ]

Well, Madam Speaker, the government -- with their philosophy and their social experiments, their debt to labour, the unions and the B.C. Federation -- have certainly ruined this province to date, and now they're out to ruin the construction industry as well.

This bill will serve only to create unemployment, rather than employment, as it expands its powers for union organizers in the industrial, commercial and institutional -- or the ICI -- sectors. If we're not in a depression now, we'll be in a deep one in the near future. Bills like this do not help create wealth or employment; all they do is deepen the probability of a recession, of less work. They drive another wedge into the stability and the growth of this province. The construction industry has been one of the most stable labour environments over the last half-dozen years.

Now this bill gives union organizers the ability to recruit and disrupt the non-union members in the construction industry through the back door.

As I said earlier when I got up to speak, I'm not against unions. There's a purpose for a union. There were bad days in management, if you can call it that, and business companies treated the workers badly in the old days. But this is the 1990s, and we're going into the twenty-first century. Those days are gone. We have laws. This bill will only create more laws, which will not benefit the union workers, the non-union workers or the companies. It will just create uncertainty for the construction companies with regard to making money -- which they're there for -- and they will take their businesses and move to another province.

We know that the records show -- I don't have the exact figures with me now -- that there have been hundreds and hundreds . . . . Well, maybe not hundreds and hundreds, but at least 150 to 170 businesses, construction companies, have left British Columbia and moved their head office into Alberta over the last few years. The flood of people running out of British Columbia into other jurisdictions because there's no work has almost become unstoppable.

The latest figures that we had just as we started into this session of the Legislature were that there was a loss of jobs in British Columbia of around 17,000 to 19,000 people. Contrary to what the Premier said -- that he was going to create 40,000-plus jobs -- we lost 17,000 to 19,000. Alberta created 22,000 jobs. Most of those workers -- no question -- must have come from British Columbia.

I see the Speaker is going to sleep. I know I'm a little bit boring at the moment, Madam Speaker, but I've got a bad cold. Like the Labour minister, I'm all stuffed up. Hopefully, I'm not as stuffy as he is.

Residential construction, as I said, represents a major factor in all our communities throughout British Columbia, and this aspect of construction is seasonal in most areas. Workers do move back and forth from residential to commercial, so sectoral bargaining could represent residential construction, especially when ICI is mixed up with residential in a shopping mall or something along that line. We see quite a few of them being built at this time in which the first floor will be commercial and condominiums up above. The effect of this bill will certainly create higher costs for the contractors.

Housing starts are falling rapidly and have been doing so for almost four years now. The changes in the Labour Code will only exacerbate the potential for crisis in our economy. Housing is somewhat at the top of the food chain. When you consider that residential housing employs every trade you can possibly think of, and uses all the materials that are known, it certainly is at the top of the food chain. Every local business in every community virtually exists from the industry's involvement. Why would we want to curtail this industry to a point where we would create more unemployment?

It's hard to realize, but that is the philosophy of this socialist government. They have an agenda. They have a duty that they owe to the B.C. Federation of Labour, and they are going to pursue it -- and damn the torpedoes, it appears.

The problem that is seen with the introduction of this bill, as I said, is that any labour law amendment at this time would be bad for business. There is no question of that. Any change to the labour laws that would seem to favour unions is just going to be a direct signal to investors to stay away from British Columbia. It would be bad for business and bad for jobs. It could only serve to harm our already delicate economy.

We can't understand why this NDP government -- at this time, when there's a great, great need for balanced public policy -- would put forward their own interests ahead of the whole province. This is the time that our economy needs, at the very least, to be balanced, to show investors that we can create jobs, that we have created stability and that there is confidence in our economy. It doesn't appear that we're going to go that way, if this bill is to pass. We know that it will not strike confidence into the investors and developers that would want to come into British Columbia.

Those that are presently working in British Columbia would have to consider maybe even leaving the province if they want to make a nickel or a dime, and that's what they're there for. They're in business to make money, and as a result of that, they create jobs and employ more people. When people pooh-pooh the fact that these companies would think of picking up stakes and moving . . . . It's a matter of survival on their part.

The government is obviously out of touch with reality. They don't realize what adverse labour laws will say to these people -- to those who create jobs in British Columbia and those who would come to B.C. to create jobs. Changes such as those in Bill 26 will drive business out of this province and, as I said, further erode confidence in British Columbia. We hear and see on the news every night about some company that leaves British Columbia or that people who are desperate for work have to go to other jurisdictions to get work.

That is the crime which is occurring in this province as a result of this socialist government, this labour government. People cannot find jobs with a labour government in this province. It's hard to comprehend.

[4:00]

The people who voted NDP last time are starting to realize the damage that this government has done to this province. Oh, there will be a few. They'll come to the Legislature every once in a while and look down at us and think that we're anti-labour fanatics on this side of the House. But deep down they'll know that we're not anti-labour. As I said, I belonged to unions before, and I've been in business myself. They look at that side of the House, and all they can see is someone in favour of unions. Well, that's fine.

The sad thing about that side of the House is that not one of them comprehends how to create any wealth. No one over there has ever had to meet a payroll. They have not met a payroll.

They say they have. There's one from up-Island who has a bed-and-breakfast. Well, fortunately, the province doesn't exist on revenue from bed-and-breakfasts. We're talking about real jobs and real businesses. No one on that side has ever been in business. They ostensibly come from the labour end of it or from the academic field. There are a few that have followed a couple of horses through the bush every once in a while and pulled a log out here and there. But other than that, very few of them ever actually had to meet a big payroll and create jobs that men and women work at.

[ Page 9161 ]

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: I'm being heckled here and there. They're desperate, because they're hearing the truth for a change.

To say that this is not intrusive legislation, and that sectoral bargaining only affects the ICI sector of the construction industry, is hard to accept. It is well known that a great deal of the mixed-use projects will definitely be affected. I have several in my own riding at the moment. This sector of the industry operates efficiently now. Labour peace means more work; labour disruption means fewer jobs. For the life of me, I cannot see how the Minister of Labour cannot see that labour disruption means a loss of work and a loss of jobs.

Here we have a construction industry which currently operates efficiently, with very little disruption, in a peaceful labour climate. Now this government wants to risk unrest -- the loss of work, the loss of more jobs and further disruption of the economy.

Here we have, as I said before, an economy that is in desperate need of some kind of infusion to get it going. It doesn't need something to inject itself into it and disrupt it. We are in a desperate situation here. This bill will only cause employees not to come into the province or, worse yet, to pick up stakes and leave it. A recent report indicated that if changes to the labour laws resulted in higher costs, many developers would just leave and move their operations out of this province. This report covered a cross-section of companies that employ non-union and union workers. Capital and jobs will flow out of this province if Bill 26 is passed.

The essence of Bill 26 is that there is only one labour contract for every project that is to be built in the ICI sector of the construction industry. It will impose a non-union contract, a one-size-fits-all contract for any ICI job. This is another nail in the coffin of an industry that desperately needs openness and flexibility in order to compete. In this model, sectoral bargaining does not provide solutions to the problems that are now facing our construction industry.

I can see by the clock that I don't have much time left. I just thought I would mention a little

article in the paper a few weeks ago, back in . . . . Oh, the Minister of Labour is here. It's good to see you, sir. It was an

article that was talking about how the NDP can collapse an economy in several easy steps. With your permission, I would like to read a few of the items in it. It said: "In a time of slow economic activity the NDP will blame the existing government" -- this is comparing it to Ontario -- "and big business and banks for all the economic woes."

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: Somebody read that yesterday.

D. Jarvis: Did they?

It said: "They'll promise that, if elected, they will stop the erosion of services and create employment." Well, this bill certainly won't do that; we know that. It went on to say that the provincial debt and the cost of servicing that it'll create will cripple and restrict the province for decades to come. We know that. We're now at $32 billion and rising, and we pay $6,740,000 a day on the debt-service ratio.

Deputy Speaker: Member, your time has expired.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the time. I just want to reiterate that with regards to second reading of Bill 26, somehow I can't feel myself in favour of it in order to vote for it. So I will be voting against it.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, you'll take note that I'm going to start my alarm clock so that I don't go over the half-hour that is allotted.

I'm really pleased to be here and have an opportunity to speak to Bill 26. I think it's really important legislation that recognizes the specific issues around the industrial, commercial and institutional sections in the construction industry. I've listened for a number of days to the opposition speak on this bill and voice their opposition. I haven't really heard that much on specifics in particular as related to Bill 26. I've heard a lot about the economy. I've heard a lot about labour issues that are not specific to this bill.

I'm going to focus today on the economy, a little bit on labour issues and more specifically on Bill 26 and its importance to the construction industry in British Columbia.

I'd like to talk a little about the Labour Code we have in this province. Some of these thoughts were also spoken well by the construction industry review panel that did extensive consultation within our province for a number of months. The primary purpose of the code is to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions, as the freely chosen representatives of employees.

Other purposes, of course, include: encouraging cooperative participation between employers and unions during the life of the collective agreement; minimizing the effects of labour disputes on those not involved in the disputes; protecting the public interest; promoting conditions favourable to the orderly, constructive and expeditious settlement of disputes; and encouraging the use of mediation as a dispute resolution process or mechanism.

These purposes form the core of the code and reflect the social consensus that collective bargaining is desirable. And I think it is very desirable. If you go back over the course of the last six or seven years in British Columbia, we've had labour peace and a very cooperative climate for both labour and business in this province. I think a lot of that can be attributed to the very progressive and good legislation we have in British Columbia's Labour Code.

The social consensus that collective bargaining is desirable is reflected in international conventions, federal legislation and the laws of every province, including British Columbia. The consensus in public policy is also reflected in public opinion. Research reveals strong public support for the legitimacy of unions and their value to society as a whole. In public opinion research, over two-thirds of the public believe that unions play an important role in balancing social and economic interests, and almost three-quarters disagreed with the statement that unions are bad for business.

Hon. Speaker, it's no secret that unions have played an integral and important role in the history of British Columbia, shaping this province into what it is today: an absolutely magnificent province to live in. Anybody that's travelled throughout our country or travelled the globe will tell you that this is the best province in the world to live in today. I'm really proud of that.

With regards to some of the things that trade unions have done, I've heard talk here this afternoon about child labour. A lot of our people involved in trade unionism in British Columbia are involved globally, fighting child labour and bringing democracy to various countries. Child labour is a problem --

[ Page 9162 ]

whether it's in Pakistan or South America, where children are abused and taken advantage of. Our unions are doing a lot of really good work throughout the world, and I'm really proud of that.

I can remember talking to Tom Barnett, who was an NDP MP. He told me of the work that the IWA did in Alberni in the forties, where there was discrimination against native women. They had their own washroom, and they were paid a special rate that was a lot lower than everybody else because they were native. The IWA found out and drove pay equality back. Fifty years ago they recognized there was a problem, when everyone else was sitting around and doing nothing. That's an example of what trade unions in this province have done over the course of the last 50 years, and it's an example of the work they are going to be doing for the next 50 or 100 years. I'm proud of that.

Despite the evidence of public policy and public opinion, the Liberal opposition both explicitly and implicitly have questioned the relevancy of collective bargaining in British Columbia. They have challenged the view that there is a social consensus in support of collective bargaining. To me this is very concerning and suggests that the Liberal opposition is elitist and removed from public opinion in this province.

A little bit about Bill 26. The construction industry, I believe, needs separate rules for bargaining. Every jurisdiction in this country, except British Columbia, has recognized that until now. Bill 26 matches many of the provisions already in place in Alberta and Ontario. Here are some words from our Labour minister: " . . . the legislation will protect the freedom of workers to choose among non-union, craft union or industrial union options. A stable, competitive market and the protection of workers' rights are mutually compatible -- in fact, they are interdependent."

I believe that Bill 26 is quite modest. It's important legislation in that it gives the industrial, commercial and institutional sector construction workers greater choice of fairness and gives employees the stability they need to compete effectively. It also provides flexibility, since the work that has already been bid on by the contractors would be eligible for bridging agreements at the end of the project -- which I think is great.

Many of the suggestions that business offered to the construction industry review panel are reflected in Bill 26. For example, the recommendations from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses are incorporated in Bill 26. The coalition recommended that B.C. labour laws allow for different forms of trade union representation in the construction industry and that sectoral bargaining schemes of any sort be rejected -- which they have done. Both these recommendations have been captured in Bill 26. We also did some great work in regard to training, the other part of the component, which was done in the last legislative session.

There's no doubt that the construction industry is unique, and I'll talk a little bit about why it is. For the individual worker, the nature of projects in the construction industry means that they usually have a short involvement in any particular project. Many work for a number of employers over a short period of time. Construction workers must be very flexible and mobile in order to maintain full-time employment. A typical project requires an array of skilled workers who may only be active on the project for a very short duration.

The construction industry contractor must quickly adapt to new materials and techniques in order to remain competitive, and the industry changes very quickly -- unlike many sectors, where large capital investments and the weight of past practices may slow the introduction of change.

[4:15]

In construction, the special skills required must be assembled for each project. Any number of different craft trades may be called upon to complete a job, and often as much as 75 percent of the work will be subcontracted to specialty contractors. In construction, resources are continually being assembled and disbanded, as projects are started and completed. The efficiency of the contractors is reflected in their ability to obtain and shift needed resources for the job.

Construction -- and I recognize this -- is a highly competitive field, in which all companies, unionized or not, are subject to the same bidding process and the same market forces. Ensuring stable and productive labour relations in construction will have no net impact on the costs of projects.

Bill 26 is not unique. I mean, if you look at the rest of our nation, every Canadian jurisdiction, except British Columbia, has specialized labour legislation pertaining to the construction industry at this present time.

Interjection.

G. Robertson: I'm going to talk about some of your comments actually, hon. member, in a little while.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland each has a compulsory accreditation model of employee representation within the construction industry, under which a newly certified employer will be required to accept the industry's standard collective agreement. It's absolutely no different at all. This is great legislation -- and, actually, long overdue. We talked about this in the Legislature back in '87 with the then Labour minister. Unlike the opposition, we've talked long enough, and we're doing something progressive and proactive now. I'm really proud of that.

Ontario and Newfoundland have mandatory provincewide bargaining for their ICI sector. The Newfoundland legislation, which is going to be proclaimed, requires multi-trade bargaining within this sector. In Quebec, membership in one of the five construction trade unions is mandatory. A decree system allows for the extension of the negotiated construction industry agreements across the entire industry. So that's a fact, and I think that's what we should deal with.

I've heard a lot from the opposition over the course of the last week and a half, I guess, talking not so much about Bill 26 but about labour, the men and women in this province that work in labour. That goes to back to Bill 14 too. I'll talk a little bit about that. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena stated in the Province in October '97: "You know, we right now have a Labour Code that is balanced in favour of trade unions." The Leader of the Opposition in the Province of May 27, 1996: "B.C. Liberals believe it is essential to return to a balanced Labour Code. Small business in particular must have the option of hiring replacement workers during a strike to protect their viability."

An Hon. Member: Scabs.

G. Robertson: I think I heard that word in the House, hon. Speaker, and I think that's what organized labour calls it: the right-to-scab legislation. That's what workers call it. In other words, when you go on strike and you're fighting for a collective agreement, the employer and the police bring in

[ Page 9163 ]

people that take your jobs over -- therefore not really giving you an opportunity to sit down and bargain collectively with the employer.

An Hon. Member: It happened in Yellowknife.

G. Robertson: Yes, we've seen examples of that -- Gainers in Alberta. They keep talking about Alberta. When I look at Alberta and the labour strife they have there and the way they degrade workers and families in Alberta with their legislation, that's really concerning. But that's what the Leader of the Opposition said.

Interjections.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, we're getting a great reaction from the Liberals here, and I think that's good.

The Leader of the Opposition stated on March 4, 1994: "The great advance of the secret ballot is to allow people to go in and make their individual choice. No employer and no union gets to tell them what to do, and they don't feel threatened one way or the other. They have strength." On the other hand, what the Leader of the Opposition says is: let's take that strength away, because we need balance. This is what was said on June 28, 1993, in the Kimberley Daily Bulletin . The Leader of the Opposition called the elimination of the secret ballot on union ratification an example of the gradual erosion of human rights.

So on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition suggests that by having a secret ballot, it's fair and people get to make a choice, just like you do in a provincial or a federal election or anything else. On the other hand, he's saying: "Yes, but we don't want that. Better yet, we're going to take it away." He looks to a secret ballot -- and a gradual erosion of our human rights. That's an interesting thought, but I think it says a lot.

The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head said: "We cannot allow a union collective agreement to intervene and override workplace safety when it disagrees with management's disciplinary actions towards employees." Trade unions in this province have worked for industrial health and safety in this province for 50 years. If you go back in time to ten or 20 years ago -- not 50 years ago -- you can look at some of the issues surrounding occupational health and safety in this province today and the way that workers are taken advantage of and the fatalities and maimings in industry. Most of those . . . .

I talked about that when we talked about Bill 14. The previous Forests critic in the Liberal opposition asked: "How does Bill 14 affect the forest industry?" What Bill 14 did . . . . It's an amendment to the WCB act. It basically said that smaller employers, those with 20 or more people working for them, had to have an industrial health and occupational safety committee to talk over safety. That went on and showed that the fatalities in the lumber industry, the logging industry in this province . . . .

There are ten times more fatalities in non-union operations than in union, and that's strictly because of the fact that workers are not trained. Bill 14 would allow that, yet the former Forests critic asked: "How does that apply to the forest industry?" He doesn't understand that there are a lot of small contractors that work in the forest industry that don't care and don't understand about workers' health.

So the unions have done a lot of good, proactive work in protecting our workers in this province, and I'm really proud of that -- particularly when those people come home to their families at night, their wives and their kids, and they're in good health and get to enjoy their retirement because they're in good health. I think that's important.

The Leader of the Opposition said, on June 17, 1998: "In Alberta they have workplace democracy. They have a secret ballot.

They have double-breasting." The member for Vancouver-Quilchena: "We would eliminate the fair-wage act, because what it's doing is forcing all employers in this province that do any kind of government work to pay the same levels as trade unions are paying to their members." The member for West Vancouver-Capilano: "The fair-wage policy has feathered the nests of unions at the expense of taxpayers." The member for Kamloops-North Thompson: "The way good managers deal with conduct problems is called progressive discipline. You whack them once. If they do it again, you whack them again.

Eventually you turf them right out." Well, I don't know. That may be the way the member deals with issues and possibly brings resolution to them, but I would suggest that that type of dialogue with employees -- or employers -- is not very progressive. If it were applied broadly over this province, I would suggest that it would probably bring a lot of conflict. As a matter of fact, if it were applied in a family environment, it would be even more concerning.

Hon. D. Lovick: It's scary when you think about it, isn't it?

G. Robertson: Yes, it is.

The member for Richmond East said that companies may choose to unionize or not around a number of delivery models, and so she believes that the companies should choose whether they should be unionized or not.

Hon. D. Lovick: Sort of like feudalism, I guess.

G. Robertson: Yes, it's quite interesting.

There was a lot of talk over the course of the last week about support for business. I think that we as government have done some good things over the course of the last budget particularly. One of the things we've done is that 10,000 small businesses will save $46 million a year in taxes when the corporate capital tax exemption is raised to $5 million from $1.5 million over the next three years, which is really good. I've had a lot of small businesses and machine shops and other businesses say that it's good for them. They will no longer pay corporate capital tax; they're quite pleased.

There's a two-year tax holiday on corporate capital tax for new investment, and 40,000 new small businesses will pay less income tax. For small business, corporate income tax is cut by 11 percent over two years. There's a two-year tax holiday from the small business corporate income tax for eligible new small businesses. Small business customers will get a hydro rebate of 2 percent of last year's bill. Other commercial ventures will get a 1 percent rebate.

Farm families will save an average of $300 a year by eliminating the tax on coloured fuel used on farms, and some will save a heck of a lot more than that, depending on the farm.

I travel in and out of the airport in Vancouver a lot, and I just notice how it's growing and it's booming and people are coming in from all over the place. I think a lot of that is due, obviously, to the airport. It's a great airport, and people are coming to B.C. The jet fuel tax on international flights is being cut in half over two years. It's made Vancouver Airport a very, very competitive airport. That's right. I'm very pleased about

[ Page 9164 ]

that. The marginal tax rate is being reduced from 54.2 to 49.9 percent over three years to help the high-tech sector attract and employ more qualified professionals.

Interjection.

G. Robertson: I think all these initiatives together are good news, and I see the member over there is really excited about it too, so I'm pleased about that. We like to get him excited -- but not too excited.

Well, I think I've said a few things about the Liberal opposition's thoughts on organized labour, and that's the general context of what I'll be talking about today.

Getting on with the economy, B.C.'s oil and gas sector, which employs 40,000 in this province, is being greatly assisted by a lot of initiatives. Oil and gas royalties have been cut between 20 and 40 percent to double the production over the next ten years. Our new single-window regulatory agency will streamline approvals of exploration.

I heard one of the members talking just a little while ago about the oil and gas industry in Alberta, about how one of the companies was in Campbell River looking for people to go to the Alberta oil fields. I would suggest that as the price of oil is coming down, with these initiatives that we've introduced, you're going to see . . . . We met with the petroleum producers and the association, and they were absolutely elated with these changes. They see them as proactive and as good for business in British Columbia. More particularly, they made a specific point of saying: "It's good for our business."

R. Neufeld: You don't even understand . . . .

G. Robertson: So they were very pleased, and I'll be pleased too when they're drilling and exploring in northern British Columbia. I know the member opposite will be too, because that's where he's from.

The $3.1 billion mining sector that employs 58,000 is being supported with a $9 million-a-year tax credit for exploration. The approval process is being streamlined through changes in the mineral exploration code, making it faster and easier for firms to begin exploration and offering more protection from expropriation. And new mines will receive a larger tax credit to help offset startup costs.

Also, let's not forget the B.C. film industry. I'll tell you that I certainly won't. I was talking to Joan Miller, one of my constituents, who is on the B.C. Film Commission. Last year the film industry dropped $37 million in Campbell River. You couldn't get a hotel room there. There were two movies, actually. They did another one just a couple of years before, and it was the same thing. So it's getting known as the place to be in B.C. -- certainly a lot of good movies are done there.

[4:30]

Cutting red tape -- one of my favourite things. Our government has said that we're going to cut red tape. Do you know what? I can't wait, because I hate red tape. I think that if we can cut it and make it better for business in this province, that's what we should be doing, and that's what we're doing. I'm proud of that initiative.

I'll talk a little bit about the forest sector. I'm really pleased that the cost to the forest companies has been reduced by about $14 a cubic metre by streamlining approvals and cutting stumpage charges by 28 to 30 percent since last fall. I think the change better reflects market conditions and will, hopefully, keep our industry more competitive.

Yes, there's no doubt that we're having difficulties accessing some markets in Japan right now, but there are reasons for that. Our exports to Japan have dropped 50 percent since last year at the same time. Of the 50 percent that's remaining, there's a move away from the traditional components that we've supplied on the coast, which are large dimension lumber and baby squares, to alternative housing components. There was an interesting

article in the paper last week about how an Austrian firm has taken over M&B's markets in Japan because M&B couldn't guarantee those markets two years ago. As a result, they walked in, and I think they're putting 400 million board feet a year into Japan from Austria. It used to be M&B's market. That's what is happening. Plus, the prices that they're paying in Japan have gone from a high of $980 last year down to $500.

Anyway, Tom Stephens has made some comments in regards to that as well. He says that the situation in Japan will continue to retard their progress over the next several quarters and that the biggest concern M&B has is the continued deterioration of the market for lumber in Japan. I hear the Liberal opposition talking about workers, economies and everything. I'll tell you, I've got an interesting quote here. The Liberal MLA for Okanagan-Vernon has stated outside the House, in response to government steps to discourage employers from laying off workers, that she is "angered that forest companies will have difficulties laying off employees." Interesting. That's a good one. My goodness.

We've done a lot of good stuff. The sales in B.C.'s secondary manufacturing industry are currently estimated at $2 billion. About 17,000 workers -- one-sixth of the forest industry -- are involved in the value-added wood industry. That's a rise of 20 percent from 1990. The Abbotsford centre, funded by FRBC, is the only training facility of its kind in North America. Workers learn specialized skills designed to meet or exceed those of their competitors in Europe, and that's what we have to do.

That's an example of an Austrian company going in and taking market share aware by putting in a more diverse product and actually marketing their product over there, which is something our companies haven't done but are starting to do very aggressively now. That

article in regards to B.C. secondary manufacturing was written by Bob Holm, president of the B.C. Wood Specialties Group in Surrey, and they're doing a lot of great stuff.

Hon. Speaker, I see I've got three minutes left here, so I'm going to wrap up with some messages with regards to labour and Bill 26. Our government's track record since 1992 on Labour Code changes is absolutely excellent. In 1993, Labour Code changes helped create the most stable labour relations climate we've had in this province in decades. This current bill brings the construction industry into the modern legislative framework -- something that's needed. The construction industry needs separate rules for collective bargaining, and that's been recognized throughout this country.

Every province but B.C., until now, has recognized this fact. So this is catch-up legislation and is long overdue.

Bill 26 will bring B.C.'s labour relations framework for construction into the new Canadian mainstream. Many provisions of Bill 26 match those of Alberta. I know the members opposite will be pleased about that. They match Alberta and Ontario labour relations legislation. Bill 26 will enhance stability in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of construction. It requires a built-in resolution to jurisdictional disputes in the standard agreement covering off craft union members and their employers, and it establishes mandatory three-year agreements in ICI construction.

[ Page 9165 ]

Bill 26 also maintains the right of workers in construction to choose between non-union, craft union or industrial union models. The changes ensure that workers who choose to join a craft union will be covered by a collective agreement before the job they were hired to do is completed. Bill 26 brings all craft-unionized employers into the existing construction employers association, so they can share in the costs and benefits of the council's bargaining activities. These changes are narrowly focused on ICI construction and are important to maintaining competition in the industry.

This legislation is supported by the majority of contractors and unions most affected in the province of British Columbia, and I'm really happy about that. It incorporates the recommendations of Stan Lanyon and Stephen Kelleher, who are both experienced and well-respected former chairs of the Labour Relations Board.

An Hon. Member: Both sides.

G. Robertson: Yeah, both sides respect them, and I think that's really important. I'm really pleased to speak to Bill 26 today. It's progressive legislation that is going to continue to ensure that we have good industrial relations and a good cooperative effort between labour and companies in this province.

T. Stevenson: It is my pleasure, as well, to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 26. In some ways, I wish I had spoken much earlier, because I might have had a bit of a different tone than I'll have today after listening to the horrendous attack by Liberals against unions, workers and labour leaders in this province.

It's kind of a déjà vu, though, for me. I just want to go back a ways. I grew up in West Vancouver. West Vancouver has the highest per-capita income in the province; it's a very wealthy area. Of course, throughout the sixties I heard the same rhetoric against unions, against the labour movement and against the leaders of the labour movement. That's what I heard day in and day out in West Vancouver. I heard it in the high schools; I heard it in the organizations. People hated unions; they equated unions with communism. We've kind of forgotten that, but communism and unions were somehow brought together, and anyone who was involved in the labour movement was a communist.

Well, this is the kind of rhetoric we've got all over again, although it has continued through the Socred era. The sons of Socreds on the other side have continued it until now . . . .

An Hon. Member: And daughters.

T. Stevenson: And daughters.

It's the same kind of rhetoric. And I believed the rhetoric at that time. I had no reason to do otherwise. That's what I was surrounded by. I was swimming in a sea of anti-unionism. Finally, I was able to get away and travel abroad and see the conditions in other countries: how workers were treated -- and still are in many countries -- and the kind of legislation there was against unions. Then, as a fairly young man, I came back and went to work in the forest industry. I joined a union, because one signed up when one worked in the forest industry. I was a chokerman for a while. I began . . .

Interjection.

T. Stevenson: Did you do that too?

. . . to understand some of the issues that working people were dealing with. I took a little more time. I worked in a smelter and joined another union up in Kitimat and began to see the conditions and to understand what the companies and the unions were fighting for. Then finally, I joined Air Canada. I was a passenger agent. I belonged to the Canadian Airline Employees Association. I was there for a number of years. After a time, I decided to get involved in the union. I was able to put aside some of the deep-seated anti-union feelings I had grown up with.

Eventually, I became the chair of that local of the Canadian Airline Employees Association. At the same time I joined the NDP. I became involved in collective bargaining.

An Hon. Member: Doubly cursed, from your perspective.

T. Stevenson: Doubly cursed.

Throughout all that time, I kept hearing about how terrible unions were and how these big bosses were running the whole show. Yet that wasn't my experience. I found a very democratic organization. I had to run for a position and for election and be very accountable to the members. The Liberal opposition talks about secret ballots. I joined the union secretly. Then, along with my brothers and sisters, on any given issue we knew where we stood when we made our decisions and cast our votes. We didn't have to hide. We did it collectively.

The problem with the opposition is that they don't understand the difference between individualism and collectivity. We bargained as a collective and stood as a collective. Without that collectivity, we could never have achieved what we needed to achieve and did achieve.

Because of my experience with Air Canada, I was hired with the Ministry of Labour as an industrial relations officer. I was with the Labour Relations Board and the Board of Industrial Relations. I've heard members opposite talk about how small businesses have such wonderful practices, how they're so fair to their employees and how, if it was just all like that and we could get rid of unions, we'd have some kind of nirvana. I can tell you that that is not the case from my experience with the Labour Relations Board and the labour standards board.

I went into many small businesses which weren't paying overtime to their employees; they didn't even keep records for their employees. Now, I'm not for a moment suggesting that that's all small businesses. People join unions because they need the protection, because they can bargain collectively. If you're an individual, you're up against pretty formidable odds, but if you're part of a union, at least you have a much better position than you would otherwise.

Small business in this province does struggle; there's no doubt. But small business everywhere struggles. Men and women are trying to create businesses and be entrepreneurial and turn back into the community . . . . And they do a very good job. But workers do that in the same way. Sometimes I wonder if the problem, for those who are anti-union, is that they feel that the unions are better in the business of doing business than they are, that they're able to bargain in a way that companies would like to bargain but are not able to because they don't have the same entrepreneurial skills, if you like.

I spent some time with the Ministry of Labour and realized just how important the labour bill was. It was at a time when there was tremendous labour strife in this province. I don't know if all the members remember how often there were major strikes throughout this province until we were elected and brought in changes to the code, which have basically brought about labour peace ever since.

[ Page 9166 ]

One of the things coming from the Liberal opposition that I find really repugnant is the term "labour bosses." It comes out of their lips in an almost sinister way. One conjures up these sinister individuals or labour bosses. People who come up through the rank and file of the unions are ordinary women, and ordinary men like me, who run for a position and have to state their position. The membership decides whether they want them to be their leaders. Those members resent this kind of tone.

I wish the Liberal Party and the opposition could somehow understand that we're talking about people who have risen through the ranks to become leaders. Many of them are superb. Ken Georgetti is in his position by no accident. He's an extraordinary individual who would probably have done very well had he gone into business and followed that pursuit. We're very lucky -- and workers are very lucky -- to have these kinds of individuals.

[4:45]

The opposition has made much of secret ballots. I think that the way our own House runs is an example of why standing for what you believe in is so important. I know that each of us is going to stand so everyone can see how we vote on this bill. British Columbians are going to be watching us; workers are going to be watching us. Believe you me, when the bill comes in on same-sex pensions, I'm going to be watching for how everyone stands on that bill. It's the same principle.

That is the same within unions. One stands for what one believes in. There's nothing sinister, nothing untoward about that. Unions are organizations that believe in their members and their members, by and large, believe in their leaders.

By the way the Liberals are fighting this particular bill, Bill 26, you would think that we were completely changing the code. You'd think this was a major change where a revolution . . . .

An Hon. Member: They haven't read it.

T. Stevenson: They haven't read it. Well, I don't know about that.

You'd think it was a major change where we were forcing every individual in British Columbia into some union or other. It's nothing of the sort. Is it a small amendment? No, it's not. We wouldn't bring in a trivial, small amendment. It's an important amendment. But is it the earthshaking change, the revolutionary change that the opposition is suggesting? No, not at all.

The Liberals have made much of the fact that they think capital is going to flee from the province. All of a sudden everybody is going to be just picking up their bags and running out. That is so much hyperbole. Today, hon. members, you should have been with me. You would have enjoyed it. I was in Vancouver for the announcement of Bombardier coming here and investing here.

Interjection.

T. Stevenson: Oh, you'll be seeing it all right. Why for one moment, hon. member, can't you say . . . ?

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, members.

T. Stevenson: Why can't they say one positive thing about anything?

This weekend I was at the launch of the ferry. Now, there's a private company that's making a great deal of money -- at the Burrard drydocks -- investing in the province and investing in the workers. But I haven't heard one member say: "Bravo." It's all: "Oh, the boat . . . . " It used to be that the boat was going to sink. Well, the boat looked like it was doing quite well, and I think Bombardier . . . . At least when I listened to the president, he sounded pretty upbeat about coming to this province, about investing in this province.

These changes we're bringing in to the legislation are similar to changes elsewhere in the country -- Alberta, Ontario and so on. I mean, this is a change that is in line with the rest of this country. I was very intrigued . . . .

Interjection.

T. Stevenson: I've already talked about secret ballots. Check Hansard . Why do you want to have a secret ballot? Have a secret ballot in here.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

T. Stevenson: I was very intrigued, hon. Chair, to listen to the member for Peace River North. It is Peace River North -- right?

Interjections.

T. Stevenson: No -- South, then. Sorry.

I was really intrigued to listen to the member for Peace River South yesterday, a man I greatly respect, actually. He gave a very good speech yesterday -- probably the best I've heard from the opposition so far on this bill. He said that he personally was not supporting the bill, but he was not supporting the bill bec