1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1998

AFTERNOON

Volume 11, Number 4

[ Page 9093 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

G. Bowbrick: On behalf of the Premier, I'd like to introduce today a group of 60 students in grades 5 and 6 at John Norquay Elementary School in Vancouver, with their teacher, Ms. Kainer, and several adults. I'd like to ask all members of this House to join me in making them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: Today I have two guests up in the members' gallery. Michael Towers and Chuck Brewer are on the executive of the Merritt Chamber of Commerce. Would the House please make both of these gentlemen welcome.

J. Smallwood: In the gallery today there are three talented young British Columbians. They have been our legislative interns and are in the final week of their assignments with the government caucus. They have been a tremendous asset to our team, and I want to thank them all for their hard work and wish them well in their future endeavours. Will the House please welcome Aaron Delaney, Malcolm Fairbrother and Adrienne Nash.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am sure that the members of the assembly and yourself have noted in recent days that the media has been bombarding us with reports of sporting events: U.S. Open golf, World Cup soccer in Europe, and recently, the tennis championships in Wimbledon. The media, as you know, when it suits their purposes, do not hesitate to inflict their choice of sporting events on the helpless public. But what happens when the media themselves are directly involved in a world-class event in which athletes of all descriptions, sizes, ages and abilities are fighting it out for the world-famous Speaker's Trophy? [Laughter.] We hear nothing; nothing at all comes forth.

Therefore I consider it my duty today to announce to the world that last weekend the Legislative Assembly tennis team humiliated the press gallery in a score which I'm sure will never be recorded in the annals of any of our journals except for Hansard : 156 to 83. I should also say to the Legislative Assembly that we appreciated the support of the Speaker at the event on the weekend, and we are looking forward to an even more decisive victory next year.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the Legislature today two constituents: David and Shona Lamson. David is a retired teacher, and now he's working as hard as ever on fish habitat issues in the Chilliwack River valley. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm pleased to introduce a special delegation in the gallery today visiting us from the People's Republic of China. They are: Professor Wang, director of the department of education, Ministry of Internal Trade; Professor Hu, president of the Hangzhou Institute of Commerce; Professor He, president of the Tianjin Institute of Commerce; Professor Ye, president of the Heilongjiang Institute of Commerce; Professor Xu, president of the Nanjing Institute of Economics; Professor Zhou, vice-president of the Lanzhou Institute of Commerce; Thelma Plecas, president of Horizon College; and Xiu Sang Wang, also from Horizon College. Would all members of the House please make them welcome.

P. Calendino: I'd like to introduce some of my friends from the union movement up there today, but I'll leave that pleasure to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. Instead, to the chagrin of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, I would simply like to salute the victory of the Italian national team at the World Cup championship. They qualified for the next round. I'd like the House to salute the Italian team.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visiting us today in the gallery is former MLA Jim Beattie, and in particular, his son Cedric Beattie from Penticton. Please welcome them.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is Greg Mooney, a business representative with Sheet Metal Workers Local 280. There's also Borys Lessy, who is an organizer with Plumbing and Pipefitters Local 170 in Burnaby. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: I'm going to have to be on my best behaviour today, because seated in the gallery are my parents, Wilf and Frieda Penner from Chilliwack. With them are their friends Margaret Brisson and Betty Voth, as well as my friend Malti Devi. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Conroy: I'd like to take the opportunity today to introduce a lifelong friend, a person I grew up with, Wayne Peppard. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery is an old friend of mine, Len Friesen. He has been active in our community and in politics in this province. Would the House please make him welcome.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I'd like to read a very brief statement. I have received today a letter from the member for Parksville-Qualicum resigning his seat effective noon today. In accordance with

section 35 of the Constitution Act, a Speaker's warrant has been prepared and forwarded to the office of the chief electoral officer, advising him of the vacancy.

Oral Questions

COST OF SECHELT FIRST NATION DEMANDS

M. de Jong: It wasn't that long ago that the Sechelt first nation offered to settle their land claim, essentially for cash. The NDP government rejected that deal and directed the Sechelt band to the Treaty Commission process. Since then the Sechelts' demands have turned 180 degrees, in the opposite direction. Now, in addition to the cash, they're asking for all of their traditional territories, mineral rights and commercial fishing licences, and now they've ordered resource companies not to pay royalties to the government.

My question to the minister responsible is: can he tell us if this is the NDP's idea of smart negotiating -- taking a deal that we could have settled for a relatively modest sum of money, and dithering to the point where it's now going to cost more money, more land and more resource revenues?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Lovick: I suspect that the member knows the details of the case and knows that we were very close indeed to achieving a deal with the Sechelt band. For reasons known only to themselves, the members of the Sechelt band decided that they would go the litigation route. That is still the process, I'm sorry to report. The most recent utterance from the Sechelt band is, of course, the one the member alludes to -- namely,

[ Page 9094 ]

that the province should not issue any permits or anything, or if we do, that the resources derived from those should be put into a trust fund. I have made it very clear that that proposal is not acceptable. British Columbia is not, for a moment, retreating from its position that it has the right to manage the resources and the ownership of the resources in this province.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: The one thing this minister is very good at is assigning blame elsewhere, either to first nations or to the Treaty Commission itself -- and we'll hear more about that report that was tabled today a little bit later.

Before the NDP got its hands on this treaty process, the claim from the Sechelt was essentially for cash -- a reasonable cash-only deal. Now we've got confrontation, we've got court cases, and we've got a massive escalation of demands. The question to the minister is: can he quantify for British Columbians, who are going to have to pay the bill, how much his government's dithering and inability to secure a reasonable deal is ultimately going to cost the people who are going to end up footing the bill?

Hon. D. Lovick: First, let me say that I reject categorically and most peremptorily the notion that the government is somehow to blame for the fact that the negotiations broke down. That's number one. Number two, I think it is irresponsible in the extreme for a member opposite to take a statement from the press, which is, quite frankly, a pretty exaggerated claim on the part of that particular first nation, and suggest that somehow that will automatically be the amount that the province will ultimately be liable for.

I do not believe that trying to use a 15-minute question period for 40 seconds of questions and answers is a good way to deal with these complex, difficult issues. Frankly, I think we owe the Sechelt people better than what the member is introducing.

FIRST NATIONS TREATY PROCESS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. For six years this government has said that private property rights are not on the treaty negotiating table, but today in their report the B.C. Treaty Commission has said quite clearly: " . . . there are private lands in B.C. that are subject to aboriginal title . . . . " My question to the minister is a simple one. Which is it? Are private property rights on the table or not?

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to thank the opposition for the first real question in the last week.

The answer is very simple. As we have said from the beginning, private property is not on the table. The reason that we registered concern with the B.C. Treaty Commission report -- more specifically, the so-called "Lay Person's Guide to Delgamuukw" -- is that what the B.C. Treaty Commission did was take two legal opinions and present them as if they were in fact somehow the final word on Delgamuukw. Instead, they are merely opinions on the subject. Frankly, I do not think the report and the "Lay Person's Guide to Delgamuukw" -- more specifically with regard to question 11, which is the one the member refers to -- serve the people of the province well.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: We've just watched and seen how the Sechelts' demands have expanded dramatically as a result of this government's negotiating habits. The fact of the matter is that we look today, and the public has no confidence at all . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

G. Campbell: . . . that this government won't change its position with regard to the protection of private property rights. So let me ask the minister this: what guarantees does anyone in the province of British Columbia have that their private property rights won't be sacrificed at the treaty negotiating table?

Hon. D. Lovick: For the last six years the province has never wavered in its stated commitment that private property rights are not on the table. We have never wavered, nor shall we.

But it's a little difficult to listen to the Leader of the Opposition talk about changing one's mind. These are the folks who came from their convention one day, saying they would not retreat from cede, release and surrender, and two weeks later had this miraculous transformation: "We were wrong, and now we're going to be reasonable." So please let the opposition members be a little delicate about accusing anybody of changing their mind.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I suggest it is the government that has caused the confusion with regard to the treaty negotiation process. We now know from the Treaty Commission that as far as they are concerned -- the commission that this government sits on -- private property rights are on the negotiating table. There is no question about that. The keeper of the treaty process has said that private property rights are effectively on the bargaining table. And the question that everyone's asking is: why should anyone now believe a government that hasn't been straightforward with them?

So let me ask the minister if he will set the public's concerns to rest. Will the minister commit today to going to a public referendum on the province's negotiating mandate for treaties, to ensure that private property rights will never be on the table and will never be included and sacrificed during the treaty process?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't know how I can make it more clear than I already have. I have said that private property rights are not on the table. Government has been saying that for some six years.

I have also said that the B.C. Treaty Commission chose to get two legal opinions -- one from a prof at Osgoode Hall Law School, as I recall -- and put opinions on the table vis-à-vis Delgamuukw. But those are simply opinions on Delgamuukw; they are not by any stretch of the imagination the final word on that difficult and complex subject.

I'm sorry, member, but that's as clear as I can make it, and if that isn't good enough or if I need to enunciate more carefully, I'll be happy to do so. You may as well repeat the question; you usually do anyway.

[ Page 9095 ]

BCTF AND EDUCATION AGREEMENT-IN-COMMITTEE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Education. We were told that 73.5 percent of teachers supported this agreement. We now find out that of the 44,000 teachers in British Columbia, only 25,153 actually cast a ballot -- and 75 percent of that constitutes 43 percent of teachers. Can the minister tell us now: does he believe that 43 percent of the teachers in the schools approving a deal that has been directly negotiated or directly imposed by government constitutes teacher ratification of an agreement?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, the BCTF conducted its ratification vote in accordance with its constitution and by-laws, and yes, they have ratified this agreement overwhelmingly, by nearly 74 percent. They've said, by nearly three to one, that they think putting wages on the back burner for two years and accepting a wage freeze in exchange for improving services in the classroom, reducing kindergarten-to-grade-3 classes and hiring 1,200 more teachers is a good deal for kids in our education system.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: The facts are that slightly less than 43 percent of teachers have actually cast a ballot . . . . We now hear from the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation that if they don't hear from the government this week that the government is going to impose legislation to make this deal law, they're going to go on strike in September. Will the minister confirm that the BCTF has not conducted a strike vote, that they only have a mandate to do so by the end of June and that the real reason the minister is rushing this through is so that the BCTF may be in a position to conduct a strike vote before the teachers disappear over the summer months?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Last night I met with representatives of both BCPSEA and the BCTF. I regret to inform the House that those parties are still miles apart, with a huge gulf between them, about how we move forward from here. Indeed, the trustees wish to return to the table and present the same position that led to fruitless negotiations back in February and March. For their part, the teachers have said: "We've been there. We've already put our wage demands on hold in terms of additional resources into classrooms. We have no desire to return to the table, and our executive has a mandate to take a strike vote."

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Well, to the Minister of Education: quite simply, can the minister tell us, now that we know what the government has with respect to financial resources, why he will not exercise the law and allow binding arbitration between the two parties to take place? Why does he insist on government-imposed legislation? Would the minister tell us: if the shoe were on the other foot and government was making a deal with the employers, would he be that anxious to make sure that the government had an imposition?

Hon. P. Ramsey: What I am anxious about is that in the last week of school, before kids go home for the summer, we have some assurance about what's going to happen when those kids return to school in the fall; that we are able to tell parents, with some assurance, that their education will not be disrupted next fall; and further, that we can tell those parents that this government's commitment to improving education, to lowering class sizes and to more counsellors, teachers and ESL specialists will be there when their kids go back to school this fall.

FIRST NATIONS TREATY PROCESS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

G. Plant: I want to return to the issue of private property rights and the treaty process. At a minimum, according to the Treaty Commission's report, compensation will be payable to first nations whose lands were wrongly sold by the Crown to private citizens. This minister has already conceded that the province's treaty-negotiating process will bankrupt the province. I want to ask the minister a specific question, and maybe it'll be one of the minister's "real" questions. Has the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs calculated how much it will cost taxpayers to compensate the Musqueam first nation for the lands in Vancouver that the commission says were wrongly sold to private citizens?

Hon. D. Lovick: There are a number of hypotheses built into that question, along with the hyperbole that seems to identify . . . . Madam Speaker, I have always endeavoured to answer questions fully and completely in this chamber. Indeed, members opposite, I suspect, sometimes object to the fact that my answers are as full as they are. But I will continue to do so, and I assure the member opposite that I will get him a detailed answer to that question as quickly as I possibly can.

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

G. Plant: I know the minister has his head buried pretty deep in the sand, but the question is: how deep? We've been asking . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

G. Plant: We've been asking the minister about a serious and important question concerning the province's position in respect of the Treaty Commission process. So far the minister is hiding behind all kinds of interesting veils. Let's try to give the minister another opportunity to see if he actually knows what's at stake in the treaty process in British Columbia. Have he or his staff calculated the compensation that taxpayers will be on the hook for to the Stó:lo first nation, for all the lands in the Fraser Valley that have been wrongly alienated to private citizens over the last 130 years?

Hon. D. Lovick: I remember when the member for Richmond-Steveston was a civil, urbane and sophisticated fellow -- before he went to the opposition school of finger-

[ Page 9096 ]

pointing, raising the voice, getting ugly and hurling personal insults. Madam Speaker, I continue to try to be civil, understanding and civilized, but it's difficult when you deal with people who demonstrate the manners of a ferret.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members will come to order. Members, there is a member of the House who has the floor and who I wish to recognize. I need order in this chamber.

I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, as entertaining as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs thinks he is, I would ask him to withdraw his last comment.

The Speaker: I would ask the minister to do so. Thank you, member.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I respect this chamber too much not to. I withdraw. The member certainly does not have the manners of a ferret.

The Speaker: Minister, that's not appropriate -- humorous as it may be. Minister, an unqualified withdrawal would be the appropriate thing to do.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, absolutely I withdraw, without reservation or qualification.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller: I have the honour, Madam Speaker, to table the 1997 annual report of the B.C. Railway Group of Companies.

Petitions

G. Campbell: I would like to present a petition from 68 constituents of Vancouver-Point Grey regarding a rehabilitation program for all drivers who display a drug dependency or an alcohol-abuse lifestyle.

J. Weisbeck: Madam Speaker, I'd like to present a petition on behalf of 124 constituents. This petition was initiated by the BCAA, and it is the same petition that our leader just presented.

[2:30]

L. Stephens: I rise to present a petition signed by 49 residents of Langley, and they are requesting a rehabilitation program for all drivers who display drug dependency or an alcohol-abuse lifestyle.

J. van Dongen: Hon. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 1,270 people asking the government to take action on the Slesse Park claybank problem in the Chilliwack River valley, to protect against further damage to fish habitat and wildlife stocks.

P. Nettleton: Hon. Speaker, I rise to present a petition re Bill 26, with roughly 290 signatures.

A. Sanders: Hon. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from 78 constituents of Okanagan-Vernon.

Orders of the Day

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

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading continued)

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to stand and speak against Bill 26. I find it incredible that the NDP spin doctors think that with this legislation they can once again pull the wool over the eyes of British Columbians. This government is so afraid of the people of this province that the only way they can put controversial legislation through this House is to do it when they think the public isn't paying any attention. They actually believe that people are not paying any attention to what is happening in Victoria.

The NDP got a bit of a shock last year when they introduced Bill 44. There was an enormous outcry from all over this province. That anger was not anticipated by the NDP, and they withdrew Bill 44. People are paying attention to the antics of this government, and it's time they paid attention to the people. Will this government allow a public debate on this bill? Will this government allow the public a chance to get an understanding of what is actually in this bill? The answer to both questions is no.

If Bill 26 carries only a modest change, why is the Minister of Labour trying to rush it through the Legislature before the public gets a chance to have a good look at it? It is a cowardly way to do the business of this province, and the members opposite should be hanging their heads in shame. Their popularity is sinking to an all-time low, and when you take a look at our economy since they came into office, you can understand why. Bill 26 is described as a bill with modest changes -- just minor housekeeping in terms of labour legislation in British Columbia. The public isn't buying the spin, and neither are we.

This government has lost all credibility. In a press release, the Minister of Finance quoted from a letter she wrote to her federal counterpart. This is what she had to say: "Given the challenges facing the provincial economy, this is not the time to take a chance on introducing measures which could damage the investment climate." We agree with her. So why is the NDP continually doing things to erode investor confidence in this province?

The NDP know, and we know, that the fact is that Bill 26 will do enormous damage to the investment climate in British Columbia. This Bill 26 is a gift from this government to labour for their support and finances in the last election, and that is the reason we see it here today in this Legislature. It begs the

[ Page 9097 ]

question as to who really is in charge: the Premier or Ken Georgetti? The Premier has bowed to the pressure of union bosses and declared war on small businesses, jobs and investments in this province.

Their socialistic ideology is driving businesses out of this province to places where investment is encouraged. When investment is encouraged, jobs are created -- something this government can't seem to create. This NDP government doesn't care what happens to this province. They don't take the time to look at the impact their legislation is going to have on the province. They are like bulls in the china shop, destroying everything that gets in their way.

The construction unions were amongst the largest donors to the Premier's leadership campaign and were also among the heaviest contributors to the NDP's election campaign. It really shows the people of this province that NDP friends are put before the welfare of the province, and the Labour bill is a prime example of that.

Bill 26 is an investment-killing, job-killing, small business-killing law designed to give a boost to unions that are desperate for new members. This is a bill that every member of this NDP government should be ashamed of ever giving any consideration to at all. The NDP haven't even tried to be fair and bring forth balanced legislation that will be equally beneficial to both the employer and the employee. It wasn't that long ago that the Premier stood shoulder to shoulder with the leaders of some of the biggest businesses in British Columbia and declared that the NDP was changing its tune.

There were pictures of the Premier standing beside these business leaders all over the front pages of the Vancouver Sun .

The business leaders gave the Premier two messages. The first message was: if you want the economy back on the rails, you must lower taxes. The second message given to the Premier was that any changes to the Labour Code would further erode our economy. "Do not touch the Labour Code" -- that's what they said. "The class war against business is over," declared the Premier. "The NDP are not socialists anymore." To prove it, the Premier went around the province holding economic summits. Everywhere he went, he got the same message: stop wrecking the economy with your high taxes, red tape and anti-business labour laws.

The Premier said that he heard what the people were saying. He said that he got the message and would change his ways.

So what happened after all the hype and all the promises of dramatic action to revive the confidence of the business community and the consumers of this province? The NDP came up with Bill 26. This is a disgraceful piece of legislation that has pulled the plug on investment coming into this province. The NDP need to open their eyes and clean out their ears and realize the damage they are doing to British Columbia. It begs the question: why do we have a Minister of Small Business when he isn't doing his job? Do we hear him coming out to defend the business community in this province?

The business community hasn't heard a word from him defending their side of this bill. So why are the taxpayers in this province having to pay the wages of the Minister of Small Business when he can't even do his job and stand up for the business community? The only consultation this government has had is with big labour. This government promised to consult with both sides. What they did was to completely ignore the business community.

The government has no idea what the economic impact is because they are wilfully blind to it. The NDP did not do any impact studies on Bill 14, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. That bill adds more red tape, more costs and more regulation to small businesses. The reason they haven't done an impact study is because they are either afraid of what they are going to find out or they don't care what those economic studies will say. Once again, we have another broken promise made by this government, another broken promise that can be added to the large list of broken promises this government is well known for.

Keith Sashaw, executive vice-president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., says that this is the worst possible thing that could happen to the housing industry at this time. Housing starts are down 40 percent in the lower mainland, 55 percent in Kelowna and 91 percent in Campbell River, hon. Speaker. To introduce a bill like this when the construction industry is in free fall will do untold harm to this industry.

This legislation clearly doesn't demonstrate the faintest idea of how the construction industry works. This legislation isn't about stabilizing the industry; it's about helping Ken Georgetti and the building trades unions to rebuild their deteriorating share of the construction market. That's what this Bill 26 is all about. Building trades unions would like everyone to believe that construction workers want to join their unions. If they were not so afraid of secret ballots, they would soon find out what the real truth is.

Let's talk about secret balloting for a moment. Secret balloting is a democratic right that we have in this country. Big labour doesn't want secret balloting, because they know they wouldn't survive. Big labour couldn't survive because they couldn't control the workforce. When votes are taken without a secret ballot, everybody knows how you voted. Not having a secret ballot is all about fear, intimidation and control. Democracy needs a secret ballot vote based on good, balanced information.

[2:45]

It is too bad that the building unions are not as willing to negotiate collective agreements that are tailored to the needs of the employer and the employees of a specific business. If they were, then there wouldn't be a need for NDP intervention. Building unions find it difficult to get work for their union members, because they insist that employers sign agreements which contain excessive and inflexible demands for wages, benefits and work jurisdiction that render businesses unable to compete for work.

Companies that don't have the right to negotiate an agreement that will allow them to stay in business are either forced into bankruptcy or they will leave this province for greener pastures. The workers in this province will then pay a huge price: they will lose their jobs. It is in the best interest of workers and business owners to be allowed to freely negotiate a collective agreement that allows the workers to have fair working conditions and that allows the business community in this province to survive.

This piece of legislation is purely political and is not motivated by good policy but by insider politics between the Premier and big labour. Sometimes I wonder if anyone on the other side understands that it is small businesses that provide people in this province with jobs. The small business community creates more jobs than any other sector. Why won't the Minister of Small Business talk to the Minister of Labour? It is small businesses that pay the wages that support families. The Minister of Small Business and Tourism said so himself.

Yet he won't even stand up and defend small businesses against this one-sided piece of legislation. There isn't one person on that side of the House who has the courage to speak out about the role of the business community in this province. Is it any wonder our province has gone from number one in economic growth to last place? Since this NDP government came into office in 1991, this government has been in a downward spiral that has brought British Columbia to its knees.

[ Page 9098 ]

It has only been one year since the jobs and timber accord was announced -- remember? The Premier made this great big to-do about the number of jobs that were going to be created. The NDP promised to create thousands of jobs and stability for our forest-dependent communities. What happened? Thousands of forest workers have lost their jobs. Communities in British Columbia are in crisis. The jobs and timber accord is a dismal failure. I remember that the Premier closed down the Legislature to make this great announcement of thousands of jobs.

We have to give credit where credit is due. They did actually create one job. That job was the jobs and timber accord advocate, with a salary of $168,000 annually. That is the only job that has been created. This government promised 22,400 direct forest jobs, and 12,680 jobs were lost. That's disgraceful.

The NDP's response, when asked if they had a plan to restore British Columbia's economic health, was to advertise. They advertise that the economy of British Columbia is good and think that the people will actually believe their spin. When this government doesn't like what they hear, they buy more advertising -- spend more of the taxpayers' hard-earned money trying to make themselves look good.

Neil Roos of the Christian Labour Association of Canada calls these changes to the Labour Code diabolical. He thinks it's a blatant attack on independent unions in the construction industry. He says there is a centralist plan going on here which clearly favours the government's friends in the big unions, and so-called freedom of choice and democracy is being given the short shrift. Big labour wants to eliminate independent unions. The mainstream unions harshly criticize them for negotiating deals with lower wages and benefits than those in the trade contracts.

The interim report of the construction industry review panel was very clear in saying that this legislation was not the desirable route to solve the problems that exist in the construction industry. They were very clear that what was necessary was for the unions and employers to sit down and negotiate solutions to their internal problems -- that legislation was not the answer. Every business -- whether you run a restaurant, a hotel or a retail store -- has to question what this government is doing. Today it is the construction industry; tomorrow it might be them. The Coalition of B.C.

Businesses, which represents approximately 50,000 small and medium-sized companies, called Bill 44 undemocratic and job-killing last year. Bill 26 is the beginning of undemocratic legislation and the start of killing more jobs in British Columbia.

What the member for Victoria-Hillside and his counterparts fail to recognize when they talk about the working man is that this bill is not fair to the working man. We on this side of the House are fighting for balance, fairness and equality for the working man and the employer -- something this government needs to learn. The members opposite are trying to spin that it's B.C. Liberals' doom and gloom that is discouraging investment from coming to this province. This government continues to wear blinders when it suits their purpose.

The future is about hope, about optimism for this province. If we didn't have hope that this NDP government would soon be out of office, our future would be full of doom and gloom. On this side of the House we are filled with hope and optimism. We know that the people of this province will have long memories and will not forget the way the NDP has treated them. When you look across Canada, business optimism is highest in Ontario and the prairie provinces. Optimism is the lowest in British Columbia.

When the working men and women in this province look at the amount of money that's left in their pockets after taxation, it is quite alarming. We can see why optimism is so low. Personal income of British Columbians declined by 1.9 percent in 1996. In 1997 personal income declined by 2.3 percent. The amount of money the average British Columbian has to feed their family and pay their rent or mortgage declined by 2.3 percent last year -- a direct result of the policies of this NDP government.

When we look at capital spending, the national average is 12.2 percent. In British Columbia we are less than half of the national average, at 5 percent. Alberta has a growth in capital spending of 24 percent. They are thriving, because they are open to investment and small business. The people are leaving this province in hordes, and this government is pretending nothing is happening.

Whether industry supports this bill or not, they all rely on investment. Investors have to have a willingness to invest in British Columbia. This province is beginning to get a reputation as a bad place to invest, and that is the fault of this government. It is this government and its socialistic ways that have brought British Columbia to its knees. These are job-killing NDP policies and just another nail in the coffin for anybody considering investing in this province.

Let's take a look at what the changes to Bill 26 do to the Labour Code. Once this legislation is enacted, there will be only one contract for every project in the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sector in this province that is built by a union contractor. This bill will impose a one-size-fits-all contract on an industry that desperately needs the opposite. It means that if a contractor is unionized, the workers don't have to negotiate a first contract. It is just handed to them. This gives union organizers a leg up in recruiting new members. Never mind that it leaves no flexibility.

What's most frightening about all this is that the NDP is acting against the recommendations of some of the top experts in labour relations. Let's take a look back to 1996. The labour mediators Stephen Kelleher and Vince Ready wrote a report on the construction industry. These men are not B.C. Liberals, nor are they seen as pro-business in any way. In 1996 they said that one size does not fit all. In fact, the industry is moving in the opposite direction. Increasingly contractors and unions are making contractual arrangements on a project-by-project basis.

Earlier this year another non-partisan committee reviewed the NDP's proposed changes to the Labour Code and said that there should be no sectoral bargaining. This committee said a sectoral bargaining model, as envisaged in Bill 44 -- and you remember that that was last year's controversial bill -- does not provide solutions to the problems facing the industry. Nobody wants sectoral bargaining imposed on business -- nobody, that is, but Ken Georgetti. He is so desperate to get more members that he will sacrifice the jobs and investment of the entire province. The NDP is bringing in sectoral bargaining against all the advice of labour experts and all the pleas of their new friends in business.

Interjections.

B. McKinnon: That's you guys getting desperate.

Not so long ago we had the Premier telling us that he was the new champion of business. Do you remember, hon. Speaker? The Premier was saying that the NDP had changed their tune. Now they're dancing to the tune of Ken Georgetti,

[ Page 9099 ]

and the tune is: "You'll do it my way." We are fortunate on this side of the House. We have a party that believes in choice, not dictatorship. It's really sad that no one listens to anyone's point of view on that side of the House, because it is really a one-man show over there.

We need a government that gives employers and workers the freedom to negotiate their own contract. We need to restore the secret ballot for workers, and we need to open our doors to investors. We won't get these things from this NDP government, because when push comes to shove, we know where the Premier's loyalty lies. It's with Ken Georgetti, not the working people, not the consumers, not investors and certainly not small business operators.

British Columbia's economy is headed for a full-blown recession, if we're not already in one. Our economy is not just in the doldrums, like the NDP would have you believe. When we talk about Alberta's economy, we know it upsets the NDP. We keep doing it in the hope that someone over there on that side is listening -- listening and taking an honest look at the number of businesses either shutting their doors because they can't take any more harassment from this government or moving out of this province altogether. Did you know that 107 companies left B.C. for Alberta last year alone?

Did you know that the building permits in Alberta jumped 20 percent last year while those in B.C. actually dropped by almost 10 percent?

With Bill 26, this NDP government is going to make it more expensive to build in British Columbia. This NDP government is going to take away the rights of employers to freely negotiate with workers and of workers to freely negotiate with employers. Think what messages this NDP government is sending out to the world. They don't seem to have any knowledge of the world economy or of how it works. This government doesn't give any thought to what the ramifications will be to anyone affected by this bill. The Minister of Labour himself admitted that they didn't do an economic impact study of this bill -- at a time when our economy is in a free fall.

I'm beginning to think that the NDP have lost sight of why we have a union movement in the first place. The union movement has been very successful when it reflects the collective views of the majority of workers at a workplace. Workers have won when they maximized their benefits while still allowing the company to ensure that their jobs will be secure for the long term. What I mean by that is that businesses are allowed to make profits. Profits are why people have businesses and why companies invest.

The NDP and big-labour leadership appear to have decided that all B.C. workers are better off if they belong to a union. The next step in that logic is to say that whatever gets workers into unions is justified. Whatever happened to free choice? Are the NDP afraid that the worker cannot make the right choices for himself or herself?

B.C. Liberals believe that each group of workers has the right to decide for themselves if a collective agreement is desirable. It is not government's prerogative to impose it on them. That's really the shame of it, hon. Speaker -- the government's knowledge of how to run a province. They are pulling the plug on jobs and investment in this province.

[3:00]

I will summarize some of the points I have made in the hope that the NDP will pick up some of them. It shouldn't be that difficult for the NDP to do some homework and take a look at their own laws before they announce them. That would actually show that they are really concerned about the well-being of this province. Before bringing in legislation that will affect investment and jobs, they should ask themselves a few questions: how is this law going to bring jobs to British Columbia? How is this law going to bring investment back to British Columbia? In the case of Bill 26, the answer would have been obvious.

It will kill jobs, it will kill investment and it will kill small businesses. They know what these businesses will do then. They are going to look across the border to Alberta and the United States and say: "They are labour-friendly. They want my business and my investment. In return, I will create jobs for them."

This government hasn't shown us that they are capable of fixing the damage they have done to our economy. The Premier has proven once and for all that he doesn't have a clue how to create a prosperous economic climate. What this province needs is a government with a plan, a vision, on how to turn the economy around, not a government determined to do everything in its power to destroy what was once the strongest economy in the country. We need a government that will enact fair and balanced labour laws. We need a government that says it will balance the budget, cut taxes, cut red tape -- and then actually do it.

Just read Vaughn Palmer in today's Vancouver Sun . I will quote from his column: "Alcan is rethinking a plan to expand its aluminum production in Kitimat after a feasibility study determined . . . . "

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: Don't you like to hear the news? Let me start all over again, just in case you haven't read the paper. Listen carefully, because this is what you are doing to this province: "Alcan is rethinking a plan to expand its aluminum production in Kitimat after a feasibility study determined that B.C.'s higher labour costs and higher taxes would boost construction costs by 50 percent -- to $1.8 billion from $1.2 billion." And you tell me that you're not doing harm to this province with your labour bill? You are.

Interjections.

The Speaker: To members and the member speaking, I would draw your attention to the fact that comments are to be addressed through the Chair.

B. McKinnon: Hon. Speaker, I apologize for that.

Interjection.

[ Page 9100 ]

B. McKinnon: Through the Speaker to the hon. minister across the way, I know you don't like to hear the bad news, but if you would listen to the bad news and act upon the bad news . . . .

We have a Labour minister who continually spins that these are modest changes. Do you call 50 percent more expensive to do business in British Columbia modest? Oh, no. It's time you faced the truth. Now we know why no one in this province can believe anything that this government says. No longer are the people living in this province going to allow this government to pull the wool over their eyes, when they make such a mockery of the jobs here. We have a vision; we have a plan. The B.C. Liberals will deliver on that plan and put British Columbia back to number one in Canada again.

Hon. Speaker, remember that when your neighbour loses his job, it's a recession; when you lose your job, it's a depression; when the Premier loses his job, it will be a recovery. In a nutshell, Bill 26 needs to be taken back to the drawing board, to make it balanced and fair to all British Columbians. The government needs to do an impact study to find out what effect this bill will have on the economy of British Columbia.

With these words, I hope that this government realizes we have to stop the downward spiral this province is in and begin an upward climb toward the future.

R. Masi: It is my privilege to rise today and make a few comments on Bill 26. I would like to talk a little bit about the economy to begin with. I believe that there is a definite relationship between the economy, the resources of the province and the effect that any sort of labour bill has on these.

First of all, I'd like to turn the clock back. Not so long ago, an idea struck the Premier, believe it or not. He came across a gentleman by the name of Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England. Tony Blair was doing pretty well in England. He had just won an election; he was very popular. He was a good-looking fellow, and he became quite a celebrity in England and in the world. Our Premier then decided that he'd become Tony Blair, because it spins well. His spin doctors told him that would be a good spin -- "I'll be Tony Blair."

The Premier decided to hold a number of summit meetings, and of course these would be historic summit meetings. They're all historic meetings when the Premier calls them. The Premier went out and gathered the business leaders, including Jimmy Pattison. "Everybody knows Jimmy and everybody respects Jimmy, so we'll spin him into the mix too." Anyway, after hearing the message, the Premier declared, in all his glory: "The class war against business is over. The NDP are not socialists any more. We have seen the light." Another historic announcement.

"In the future," the Premier said, "we will stop wrecking the economy with anti-business rhetoric and anti-business labour laws." After all the hype and all the promises of dramatic action to revive the confidence of business and consumers, what has the Premier and the NDP come up with? Well, they came up with Bill 26.

I respect the Minister of Labour. He's absolutely right when he states that the reality of the modern economy is that it functions, to a huge degree, on perception as much as anything else. I have no quarrel with that. In fact, that's what this debate is all about; it's all about perception. What is the people's perception of this NDP government? What do international investors perceive about this province and this government? What do major corporations with huge investment dollars perceive about this province and this government?

What do small and medium-sized businesses -- the job creators of our province -- perceive when they struggle for survival? Big business lines us up with China and all the dictators of the world when they say: "That's a tough place to do business. British Columbia is not a place we want to do business in."

How do the 16,209 British Columbians who left perceive the economy of this province? They're voting with their feet; they're leaving because they know that jobs are tough to get in this province. What confidence does anyone anywhere have now about the economic policies of this government? Let's look at Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. It meets the fondest dreams of old-line trade unions. It meets all the dreams of the trade unions in British Columbia, of all the friends and insiders of the old-line unions. But it could and probably will lead to a long and lingering nightmare for business and investment in this province.

When we speak about perception and the economy, as the Minister of Labour did, let's review the history of the NDP's anti-business labour policies. Let's just take a look back at where they've gone. We like to talk about balance and the pendulum swinging, but I think that maybe the pendulum has swung too far. Look back to 1993, to the fair-wage policy imposed upon contractors working on government-funded construction projects. The policy forces contractors to pay workers a super-minimum wage equivalent to union rates.

The policy is later shown to have increased the cost of public construction and to have reduced the number of jobs created. This sort of policy virtually decimates the highways budget and other capital budgets. Roads, schools and hospitals could be built with a little more balance in this whole business of wages and how the policies are implemented.

In 1993 the NDP rewrote the Labour Code to make it easier to organize a union. The NDP eliminated the secret ballot in certification votes. You know, no one is against organizing, no one is against organizing unions and no one is against unions. Unions have played a vital historical role in our province, and I probably know more about the historical role of unions that most people on the other side of this House. But the problem here is: what about the secret ballot? The secret ballot is a fundamental precept of democracy. It's something that we fought for over and over again. We can compare it to the universal ballot.

We are talking about a fundamental precept of democracy. If we had the secret ballot in the labour movement today, the support would be there for the development of unions, but it has been taken away. What we have now is that certification is automatic when 55 percent of the workers in a company sign a union card. Talk about an opportunity for intimidation! Have you ever been there? Have you ever been to a union meeting when you're forced, when you're embarrassed, when you're put into a corner to sign a union card? That's how it goes, and that's reality. That's not democracy.

Democracy is when we have a secret ballot and when you can make your decision in secret in a purely democratic manner. There's a fundamental weakness there. The members on the opposite side know that there's a fundamental weakness there, and they should change that and get back to democratic principles. Then the recruitment and union organization would be justified.

In 1994 the union-only highway project . . . . All workers on the project had to sign on with one of eight unions which signed a master collective agreement. Do we call this freedom of choice? Is this a level playing field? In his speech a day or so ago, the Minister of Northern Development was talking about level playing fields and modest changes. Let's make some modest changes. Let's look back . . . . Let's level the playing field when we're talking about union recruitment.

[ Page 9101 ]

In 1994 the NDP broadened Workers Compensation Board coverage to include 18,000 low-risk workplaces such as banks and law offices. The WCB's growing premiums now cover virtually every worker and occupation in the province, no matter how low the risk. So I ask the ministers on the other side of the House: how many lawyers do you know of that have actually fallen off their chairs? I don't think very many. I think it's a matter of judgment in these laws. You need high-risk protection; you need to protect workers in high-risk jobs. But we don't need to expand this to the point of ludicrousness.

[3:15]

In 1995 the NDP rewrote the Employment Standards Act. It imposed a massive new paper burden on small businesses. This is what we're talking about: the development of businesses, of jobs -- the job creators. Fringe benefits were extended to part-time workers, and employers and employees were restricted from voluntarily agreeing to variances in work standards. I mean, can you believe this? A so-called social democratic government, founded on the best of principles, in fact enacts laws like this and forces -- absolutely forces -- employees . . . . Can you believe this?

Well, some small business cannot compete without variances, and that's the reality. And do you know what the government answer is? The government answer is: "Who cares? That's the law. You follow the law; the law is the law." We had laws enacted in Germany in the 1930s too. Because it's the law, that doesn't make it a good law. So let's examine these laws and look ahead.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Again today, with Bill 26, the business sector, the investment community and the business leaders of this province have been led down the garden path by this Premier and this government. It's no surprise that British Columbia is perceived as a shaky place to do business; it's no surprise that we've fallen from first to last in Canada. Imagine that -- from first to last, dead last. This rich province, with all its resources and all its population, has gone to last place in economic development. Who has been in government for seven years? That's what I ask. I mean, how did this happen?

We know about the Asian crisis. Everyone understands that, and we know it's serious. But we also know that in the time this government has been in place, that's where we've gone: from first to last, dead last in Canada.

What we have to ask, in economic development . . . . Is Bill 26 just more of the same big-labour-knows-best legislation? Or is it maybe payback time? Maybe it is. You have to ask the question: where did the NDP get its funding? Where did the NDP get its workers? Where did the NDP get its strategists in the 1996 election? Well, we know where. Obviously it came from unions -- from big unions, from craft unions. The help that was provided throughout the '96 election was very nicely excused from campaign costs by the NDP's Election Act -- very convenient.

I have to ask another question: where did the Premier get his support for the leadership of the NDP? Can we say from big labour? Was big labour ever involved in the leadership campaign of the NDP? I think so.

Interjections.

R. Masi: I would like now to turn, if I may -- despite the rantings of the other side -- to the Kelleher-Lanyon report.

Interjections.

R. Masi: I think we should talk about it. It's called "Looking to the Future," which is interesting. But you know, you have to read the whole report -- and maybe someone hasn't read the whole report. I wonder how many people on the other side have even turned to open it to the first page. Let's look at the panel's conclusions. I've looked at four or five of them here, and the first one I looked at . . . . I'll read it to you: "The principles of competition must be maintained if the industry is to thrive in the increasingly competitive economy of the next century."

Well, I wonder about that. I wonder if anyone on the other side even realizes what competition is all about. I know it's a dirty word on the other side. I mean, we don't like competition. We don't even like competition in our schools anymore, according to the other side. Let us not compete.

We never talk about the rights of employers. Have you ever talked about the rights of employers to bargain in their own interests? We often hear from the other side about the rights of workers to unionize. What about the people who take the risks and who put the money up? Do they have any rights? Can they not bargain in their own interests?

An Hon. Member: Not with this government.

R. Masi: Not with this government, they can't. I don't know where investment dollars are supposed to come from.

Let's look at another one here: "A sectoral bargaining model, as envisaged in Bill 44, does not provide solutions to the problems facing the industry." Well, well, well. So!

Interjection.

R. Masi: "Bill 44 is gone," says the minister, but I don't know. I tend to read the papers now and then and to look at various columnists, and I look at a columnist by the name of Vaughn Palmer.

Interjections.

R. Masi: And, of course, that creates derision and laughter. I think maybe you should . . . . Keep it up.

Interjection.

R. Masi: That's right. I suggest that Vaughn is a reputable and very accurate reporter. He was talking to the Premier about -- surprise, surprise -- Bill 44. We all know that this Bill 26 is the first step toward a similar bill coming up in the future, if the government's still around by the time the next session rolls around. Anyway, the Premier was asked about Bill 44, and he answered. It says: "Moreover, though the current bill implements only some of the measures contained in last year's bill, the Premier indicated that he hasn't given up on the portions that were dropped . . . . " Well, well, well.

On another question to the Premier around Bill 44: " ' . . . I very much would like to see that come in,' Mr. Clark told the reporters. 'It's still a huge gaping problem of contracted services and the rights of workers in the contracted sector . . . . ' " The Premier says we're going to get Bill 44, come hell or high water. Of course, the Labour minister says: "Believe me, as Labour minister -- there is no intention to go beyond this." So who do we believe?

Interjections.

[ Page 9102 ]

R. Masi: Certainly not, eh?

So I look at another clause in the conclusions there: "Non-union, craft union and industrial union models currently exist in the industry and the legislative framework must reflect that diversity." Well, I'm glad to see that in there. I hope that there'll be some recognition of this, because the evolution of the construction industry and individual skills capacity must be recognized. I think this is something that perhaps the old-line unions don't want to recognize: that young people are now more competent, better educated, more capable and can develop more skills than they could in the past.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thought you said the school system was failing them five minutes ago. Let's be a little consistent.

R. Masi: Hon. Speaker, I feel I've been misquoted here. I said that the other side does not appreciate competition even in schools, and they don't.

Let's look at the fourth conclusion. "There is broad agreement on the need for stronger training programs, but no consensus on the best ways to go about it." Well, Bill 26 provides nothing in this area. It's probably the most important segment of this Kelleher-Lanyon report. We have to look forward, look at a new way of developing training programs. I'm surprised that putting forward a labour bill does not include some of the methodologies of developing new skills training techniques. At the least, supporting it in the bill would be appreciated.

Also included in the report are some trends and statistics that indicate the real and present makeup of the construction industry. I'd like to quote from the Kelleher-Lanyon report: "A slowdown in demand for construction services combined with an influx of new resources into the industry . . . has led to a situation . . . where construction resources are generally in oversupply. This has led to a buyers' market and significant competition within the industry." Well, here we see this word "competition" again.

So we have to realize that employers, in order to survive and have a willingness to invest, must be able to bargain in their own interests. I don't think the government understands that -- that employers have to have the capacity to bargain, to deal, to bid in their own interest, or there will not be investment in this province.

Let's look at some more facts from the report. In 1997, StatsCan reported that 129,000 persons were employed in construction in British Columbia. Employment has edged upward in the construction industry. The overall rate of unemployment has reached a ten-year low of 10.5 percent during 1997. It is below the 14.4 percent average rate over the last five years and far below the 17.1 percent unemployment rate in 1993. I know these are dry statistics, but you have to look at it. Self-employment in the industry is very high; somewhere close to one-third of all employees are in the construction industry.

So let's be logical here. If employment is rising in the construction industry, I must ask: what are we really trying to fix here? Well, let's not tamper with and destroy the construction industry. I mean, the government tampered with and destroyed the forest industry, tampered with and virtually wiped out the mining industry. So what are we trying to fix?

I don't think we're trying to really fix a problem. What we're trying to do is do some paybacks to friends and insiders. We must remember that the construction industry is also critical for many other sectors. Suppliers, developers, design firms, truckers and, yes, even the towboat industry and other integral sectors are dependent upon the construction industry. So in the modern economy, you cannot hive off a

section of the industry and give that industry special privilege, no matter how close you are to the insiders and the special people in the union movement.

Let us make no mistake. Traditional union construction has come under tremendous competitive pressure over the last few years. There is a lot of pressure on them: pressure from non-union competition and pressure from industrial or wall-to-wall unions.

Let's look at some of these so-called rat unions. IWA-Canada is now involved in sawmill construction. The Christian Labour Association of Canada -- CLAC -- the General Workers Union, the Canadian Iron, Steel and Industrial Workers, commonly known as the CISIWU . . . . The Carpenters Union is also doing some wall-to-wall organizing. So when we take a look at this, why do we call these rat unions? Why do we get into this controversy about wall-to-wall unions and non-unions? What we have going on here are just turf wars.

We can cite again from the Kelleher-Lanyon report. The Boilermakers Union and the Sheet Metal Workers Union . . . . We know that a significant amount of their work and bargaining activity takes place outside the bargaining council. We also understand that special enabling provisions have been negotiated, even with the building trades, to allow contractors flexibility on bidding and estimating of project costs and that they have permitted these contractors to successfully compete. I know I'm not supposed to use the dirty word "competition." I realize that.

I ask, hon. Speaker: why at this time, when the province is close to recession, when the construction industry is moving along nicely . . . ?

[3:30]

Interjections.

R. Masi: I believe that perhaps the other side doesn't believe we're close to a recession. They should check the report of the B.C. credit unions and the major banks. They should check the bond-rating agencies. But no, we don't want to hear all that, because that doesn't come from the trade union movement; that only comes from people with a lot of expertise in the economic and financial world. We don't want to hear any advice from those people.

So again I ask the members on the other side: why, after the Finance minister states that we will relax regulation and open the province to business, do this at this time? Isn't timing everything in politics? Isn't timing everything? You know, I would have bet big dollars if someone had told me that this bill would be introduced. I said no, they will never introduce it, because they have changed their approach to investment and business in this province. They will not tamper with the labour situation. But oh no, they went ahead and introduced it because big, big labour spoke. I guess it's just payback time again.

But we always have to remember that governments come and governments go. So we will see just how long this one stays.

I would like to look at the interim report brought forward on February 7, 1996, by the original construction industry

[ Page 9103 ]

review panel, when it considered and rejected a CLRA proposal to establish a single bargaining unit for the province. The report stated:

"In our view, the complexities of the construction industry militate against a single negotiated agreement. One size does not fit all. In fact, the industry is moving in the opposite direction. Increasingly, contractors and unions are making contractual arrangements on a project- by-project basis. The process of enabling which has developed over the last several years, whereby the provisions of collective agreements are modified on an ad hoc basis . . . is merely an example of this.

"Employers and unions currently have the means to work out mutually acceptable accommodations to their needs. We heard from some who have successfully done so. We do not believe that it is either necessary or desirable to so dramatically alter the environment in which these accommodations have been made. In our view, nothing has changed that should alter this assessment of the state of construction industry labour relations in British Columbia."

I was also interested in the comments of another columnist. I know that as soon as I say the word "columnist," there is objection and derision from the other side, but I think that a man by the name of Brian Lewis has made some pertinent comments that should be listened to. He says in the Province newspaper's financial pages: "Even if the changes are necessary, why bring them in now, at a time when B.C.'s business climate and our economy are in such poor shape?" Well, again, we get back to the question of timing.

An Hon. Member: Payback.

R. Masi: Payback is right.

The Clark government still fails to grasp a fundamental point: in business, perception is reality. Of course, I know that the Minister of Labour has already commented on the definition of perception. It's interesting, too, that he commented on . . . . I'm not sure if he quoted or not, but he commented on and used Ross Perot as his example of political expertise.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Perhaps you could wrap up your comments.

R. Masi: Well, I would just like to say that I hope the minister realizes that Ross Perot certainly was a paragon of social justice in the United States of America, and as the days and weeks go by, we'll have lots more to say on this bill.

Hon. H. Lali: Thank you very much for this wonderful opportunity to respond to Bill 26. Listening to the member opposite, he was asking why we needed to bring this in. I think he should be made well aware of the fact that the construction industry needs separate rules for collective bargaining, and until now every province but British Columbia has recognized this fact. Alberta has it, Ontario has it, and I know that the members opposite use those two particular provinces as the role models that they want to follow -- when it suits them the best.

By implementing legislation that recognizes the unique characteristics of construction, B.C. is joining the Canadian mainstream. I want to tell that to the members opposite, because I know they're very, very confused. They haven't read the bill, but they'd like to go out there and make comments to the media, which further aggravates the situation. It would help if they knew what was in here and what was not.

I'm glad the member for Matsqui is here, because he's one of the people on the opposition benches who has the biggest misunderstanding, if you want to call it that, and who is most confused. I know he will listen intently to every word I'm about to say.

Bill 26 will apply mainly to the part of the construction industry called industrial, commercial and institutional -- ICI for short. ICI construction workers build sawmills, they build schools and hospitals, and they build shopping malls and office buildings, but they do not build -- and I repeat this for the members opposite -- condos or houses or roads. I want them to be clear about this -- what they do and don't do.

Bill 26 also requires that craft unions and their employers include a plan in their contracts to resolve jurisdictional disputes. That's one of the most common reasons for instability and delays in the construction industry. Bill 26 will also bring all craft unions into one council and all craft union employers into one association to bargain in non-residential, industrial, commercial and institutional construction. Bill 26 also supports continued competition between union and non-union building contractors. It also protects the right of workers to choose between non-union, craft union and industrial union models.

I want to point out to the members opposite what Bill 26 does not do. That is, Bill 26 is not about bargaining in residential construction.

Hon. L. Boone: That's right. Listen up.

Hon. H. Lali: Listen up. It is also not about organizing a union in construction or anywhere else. It is also not about employers or unions outside of construction. I also want to point out to the members opposite that this is also not about non-union versus union worksites. So quit confusing the issue. It's fairly clear. It's in here. Read the bill, and you'll find the details. If they had read the bill, they wouldn't be out there making misleading statements, in the House or outside of it.

I also want to talk about the Liberals. One has to wonder where their opposition is coming from. Why are they so opposed to all of this? Well, one thing that has been made perfectly clear from day one, from 1991 when they were first elected . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I see the member opposite doing his usual Nixon imitation.

Hon. D. Lovick: He fits it so well.

Hon. H. Lali: He fits it so well; he's a funny guy.

One thing is perfectly clear about the members of the opposition: they have no philosophy; they have no objectives or goals in mind -- except for one. They are unanimous in the one goal that they have, and that is their blatant anti-unionism -- the blatant anti-labour stance that they always take. In the final analysis, it's the blatant anti-worker attitude that these people have. They don't understand the working people of this province. They have never spoken up on behalf of workers' issues. As a matter of fact, time after time . . . .

I have been here since 1991, and every time we have introduced legislation or anything that the government has put forward that is in favour of the working people of this province, that anemic Liberal opposition has always voted against it. They have spoken against every one of those positive initiatives -- every single time.

They're against decent wages. The members opposite are against workers making decent wages. They don't want workers making decent wages so they can go out there and

[ Page 9104 ]

buy cars and buy houses and invest their money. No, they don't. None of these people have ever stood up, in this Legislature or outside it, and spoken in favour of workers making decent wages.

These members opposite have always been against communities. They have always spoken against communities, especially rural communities. If a few more of them had been elected in the rural areas, they might be able to understand the issues of rural communities, such as Quesnel and Merritt and Williams Lake and Pouce Coupe. But they don't. Not once have they spoken up on behalf of small rural communities. Not a single one of these people ever has. They continually speak against decent working wages and against communities, every single one of them.

They're against the middle-class lifestyle, which comes with people making decent wages. They make their wages; they go out and spend it on consumer goods. They might want to buy a washer or dryer for the house, a car for their kids or pay for their children's education. They'll go and buy a house. No, these people are against decent wages. They're against communities and they're against community stability. Those people are especially against decent, well-paying, family-supporting jobs. That's what these people are against -- every single one of them.

I ask them: what have you got against working people? What have you got against communities? What do you have against families? What do you have against people making decent wages to be able to send their children to universities and colleges?

Hon. D. Lovick: Maybe buy goods from small business.

Hon. H. Lali: They might buy goods from small businesses, which some of these people own -- the local grocer, the local person who sells clothing and sporting goods or the restaurateur. It's the people who are in these decent, well-paying jobs who go out and spend their money. It's not the minimum-wage kinds of jobs.

These folks are also against the minimum wage. They have spoken time and time again. The last time we raised the minimum wage -- what was that huge amount? -- 15 cents an hour, to a person those people sitting across the way, those Liberals, spoke against it. They said there was going to be doom and gloom. They said there were going to be businesses closing because of 15 cents an hour. Some young kid may get an extra 15 cents an hour, so he could have a little bit of money saved up.

An Hon. Member: Some young mom.

Hon. H. Lali: And some young mom saving up a little bit of money. Maybe they could go to a restaurant and have the odd meal out or save a little bit of pocket money and put a little bit of gas in the car. That's what these people are against; they are against minimum employment standards. If the Liberals had their way, there will be no employment standards -- none whatsoever. That's how they would have it.

What else are they against? Well, I'll tell you what else they're against. They're against minimum health and safety standards in the workplace. They don't want any of that. Who cares if somebody gets their arm lopped off at their place of work? They don't care. They don't want minimum standards in the workplace -- not a single one of them. Did one of them stand up in the House and actually support health and safety standards? Did anybody speak in favour of it? To a person, none of those members opposite did.

But time and time again, you hear them talking their anti-worker language. They get up in the House and outside of the House, and they rail against workers. They rail against "big labour." It's supposed to be this monolith out there that's controlling everything. That's how these people would like to paint the picture. You can hear them every time when they get up to speak. Just listen to them all. All you have to do is listen to them all.

Let's talk about big labour for a minute here. If you put all the money and resources that big labour has in British Columbia in one pot, I'll tell you that those resources and the money in that pot would be less than one big corporation called Mac-Blo or Interfor or Canfor. You can pick any large multinational corporation in British Columbia, and they will have more resources and more money at their disposal than all of supposedly big labour combined. That's what these people here are supposed to be fighting against.

Now, we know what side of the fence these guys are on. Certainly it's not on the side of the working class -- absolutely not. They're not in favour of workers. They never have supported and they never will support the working class of this province. When they talk about big labour, what does labour stand for? Labour stands up on behalf of 2.5 million working people in British Columbia; that's what labour stands for. They stand up and work on behalf of the working people of this province, whether it's talking about employment standards or the Workers Compensation . . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, minister. Could I ask members to allow themselves a few moments -- until they have the floor -- before they speak and to allow the minister to finish his speech.

[3:45]

Hon. H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for trying to bring some decorum into the House.

I'd like to see these guys across the way over here . . . . We know what they stand for. They're anti-worker, but they also stand for Howe Street -- every one of them. That's what they stand for. Let's talk about what else they stand for. Here's what they have to say on some of these things. The Leader of the Opposition said that it's okay to hire scab workers; that's what he says. He said that on May 27, 1996, in the Vancouver Province.

An Hon. Member: He had a different term for them, didn't he?

Hon. H. Lali: He called them replacement workers, to try to soften it up a little bit. He said that we should have "the option of hiring replacement workers during a strike to protect [our] viability." What else? On occupational health and safety, let's hear what the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head had to say. It's from Hansard of May 6, 1998 -- page 7544, to be exact, if anyone wants to read it.

She said: "We cannot allow a union collective agreement to intervene and override workplace safety when it disagrees with management's disciplinary actions towards employees." She doesn't believe in health and occupational standards -- none. She says if it's in the agreement that there's supposed to be certain health and occupational standards, and the employer chooses to override it, he should be able to do so. That's what the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head said.

[ Page 9105 ]

What else did the . . . ? The Leader of the Opposition said, on June 17, 1998, in question period -- it's in Hansard -- that he's in favour of double-breasting. He said that we should have double-breasting. He said that we should allow unions to be broken at will. He said that we should allow that to happen. That's what the Leader of the Opposition says -- another anti-worker statement, hon. Speaker.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena said: "We would eliminate the fair-wage act." He said we should eliminate it. That's what the member opposite said. Then the member for West Vancouver-Capilano says that government should not be the one spending money, so those on the payroll can spend it in the community. He says: "Government should not be paying wages, so people should be spending that money in the community." That's what that member said.

Hon. D. Lovick: Oh, I see. Are they supposed to bank it or something?

Hon. H. Lali: I don't know where they were going to take the money. Again, the Leader of the Opposition said: "We will scrap the fair-wage act that the NDP brought in." He said it again. This is on May 20, 1996, in a B.C. Liberal news release.

The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, when he's speaking about Highway Constructors Ltd., said we shouldn't have it. What he's really saying is: "We shouldn't have aboriginal people working on the Vancouver Island Highway. We shouldn't have women working on the Vancouver Island Highway. We shouldn't have people in the local communities and local hire working on those." He's also saying that members of the visible minority groups should not be working on the Island Highway project. "They should be all non-union, making minimum wage." That's what the House Leader from the opposition is saying.

He also says, when he's talking about the Vancouver Island Highway, that the fair-wage policy -- or more appropriately, he calls it the fixed-wage policy -- "was an attempt to pay off the construction unions, and it hasn't benefited anyone but the unionized workers who are now making $30 an hour on public construction sites." He thinks paying somebody $30 an hour -- trained personnel who are out there making a decent wage -- is something inappropriate. What does he want those people to be paid -- $7 an hour? Is that what he wants?

Hon. Speaker, the list is endless, and it goes on. Oh yes, here's the doozie of the day. This is the one that takes the cake. This one is from page 248 of Hansard of July 2, 1996, on the budget debate. I know that the member for Kamloops is looking this way. I know that she has a keen interest in what I'm going to say here, because the person who is making this statement is her colleague from the other party, from Kamloops-North Thompson. This is what he said when he was talking about job security or the health care of the workers within . . . .

This is what he says about enlightened labour legislation: "The way good managers deal with conduct problems is called progressive discipline." He also goes on to say: "You whack them once. If they do it again, you whack them again. Eventually you turf them right out."

That's the management style that the Liberals prefer. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition, when he first became a Leader of the Opposition -- what was his first job? He fired four workers, but he didn't have enough guts to do it -- four Liberal caucus workers. He hired somebody for $4,000 to go out there and do it.

The list goes on and on about all of these Liberals. We know what side of the fence they're on. They're certainly not on the side of the working class of this province. In 1992 the Labour Code . . . . We heard lots from these people, the members opposite, about how much it was going to bring doom and gloom into the province, and everything was going to be in chaos. Since the Labour Code was introduced and brought in, in 1992, we have had the lowest number of strikes and lockouts in this province since the end of the Second World War. That is something that I think all members of the House should be proud of.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: As a matter of fact, I see the member for Matsqui sitting over there making some comments. Here's what his colleague in his MLA's report in the Delta Optimist on July 12, 1997, said about the new 1992 Labour Code: "We have enjoyed several years of labour peace." He said it. They should even listen to his own backbencher, an esteemed, respected member of this assembly on the opposition party. They don't even want to listen to their own member. Who do they listen to?

I was talking briefly about the Liberals here. I want to talk about the member for Okanagan-Penticton over there. I'm glad he's in here. I hope he has guts enough to stand up and speak a little later. This Liberal doom-and-gloom scenario they like to build -- where's it coming from? I guess one doesn't have to look too far to find out where it's coming from -- the kind of class warfare that they're talking about. They're the ones who are waging it. They're the ones who are out here speaking this doom-and-gloom scenario. They're the ones who are standing up on behalf of their friends.

They don't care about workers or their families. That's already been demonstrated, because they've always voted against any kind of legislation in the House that would help workers and families in this province. They've voted against it. So where are they coming from? Why are they like this?

Well, it's fairly straightforward and simple, because these Liberals . . . . The Liberal Party is bought and paid for, and we know who they're speaking on behalf of. They're speaking on behalf of their friends and insiders. You know, the Phil Hochsteins of this world. Phil Hochstein's group, the ICBA, gave them $100,000 for their party coffers. That's why they're all here and talking on behalf of their friends. They've been paid to ask all these questions -- and well paid: $100,000. This is such hypocrisy on the part of the members of the Liberal opposition.

Here we are, speaking on behalf of at least 2.5 million working people in this province . . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, minister, the member for Matsqui rises.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, as enjoyable and revealing as the minister's comments are, I thought I heard him say that members of the opposition are being paid to ask questions and perform their duties as members of this House. If that is the case, I take that very seriously.

Deputy Speaker: I'm sure if the minister has impugned any member of the House he'd be happy to withdraw it.

Hon. H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will withdraw that particular line from my statement. And I apologize to the member if he was offended.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister.

[ Page 9106 ]

Hon. H. Lali: Continuing on with the debate, we know that Phil Hochstein's group, the ICBA, gave the Liberal Party $100,000 -- and they stand up here, to a person, speaking on behalf of that group, time and time again. We know that has happened; we know the sheer hypocrisy that is involved on the part of the members opposite. When they get up here in the House, they're not speaking on behalf of the majority of the people of this province. They're not speaking on behalf of the 2.5 million workers of this province. They're not speaking on behalf of the 1.8 million families in this province. They're not.

They're speaking on behalf of a very small group of people who have their headquarters on Howe Street, and we see that they've got $100,000 going into the B.C. Liberal Party coffers from the ICBA group.

And their reaction is just far too overblown. They don't pay any attention to the consultation that took place in the last year or so with communities, with people on the labour front and also on the business front, and the recommendations that have come forward from that group. They don't want to talk about that. They don't want to talk about that at all. Instead, these people, when the bill was being introduced . . . . And it's convention here that when a bill is introduced, everybody votes in favour of it so we can have an open debate right here, in front of the cameras, and for Hansard, and anybody who cares to listen and watch and read -- that it's there.

They hadn't even read the bill, and to a person they said: "No, we don't even want to see it." And their reaction justifies their behaviour. To a person, their reaction has been overblown -- totally overblown. They're talking about all sorts of things that aren't even in the amendment to the labour bill; they haven't bothered to read Bill 26. If they had, they would know that they don't need this. Their reaction is sort of like getting ready to get married and standing at the altar -- and the bride doesn't show up. That's how foolish they look. Nobody's paying attention out there. Nobody's paying attention to them.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I think the member for Matsqui's objecting to that, and I don't know if it has happened to him or not.

But most certainly that's the kind of reaction they're having: they're still standing there at the altar, waiting for the bride to show up. And the bride ain't coming, hon. Speaker. She's long gone. And I wish they would understand that -- from the reaction they've shown over there. I wish they would understand that.

For the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the members of the opposition are getting paid to perform their duties, we want some performance out of them. And I would say to the members opposite, each and every one of them: go out there and read the bill first. Read the details. You know, residential is not in there; condos are not in there. It's institutional, commercial and industrial. They've got to look at that -- ICI construction. Residential ain't in there.

I would ask the members opposite to please go out there and read the bill. Please go out there and talk to the people in your communities; please come out to the rural areas to talk to the people in the rural communities. For once in your lives, speak up on behalf of the working people of this province. That's what I would ask the members opposite to do: speak up on behalf of the working people of this province. Speak up on behalf of families. Try speaking up on behalf of students who are making minimum wage at some of these service jobs. Speak up on behalf of the workers who support local businesses.

The people who are making decent wages are the ones who are going out and spending their money at the local grocers, at the shop that is selling clothes or sporting goods, and the odd time they might go out for a meal at the local restaurant. It's the good, decent, union-pay jobs that support local towns. If you had gone out there and done your research in the rural communities, you might know the kind of support that is out there for a bill such as this.

This is a great bill, and I want the members opposite to quit fearmongering. And I know that Phil Hochstein has dumped $100,000 into the Liberal coffers. I think that they should go out there and actually listen to the people of this province. Listen to the working people. Go out there and listen to the 2.5 million workers of this province, and then we will know the truth.

[4:00]

P. Nettleton: That is indeed a very hard act to follow, given the performance of the minister. However, with reference to listening to people, I think that oftentimes we tend to speak too much and listen too little. I think that that is a tendency we all have, and we all have to work hard to overcome it. Having said that, I can assure you that I have been listening to my constituents, and I've been listening very carefully. I've been listening to their concerns with reference to not only this bill but the economy as a whole. I've been scratching my head, trying very hard to think about why on earth this bill has been introduced. For the life of me, I couldn't come up with a reason.

Meanwhile, the Premier and his cohorts have been gallivanting around the countryside at summits, town halls, coffee shops and who knows where, wearing suits and ties, coveralls or hardhats -- depending on what their wives packed, I suppose. They've been nodding slowly, screwing up their foreheads and looking thoughtful. They have appealed to the common man, the salt of the earth, the putting-meat-on-the-table man. They've empathized with the single mom with tots in tow. They have addressed the concerns of professional working women and have congratulated the hardy entrepreneur just getting started. They have stood nose to nose with the corporate boardroom crowd.

They have heard the voice of the people, they say. Understanding dawns: "There will be a renaissance in British Columbia. We shall stand proud again." Of course, this sort of spin-doctoring is not cheap. The Premier said he got the message about high taxes, red tape and anti-business labour laws. The Labour minister has said that we must ensure that the economy is efficient and competitive. He has said we must create a climate that will encourage investment and create jobs.

Well then, good. Message received -- except we then come back to Bill 26. It just doesn't make sense to go through this whole exercise in public relations work and then throw it all away. No one wants this bill. If anyone had really been lulled by the NDP's projected new approach to business, they just woke up to a hard slap in the face. Actions speak louder than words. Nobody in the business community is going to vote for these people, and nobody who can see the connection between the health of their employer's business and their own prospects for continued employment will ever vote for these people again.

Then it struck me: this has nothing to do with the good government of the province, nor does it bear the more usual relationship to improving re-election odds. This is retirement planning. Only the B.C. Federation of Labour and the building

[ Page 9107 ]

trades unions want this legislation. And given the connection between those stalwarts of organized labour and this government, the only logical reason I can see for foisting this nonsense on the province is that there will be a payback in terms of job opportunities for our soon to be unemployed NDP members. Listen, I would like to encourage the Premier of this province and the hon. members of the NDP and entreat them not to give up all hope of re-election. You still have a chance.

Haven't you taken some comfort from the news that the former Premier, Mr. Bill Vander Zalm, may return to the scene as the leader of Reform? Are you not energized by the possibility of a split in the right-wing vote? I guess not. If the NDP had any aspirations for re-election, one would expect that they would listen to the electorate. They must know how high this stinks to just about everyone in this province.

A recent McIntyre and Mustel Research Associates poll found that a majority of British Columbians believe that the NDP's labour policies are having a detrimental impact on the economy and that this belief is shared equally among union and non-union households. People want the economy back on track, folks. They understand that the engine of the economy is business. They want policies in place that encourage business and investment. Everyone sees the hemorrhage of business, of capital, of jobs, of talent, of opportunity -- and of optimism, of course -- to Alberta, Ontario and the U.S. This has to be stopped. Everyone knows this.

I mean, if this isn't retirement planning, what else could be going on here? Is there a bet, maybe? You know: "I'll bet you I can completely destroy the economy of a province." "Think so?" "Uh-huh." "How long would you need?" "Oh, just under two terms should do it." "That wouldn't work; we'd never get a chance at the second term." Is it a bet or isn't it?

Okay, those are two possibilities. We looked at (1) retirement planning and (2) capricious whim. Is it possible that the government is looking out for the best interests of its citizens? I know it sounds pretty far-fetched, members, but government, after all, is elected as trustee of the will and interests of the people. Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's treat it as a rebuttable presumption that in fact the government is acting in good faith.

The rationale for this sort of legislation, as pitched by the building trades, is that it is difficult for unions to get a collective agreement because of the project nature of the industry, combined with a host of other ill-defined, sneaky tactics loosely termed as corporate manoeuvring.

The ostensible purpose of this legislation is to protect or advance the rights of workers to unionization, and we've heard that ad nauseam. Do the rights of workers to unionization require more protection? That's a question that needs to be asked. Well, no. The workers' rights to unionization are covered by the existing legislation and more than adequately protected by any measure. Since 1993 there has actually been a significant trend towards greater unionization in small and medium-sized businesses.

It is other factors, such as the downsizing of the larger unionized businesses and increasing self-employment, that are inhibiting overall union growth. In any event, British Columbia already has a higher rate of unionization than the national average. If the building trades unions have difficulty signing up new members, it is because they insist that employers sign an expensive and inflexible standard agreement. Enshrining this standard collective agreement in legislation will impose this expensive lack of flexibility, without regard to the unique nature of each employer in his business, as a mandatory term.

What about the workers' rights not to unionize? Would someone explain to me how the denial of secret ballots on union certification -- a measure implemented by this government -- has anything to do with rights or democracy? This government is implicitly sanctioning and condoning the use of intimidation to achieve unionization. Seventy-seven percent of British Columbians believe that the workers should have a right to a secret ballot. This, however, has not concerned the current government.

Now, this wink at strong-arm tactics is yet to be subsidized. It has become apparent that the union shops cannot compete with the open shops. Bound by the terms of standard collective agreements, union companies are more inefficient, less productive and thereby more costly. They can't compete. As a result, 73 percent of the construction work in the province is done on a wall-to-wall basis. Some of the trades contractors have acknowledged their competitive disadvantage and have disassociated themselves from the CLRA and its multi-trade bargaining.

They have thereby made progress in negotiating collective agreements that make sense and that will put them in a position to compete with open shops. This is a rational response.

On the other hand, the mandatory imposition of a generalized standard collective agreement on everyone is simply not rational. It rejects the progress made by trades contractors in negotiating specific and appropriate contracts, and it will result in an increase in the number of high-cost, low-production union shops. Now, hon. Speaker, this is not a slur on the abilities of union workers. It is a criticism of a bargaining process that cannot help but produce an agreement that will drive costs up in specific applications and with specific employers. Ultimately, it will also drive some employers out of business or at least out of our province.

The changes to the Labour Code redress the disparity between open and union shops by political subsidization. If every project in the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors built by a union contractor is to be covered by the same contract, and if organizers have this contract to offer potential recruits as a tangible benefit of signing up, there is no question that this will increase unionization. But it is cold comfort to those unionized workers whose newly accredited employer has closed shop. We do not yet have labour legislation making the employer liable for workers' disappointed expectations of continued employment.

It may be possible that in response to this legislation, this unionization thing could snowball. As more companies are unionized in response to this carrot of a juicy standard agreement, and the collective agreement bears down on more and more of the construction work, the carrot itself becomes bigger, as unionization provides access to an ever-increasing piece of the construction pie. Perhaps this is the scenario envisioned by Mr. Georgetti and Mr. Sigurdson. Perhaps the open shops can be displaced altogether.

We can clap our hands together happily in a workers' paradise without the nasty construction from those low-cost contractors. Everyone should be able to get a generous piece of the pie.

I suppose that there will always have to be some construction in British Columbia and that somebody will just have to pay the increased cost. That's all there is to it. But there is also a lot of discretionary construction and a lot of construction relating to investment in business infrastructure that simply will go elsewhere. Companies that have lost confidence in British Columbia will want to build their offices elsewhere. More than likely they will still be able to hire the same contractor they might have used in our province, who

[ Page 9108 ]

wasn't able to afford the cost of doing business in British Columbia and who doesn't live here anymore. When people forget to vote with their brains, they use their feet.

The increased costs of construction aside, by far the greatest impact of this legislation lies in its symbolic significance. Business will lose confidence. When Bill 44 was introduced, it was withdrawn in the face of the business community's reaction. Since that time, however, the NDP has been consulting with business representatives and others, and the business community has been led to believe that there was some commitment to cooperation and some understanding of their bottom line.

This legislation ends all that. Business is universally opposed to this sort of legislation and has made its position abundantly clear throughout the consultation. Not only is government not reversing itself on the labour policies that have proven so hostile to business and investment, but it is continuing along the same course. As it stands, capital spending in this province is projected to be only 1.3 percent, compared to 6.2 percent nationwide. Investment is going elsewhere.

If anyone with the option of relocating or diverting their business elsewhere was taking a wait-and-see approach before abandoning the ship, they don't have to wait anymore. They've seen enough. It is impossible to gauge the impact on the economy of this loss of confidence. Now we will have to wait and see. The only problem, however, is that once those of us who stay behind have seen, there won't be much we can do about it by that time.

[4:15]

This government talks about rights and choice, always in this same nasal tone of self-righteousness, but it stands for neither of these things. It suggests that it will maintain the freedom of choice of workers to decide whether to join the building trades, but we have already seen how illusory this choice is. It denies trade contractors the choice of bargaining without the baggage of multi-trades bargaining for their own separate trade agreements.

This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights or choice of the workers. We're not talking about rights, or at least not about the liberty and security-of-the-person types of human rights. Maybe it's the right of organized labour to increase its power and influence and the right of a democratically elected government to act with impunity; but these would be new

definitions for rights not yet in common usage.

More could be said. However, I think we have rebutted the presumption we afforded the government -- namely, that the government is acting in good faith here. That throws the burden back on this government to show how Bill 26 falls within the mandate granted by the electorate or how it is in the best interests of British Columbians, or why it should be passed as being in the best interests of the province as a whole. I have yet to hear or see any justification for this legislation that makes any sense at all. Hon.

Speaker, my capricious-whim theory is better than anything I have heard from the other side of the House, and it is certainly more consistent with the power-sotted arrogance with which this government has always acted.

J. Weisbeck: I rise to speak to Bill 26. It was a sad day when this bill was introduced in this House last week. It was a very sad day indeed for all British Columbians, and it's only one of many as the situation in the province gets steadily worse and worse. Our economy moves closer and closer to a recession, and the NDP continues to mismanage this province's resources. It has been a sad eight years. British Columbians have had to deal with a government that fudged their budget figures to get elected, who forgot about the children of this province . . . . And the list goes on and on.

But today is a sad day, as I rise to speak to Bill 26, the most recent amendment to the Labour Code, and as this NDP government attempts to ram this bill through against the wishes of the people of this province. As I stand here today, I'm still hearing the voices of my constituents ringing in my ears. Since the inception of the amendments to the Labour Code, beginning with Bill 44 last session and now with Bill 26, my constituents have voiced their concerns loudly and clearly. Over the last two years, many have contacted my office to express their displeasure over this government, which does not seem to hear their concerns.

I was elected in 1996 to represent the people of Okanagan East in the Legislature. Prior to the last election, I took a poll in my riding to attempt to get an understanding of what the key issues were. It became apparent very quickly that their utmost concern was jobs in this province. They were concerned about their ability to feed their families and pay their bills. They were concerned that the young people in Okanagan East would not have a future without investment and that the economy in the Okanagan would suffer due to high unemployment.

This piece of legislation does the very thing that my constituents feared. NDP policy has made B.C. a province that businesses do not want to invest in, and the result has been a further loss of jobs and further uncertainty for British Columbians. This piece of legislation only makes things worse.

It begs the question: why would they introduce this bill at this time? Why, at the height of all the concerns expressed by British Columbians, would this government go ahead with Bill 26? Did they not receive enough letters, enough phone calls and enough concerns to make them understand how much British Columbians do not want this piece of legislation? You know what I believe? They did hear the voices of British Columbians; they did understand their concerns. They just didn't care; they don't care.

When I entered politics, I entered with a novel idea. I honestly believed that I was here to represent constituents -- to hear their concerns and to help them wherever possible. I even imagined that most politicians entered with the same concept. So please understand it if I am saddened by the actions of the members on the opposite side as they ignore the wishes of their constituents and use their positions to bring forward their personal agendas.

I think the answer became very apparent in the comment that the Premier made at the Order of British Columbia awards ceremony last week. Ken Georgetti was selected as one of the recipients of the order, and in his remarks the Premier referred to Ken Georgetti as the nineteenth cabinet minister.

Interjection.

J. Weisbeck: Well, I do not remember Ken Georgetti ever being elected to represent British Columbians as a member of this Legislature. Ken Georgetti has a personal agenda, and he has no qualms about that fact. What a frightening thought: a labour union organizer, an individual who obviously has a lopsided view of the business world and will use any tactics to upset that balance of power, is pulling the strings of the Premier's Office.

It is a frightening thought that at a time when business, government and labour should be pulling together to get the economy back on track, the scales are leaning towards labour

[ Page 9109 ]

demands. Bill 26 does exactly that; it upsets the balance. As a result, business has responded and will continue to respond to the unhealthy climate in this province. Business will always find a way to survive and make a profit and make their companies grow. If they can't do it in B.C., they will go elsewhere. We've seen several examples of business leaving our province in favour of healthier investment climates. Finning Tractor is moving its head office to Edmonton. Nature's Path Food is opening a new plant in Blaine, Washington.

The list goes on: in 1997 alone, 107 B.C. firms moved their head offices to Alberta. Closer to home, my own brother had to move his office to Washington State because of the unfair climate here.

The government has made a feeble attempt and, I'm sure, a costly attempt this past week to soften up their victims, the general public and the taxpayers of British Columbia, into believing that this bill is good for them. This government has attempted to soften them into accepting that what they are proposing today in Bill 26 isn't as bad as the proposed amendments in Bill 44. It isn't as bad; it's a modest amendment. Hasn't this government heard the public cry out that any amendments to the Labour Code are sending the wrong message to the investment community? Are Mr.

Georgetti and his friends so quick to sell out their union members and take away their choices? Is this just a power trip for Georgetti and friends to justify their own existence, so they can stand back and say: "Look what we have done for you. You don't have a job, but we enforced the Labour Code that penalized the people who are creating jobs"? When are we going to give employers -- the creators of jobs, the employers of union members -- their businesses back?

We've all seen how this government works, how they have forced their ideology onto the public and how they've used their positions to undermine people's choices. We also know how the Premier has forced the forest industry to its knees, how he has threatened the industry to stand behind him and his grandiose ideas -- ideas that don't have a chance of success. The classic example occurred at the Premier's summit in Kamloops. The Premier threatened the executives of the forest companies into standing behind him literally on stage for a photo op or expect a lot of difficulty with their permits.

Hon. Speaker, I have received a number of letters from my constituents; I'm sure I'll receive many more regarding this bill. I'd like to read some of these letters into the record, because I think it's an opportunity to say to my constituents that we on this side of the House take their concerns seriously and give them proper respect, unlike what we normally see from the government side of the House, where people's concerns end up in the shredder. I received a copy of a letter addressed to the Minister of Labour from a constituent of mine, Brian Tostenson and Construction Ltd.

I'd like to read this letter because I think it emphasizes a lot of the concern expressed by the business community. It's addressed to the Minister of Labour.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Chair would just advise that you can highlight parts of letters, but you can't read full letters into the record.

J. Weisbeck: Thank you.

Hon. Speaker, this gentleman operates a small business in Kelowna. It employs six employees. He's writing to express his concerns regarding the Labour Code. These are some of his concerns:

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

He also expresses concern about the spillover effects -- that the legislation will hurt the construction industry and the jobs it creates. He expresses his concerns about the terrible market and the uncertainty that this Labour Code will mean for the economy of British Columbia. He has a deep concern about loss of certification. He feels that the Labour Code is already unbalanced and that these latest changes will only deter investment and affect his industry's ability to be competitive. He's found that he's had to go to Calgary to supplement his hours.

Having six employees, this obviously affects the family lives of all of his men -- having to uproot them and move them out of town, not even counting the increase in costs.

He states: "My company believes in my community and my workers. The proposed changes to the Labour Code will have a significant impact on my company and my ability to . . . employ valued and skilled workers." So he's urging this government not to proceed with the proposed changes and to send a strong message to the people of British Columbia that B.C. is actually open for business. He has an interesting little PS as well, and it talks about . . . . He's still waiting to find someone who voted for you -- referring to the NDP, of course. And obviously, when you consider that this government represents only 39 percent of the province, he probably has a very good point.

Hon. Speaker, last week in the House the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture commented that Kelowna was booming. I would suggest that the minister has no idea what is happening in the rest of the province and particularly in Kelowna. I think that previous letter states just that. There are currently no booms in this province, except maybe in U-Haul trailers. This letter emphasizes that even Kelowna is noticing a downturn in its economy. In the past, Kelowna has always been extremely resilient in the face of any downturns in the economy, so this certainly reinforces the seriousness of the current economic situation in this province.

[4:30]

Keith Sashaw of the Canadian Home Builders Association said that the proposed changes to the Labour Code are the worst possible thing the housing industry could take at this time. He shows in some of his numbers that in Kelowna they've had a 55 percent downturn in housing starts.

This letter also talks about the spillover effect of this bill and the impact it will have on the cost of residential housing by decreasing affordability. Obviously the most vulnerable people in the housing market -- the first-time buyers -- will be the most affected. But first-time buyers are not the only ones affected by this bill, because all levels of homebuyers will see the increase in the prices of homes.

The increase in construction costs has meant a lot to Alcan. The proposal for a $36 billion investment in this province and the creation of 6,000 permanent new jobs is about to be withdrawn. In today's Vancouver Sun , Vaughn Palmer states that Alcan is reconsidering expanding in B.C. because of the 50 percent increase in labour costs and taxes -- an increase which amounts to $1.8 billion, as opposed to the $1.2 billion previously budgeted. Alcan is having second thoughts. But Alcan hasn't given up yet. They're still waiting to see if this Premier will change his mind and make this

[ Page 9110 ]

province more affordable to do business in. So there are 6,000 jobs waiting in the wings for the sign. Passing of this labour bill will make all 6,000 jobs disappear.

The lack of affordability was certainly expressed to me by the executives of MacDonald Dettwiler. I had an interesting meeting with them a couple of weeks ago. They're one of the largest employers of high-tech people in the province, and they're based in Richmond. We spoke about the problems in their industry. Certainly they spoke of some of the problems in British Columbia -- the high taxes, the Labour Code -- but one of their major problems in attracting employees to their company was housing affordability.

They're attempting to hire individuals from all across North America and invite them into one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. So this obviously has a huge impact on the growth of this emerging industry, as companies have a more difficult time attracting the personnel needed to grow their business. All of this relates to the fact that we must compete in a global market -- not only for the sale of our products, but for the attraction of investment to British Columbia.

We've all heard the excuses from this government as to why British Columbia is not globally competitive. And that is exactly what they are: excuses that are designed to cover up their inadequacies. We as British Columbians certainly don't buy the rhetoric anymore, because we know that we have all the components needed for a healthy industry: the people, the know-how, the passion and resources. In the past the excuse for forestry revenue shortfalls was the weather. Currently the Asian flu seems to be the excuse of choice.

Certainly the downturn of the Asian economy seems to be making everyone sick, and no one would disagree that it has exacerbated the situation. However, the truth of the matter is that there have been large deficits in British Columbia long before Asia got a stomach ache. We've been experiencing tough times under this government even when the rest of the world's economy has been doing well. The fact is that our current economic crisis is homemade in British Columbia as a result of this Premier's economic policies and poor management.

There can be no other explanation as we fall further and further behind the rest of the country in economic growth.

At the end of the day, one glaring fact remains: we need a new vision, a new direction. We must change our economic modus operandi, our way of dealing with and thinking about people, business and our futures so we can be current with global product demand. What better way to join our global partners towards the millennium than to promote high-tech? But promotion is very difficult with this government's economic policies. As new technology companies develop their products, the most important step is product promotion.

Not only must the product have intrinsic utility for it to successfully compete at the next level, there is generally a requirement for highly skilled and experienced upper-management individuals. This often means going out of province to find the people resources required. There are a number of factors that these individuals look for before they can be lured here.

While British Columbia has no problem with its climate, amenities and attractions -- in fact, we have been voted the most desirable place to live in Canada -- the deterrents to relocating here are high taxes, overburdening government policies and economic uncertainty.

These concerns have been expressed by the Technology Industries Association. I'd like to read a quote from that report card:

"The TIA's view of the role of government, at any level, is that it should create a climate and framework within which our industry can flourish with due regard to wider social issues. This means displaying interest and leadership, communicating with the public, encouraging inward investment and ensuring that publicly funded institutions, particularly in the field of education and training, are responding to industry needs. It means working with other governments to encourage the free flow of trade and ideas.

Of equal importance, it should avoid doing things that inhibit the industry, classic examples in B.C. being the inappropriate aspects of the labour standards act and maintaining a high-tax regime."

There is no reason why we can't create another Silicon Valley in B.C. Unfortunately, this will not occur unless we can offer economic freedom. This economic freedom is currently offered in other parts of Canada and the U.S., and it allows businesses to flourish. You look at this report card offered by the TIA, and they do some comparisons between Washington, Oregon and British Columbia. It becomes very, very apparent that we are losing the race for high-tech because of our policies. You look at British Columbia; yes, we do have 22 percent growth, but the fact of the matter is that Oregon has 59 percent growth.

Washington is in the 40-percent-growth area. Comparatively speaking, our industry is worth $41 million a year. In Washington it's worth $230 million. Oregon is growing rapidly, at $54 million. So we are definitely losing the race.

The minister has continually asked us to trust him and trust that the changes to the Labour Code contained in Bill 26 are modest. Trust can take a long time to develop, and when it has previously been lost it can take an even longer time to be regained. Busine