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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 10, Number 25

[ Page 8939 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, we have an individual in the House today who is well known to many of us. He is a man of many hats, and the hat that he is best known for is that of the mayor of the city of Quesnel. I ask that the House make Steve Wallace welcome.

T. Nebbeling: In the gallery today we have some very special visitors from the Netherlands. With us is His Excellency Dirk Jan von Houten, the newly appointed Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada. He is accompanied by Karel Birkman, consul general for the Netherlands, based in Vancouver. With your permission, I would like to say a few words -- in Dutch, of course. [Dutch spoken.] And with these kind words, I ask everybody to welcome His Excellency to the House.

Hon. I. Waddell: As the Minister of Tourism, I'd like to add my welcome to the Dutch Ambassador because we have many good Dutch people who come and visit Canada.

I would also like to introduce to the House the executive director of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, former Canadian Ambassador Roger Bull. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: With us today in the visitors' gallery are a number of guests who are here to witness the introduction of a major new bill, which I am privileged to be tabling later today. The wide range of interests they represent points to the broad appeal and importance of this legislation.

They include: Karen Goodings from the Peace-Liard regional district; George Smith from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; Wayne Sawchuk from the Chetwynd Environmental Society; Neil Meagher, representing forestry workers; Barry Holland, representing the hunting and recreation sector; Peter Stone, spokesperson for the Muncho Kaska and part of the Kaska Dena council; Rob McMannus from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; and Elizabeth MacMillan from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, who worked hard on this new legislation.

I'd ask all members to join me in extending a very warm welcome from the House to all of these guests.

L. Reid: I have two very dear friends in the gallery today: Lynda and Murray Turney, who are visiting from Duncan. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: It is my privilege to introduce and welcome a woman was a member of the White Rock city council, a member of the South Fraser regional health board and the Fraser Valley regional library board. Today she is celebrating her twenty-first wedding anniversary and doing business on behalf of the city of White Rock. Please join me in welcoming Judy Forster to the precincts.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is a pleasure for me today to welcome an outstanding British Columbian to the chamber. He is close to becoming the longest-serving mayor in the history of Port Coquitlam. He's a former president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and he's the current chair of the MFA. He is a very good friend of mine. He's also celebrating his fortieth wedding anniversary with his wife Joanne. Would the House please welcome Len Traboulay, mayor of Port Coquitlam, as well as the city administrator, Tony Chong.

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like to introduce my sister Val Hammell, who is in the gallery with over 52 students from South Meridian Elementary School in south Surrey. With her are parents and teachers from the school who are also on this visit. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is my pleasure today to introduce two people from Cariboo South: Terry Tate, the chair, and Jim Chorney, the manager of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Community Skills Centre. They're down here on business. Accompanying them is Laverne Burnell, who also chairs and is intimately involved with a skills centre in the province. Please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Lovick: I note in the gallery a friend from my part of the world, Mr. Steve Beasley. He is a former president of the student society at Malaspina University College and also an activist in the Canadian Federation of Students -- a very bright, articulate and capable young man. I'm delighted to see him here taking an interest in our proceedings. I would ask my colleagues to please join me in making him most welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery is a longtime friend of mine from Pemberton. Her name is Marg Long. Marg and I had lunch in the legislative dining room today and reminisced about when we travelled together for over a year, hitchhiking around Morocco and Europe in 1965.

An Hon. Member: Let's see . . . that would make you 70.

T. Stevenson: I started hitchhiking when I was ten, hon. Speaker.

Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm surprised he can remember.

I have nine names to introduce. I want to advise the House that I met earlier with a delightful group of children and their mothers who have come down from Prince Rupert. This is really a joint introduction with my colleague the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. First of all, I'd like to introduce Andrea Robinson and her two children, Tod Stephens and Darwin Stephens; Audrey Sankey, with her children Suzanne Sankey and Justine Sankey; and Judy Clifton, with her children Amanda Clifton and Kade Clifton. I'd also like to recognize Arlene Hartley, the president of the board of directors for Air B.C.

Cares 4 Kids, and Joan Nielson, the secretary of the board of directors, who is a constituent of my colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon. I would like all members of the House to give them a very warm welcome to Victoria.

E. Walsh: I am very pleased today to introduce to the House Elaine Paterson and Bryan Rodger, who are here visiting from Quesnel. Bryan is president and Elaine is vice-president of the NDP constituency association in Quesnel. Also visiting us are Bryan's parents, Tom and Nancy Rodger. Tom and Nancy are here from Newport, Scotland; that's on the east coast of Scotland, for anybody who's not sure where it is. Tom is no stranger to politics because he sits on the city council in Newport.

[ Page 8940 ]

I'd also like to introduce two other visitors to the House who are also from Quesnel, the daughter and the granddaughter of somebody that we all know very well here. They are Anne and Miranda Garden, the daughter and granddaughter of Frank Garden. I would like to ask the House to give them a very warm welcome to Victoria and to Canada.

[2:15]

The Speaker: We won't talk about for whom the call now comes. I recognize the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. C. Evans: Coming to work every day is wonderful, because the people who work in my office are brilliant, friendly and lovely -- and watching me on TV. Today we are especially graced by the mother of Jacki St. Dennis, Thelma Johnson, and her aunt Doreen Smith from Queensland, Australia. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: From the constituency of Surrey-Green Timbers are Malcolm and Margaret Gosse, who are visiting the capital today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREA ACT

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: This bill creates a separate act for the Muskwa-Kechika management area, which was designated through an order-in-council under the Environment and Land Use Act in December 1997. I take great pride in introducing this legislation. I want, first of all, to personally thank the Minister of Environment for affording me this opportunity to introduce her bill in the Legislature.

This bill confirms and builds on government's decision, announced in October 1997, to provide special protection for this area of the Northern Rockies, one of North America's last and largest true wilderness areas. This decision has been praised around the world and is a triumph of conservation, wilderness protection and sustainable development. The Muskwa-Kechika is rich in untouched beauty, natural resources and abundant animal life. It provides a unique opportunity for both protection of internationally significant wilderness values and sustainable development of oil and gas and other resources.

The creation of a separate Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act will ensure that these values and opportunities are managed in a way that respects both today's needs and those of future generations. The new act, which contains all of the provisions of the original order, provides for natural resource management that is consistent with the direction of the Fort Nelson and Fort St. John land and resource management planning tables. The bill also sets out a trust fund and government appropriation for management of this area.

I want to commend, once again, all of those people in northern British Columbia, in the Peace country, who worked so very hard and who gave their time and effort to make this a reality. It is truly a gift for future generations. I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

Hon. D. Lovick: I rise to make a brief ministerial statement today -- National Aboriginal Day. For the last two years, communities across Canada have celebrated National Aboriginal Day on June 21. This day marks the summer solstice, which is symbolically important in many first nations cultures. In B.C. there are about 47 distinct aboriginal groups, each with its own culture, values and traditions. National Aboriginal Day recognizes the valuable contributions that aboriginal peoples make to the Canadian cultural landscape.

For the first time ever, the province would like to proclaim June 21 as National Aboriginal Day in B.C. I would urge all members and their constituents to participate this weekend in various events around B.C. to celebrate this important day.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF LABOUR BILL ON B.C. ECONOMY

G. Campbell: Yesterday the Minister of Labour admitted that his government didn't even do an economic impact study on the proposed Labour Code changes. At a time when our economy is in free fall, this minister is pushing another industry out of the plane without a parachute. My question to the minister is this: how many workers have to hit the pavement before the minister stops pushing them out of work and killing job opportunities in B.C.?

Hon. D. Lovick: The Leader of the Opposition may believe that the economy is in free fall, but I suggest that a dispassionate, serious look at economic indicators would demonstrate that that is not in fact the case. I would point out, as well, that the legislation that was introduced yesterday is an amendment to the Labour Code. It is a very small amendment. I anticipate that it will have no significant economic impact at all.

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

G. Campbell: Any objective observer would say that a fall from the number one economy in Canada to number ten is a free fall.

[ Page 8941 ]

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." Is the minister even aware that housing starts are down 40 percent in the lower mainland, 55 percent in Kelowna and 91 percent in Campbell River? Why, at a time when B.C.'s construction industry is in free fall, would the minister introduce legislation which will intentionally do more damage to that industry?

Hon. D. Lovick: I thought I had been most explicit in the last 24 hours, explaining on numerous occasions what the bill does. The absolute theme repeated again and again -- and I'll say it as slowly and clearly as I can -- is that housing is not affected by this bill. The institutional, commercial and industrial sector of the construction industry . . . . Residential construction is specifically excluded. I hope that clears up the matter once and for all.

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

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, this minister is clearly dreaming in Technicolor. The fact of the matter is that this minister doesn't know anything about the construction industry. He can bounce around over there as much as he wants, but he hasn't learned a thing in his portfolio. This is what Mr. Sashaw says about his legislation: "This legislation clearly demonstrates that this government doesn't have the faintest idea how the construction industry works." When will this minister and this government understand that putting working people out of work does not improve the economy and does not improve their livelihoods?

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, this bill will not put anybody out of work. One of the things . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Lovick: One of the many recommendations made to the panel, and indeed made by the B.C. Business Council -- one of the many accepted by this government and by the panel -- was that the competitive nature of the industry must obtain. At the moment the marketplace will determine whether an individual building contractor gets a job or not. How, then, can one possibly say that a change to the Labour Code, which leaves us with the same competitive environment, will have some kind of negative impact on the economy? It's bad logic.

C. Hansen: Speaking of putting people out of work, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. The softwood lumber production numbers are now in, and they are clearly not a pretty sight. Our production is down 10 percent in the interior and 20 percent on the coast. I can see the Deputy Premier nodding his head, because he's very aware of these numbers. Alberta is building new mills; Quebec is building new mills. I'd like to ask the Minister of Forests: what in the Labour Code change is going to bring back investors to start building again in British Columbia?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't see any relationship between this legislation and investments in the forest industry. I can tell you that Statistics Canada has projected $700 million in investments in the forest industry -- like the changes in the Crofton mill. There are many projects that are underway, which have been announced and recently completed. During the last downturn in the forest economy, investments were flat and stayed flat for about five years. We don't expect, when there is 30 percent decrease in the Asian economy, that there would be anything but a reduction.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: I'm not sure that I caught the logic of that. Certainly with $34 billion of production in Alberta, if B.C. only had a portion of that we could put some of our 197,000 unemployed back to work.

Hon. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Labour. The economy in British Columbia is on the brink of recession. This introduction of Labour Code changes has sent a message to the world that B.C. is not a place to invest. Does the Minister of Labour have any idea how much will be charged to the B.C. economy, in terms of lost opportunity, by the Labour Code changes that he brought in yesterday?

Hon. D. Lovick: That reminds me of a line attributed to Churchill when he got the advice of the House one day . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . because obviously the people asking the questions weren't getting anywhere. The answer was: "No argument, more volume." It seems to me that's what we're getting here: no argument, more volume. The messages that are being sent out about the problems facing the economy are coming from two sources: (1) the Liberals and (2) the people who bankrolled the Liberals in the last campaign. That's where they're coming from.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES AND

EDUCATION AGREEMENT-IN-COMMITEE

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. The B.C. School Trustees have today released numbers that show that by a vote of 87.6 percent they have voted down this agreement. I know that the Minister of Labour fancies himself to be a bit of a wordsmith. Could he tell me if he believes that the language of the Public Education Labour Relations Act, which says that BCPSEA has the exclusive authority to bargain collectively for the school boards and to bind the school boards by collective agreement, also includes direct intervention by this government and an imposed settlement on teachers and B.C. school boards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a bit of a tautology in the member's question. It's exactly BCPSEA that just now completed their voting on the agreement. They are party to labour relations in the public schools.

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

G. Wilson: Again to the Minister of Labour. Surrey school trustees, armed with a legal opinion, now have an

[ Page 8942 ]

application before the Labour Relations Board, citing the direct intervention by this government as in fact illegal -- based on the language I just cited under the Public Education Labour Relations Act. Is it the view of the Minister of Labour that this government also has the authority to simply overturn the law, dismiss the Labour Relations Board and now impose a settlement on both the school trustees and the teachers in this province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Surrey school board also has in its possession a legal opinion obtained by BCPSEA that says that their application to the Labour Relations Board has no merit and will be dismissed. It's a shame that the Surrey school board didn't listen to the legal advice of their own bargaining agent.

[2:30]

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

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour seems to be doubling for the Minister of Education, or vice versa, let me give it to either one who would like to handle this question: is it the view of this government that the Labour Relations Board is subjugated to the rule of the minister, and that the minister should now be able to dictate the terms of an agreement-in-committee without free collective bargaining and having a proper vote -- given that 87.6 percent of school trustees have voted down this agreement? Is that what the minister is telling us today?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the member and I had a thorough debate on this in estimates. The mediation and the facilitation between trustees and teachers, which this government undertook, was not done under the auspices of the Labour Relations Board. The agreement was sent out for ratification by teachers and by trustees, and today we know the results.

SMALL BUSINESS INPUT INTO LABOUR BILL

M. de Jong: The Minister of Labour continues to deny the devastating impact his latest Labour Code adventure is going to have on small businesses across the province. His response in the absence of any impact studies whatsoever seems to be: "Trust me." "Trust me," he says. Now, the last person who heard the words "Trust me" from this minister was Alec Robertson, and the next thing he got was a pink slip from the Premier's Office. My question to the Minister of Labour is a simple one.

Tell this House how many small businesses came to the minister -- small businesses that have survived NDP taxation and overregulation -- and said: "I want you to change the Labour Code. I'm not quite dead yet, minister. Kick me one more time." How many small businesses came to him and said: "Give me another kick in the teeth, NDP-style"?

Hon. D. Lovick: I am delighted to see that the member for Matsqui has regained his sense of humour. His self-righteousness was wearing a little thin. Welcome back to the humour.

I want to say this as delicately as I can.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: The amendments to the Labour Code deal with the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of the construction industry. By definition, those are larger employers. Small business is not affected by this legislation.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: The minister's willingness to dismiss the concerns of small business this readily speaks volumes about the degree of thought that went into drafting this legislation in the first place. Small business will survive in Abbotsford and Smithers -- right across this province. They'll survive this additional NDP attack. But I want the minister to speak to them. I want them to know from him how many came to him -- it's not a difficult question -- and said: "Mr. Minister, please make these changes to the Labour Code. We're not satisfied with NDP overtaxation.

We're not satisfied with seven years of overregulation. We need a change in the Labour Code to make our lives even that much more difficult and to drive this economy that much further down the toilet."

Hon. D. Lovick: I would simply remind the member and all members that there was a very long and elaborate consultation process involving all of the small business representatives. Three particular recommendations were made by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. One was that they did not want sectoral bargaining; they didn't get sectoral bargaining. The second was that they wanted to have a training system that was at arm's length from government, and therefore we created ITAC in order to produce that. The third one . . . . I see I'm out of time, so I won't even bother; I'll keep them guessing.

Petitions

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I can't wait.

Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 210 constituents of Vancouver-Little Mountain regarding Bill 26.

Orders of the Day

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

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading continued)

C. Hansen: I started out this morning and talked about some of the reasons why this bill is being introduced at this time. Before I launch into the final portion of my remarks, I want to quickly recap some of the issues that I raised earlier today, for the benefit of those who may be picking up on this debate at this stage in the afternoon.

Certainly we had an hour and 15 minutes this morning when I was able to outline some of the reasons why Bill 26 is wrong for the province. What's important for everyone to recognize is that this is a bill that was introduced yesterday, just slightly over 24 hours ago, and at 10 o'clock this morning . . . . This is a government that calls for debate on a substantial piece of legislation -- a very significant change to the Labour Code of British Columbia -- the very next morning.

[ Page 8943 ]

As I pointed out earlier today, this is a government that is afraid of public discussion on Bill 26. This is a government that wants to ram this thing through before the people of British Columbia get a sense of what's in it and how it's going to affect their communities and housing prices and those other issues that the minister says aren't part of this legislation. Yet they clearly are.

I talked at length this morning about the state of the B.C. economy. I talked about how, in the time that this party has been in office since 1991, we have seen British Columbia go from first place to last place -- to the No. 10 spot -- in terms of economic growth. I talked about job creation. In 1991, when this minister was elected to this chamber as a government member, B.C. was number one in terms of job creation, and now we are in last place.

I talked about how the standard of living of individual British Columbians has declined and how their disposable income -- the amount of money they have left in their pocket after a tax grab by this government -- is declining. I talked about the things that are eroding economic confidence in British Columbia -- the things that are driving investment dollars out of this province.

I pointed out that in all the consultations this government has done with the business community -- to create the illusion that somehow they're sensitive to the economic damage they're doing to British Columbia -- they were given two very strong messages about things that had to be done to restore confidence in the economy. One item was a significant cut in taxes. The number two item that came up, time and time again, was: do not touch the Labour Code. That is why we have been fundamentally opposed to this legislation from the point at which it was introduced for first reading.

The damage that is being done to the B.C. economy is done by the very act of introducing Bill 26 to this Legislature.

Investors who are prepared to come to this province and create jobs are looking for some evidence that this government has been listening to the concerns of job creators. There have been the talks, there have been the consultations, but obviously that has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to the government benches. For all the advice that was given to this government on how they could get British Columbians back to work again, what is clear is that the government was not listening.

Yesterday in question period the minister made a comment. I think he repeated it in various other interviews and in the House earlier today in question period. He said that indeed nothing in this bill would have a negative impact on jobs and investment in this province. That comment proves to me that this minister does not understand the harmful effect that this legislation will have on the B.C. economy. If this minister had done any economic impact studies at all, he would be able to answer that question.

Hon. D. Lovick: Tell me about the bill.

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, the minister says: "Tell me about the bill." This is the problem: the minister doesn't realize that this bill is about another nail in the coffin of the B.C. economy. That's what this bill is about. If he had done those economic impact studies, he would have discovered that the economists have been telling him about the negative impact that this legislation will have. If he had done an economic impact study, he would have had investment analysts -- not just from B.C. but from other jurisdictions -- telling him about the effect that this legislation will have. They could recite to him,

chapter and verse, the number of companies that have taken a look at British Columbia as a place to invest and realized that what this NDP government is doing to our Labour Code is a reason for them not to invest in British Columbia.

What we have in Bill 26 is yet another reason for them to not invest in British Columbia -- at a time when we have 197,000 people unemployed, at a time when we have almost 20 percent of young British Columbians between the ages of 15 and 24 unemployed. That is a track record that this government should be absolutely ashamed of. It is a track record that will become their legacy, once they are driven out of office.

I want to go back to a year ago, when we had Bill 44. Bill 44 was the cause of enormous anger in this province. The government made an announcement on July 16 that they were not going to proceed with Bill 44, because they'd had three weeks in which public anger in this province had erupted. But even then, when they backed off on Bill 44, they did it not because it was bad legislation . . . . Their excuse was that they hadn't consulted properly.

[2:45]

I want to read some of the quotes from the Premier in Hansard on the day after the announcement was made that they were not going to proceed with Bill 44. The Premier said of that piece of legislation: " . . . we believe that it's fair and balanced legislation." History has proven that the analysis that was done of that bill is that it was anything but fair and balanced. The Premier said that there was "a lot of concern about the legislation." Well, that's the understatement of the day. He said that it was "unfounded concern." Then we went on to have two committees that basically said: "No, you shouldn't go down that road with Bill 44."

The Premier said: " . . . it's important that we have discussion with the business community and others about legislation before we proceed with it in the House . . . . Clearly that consultation was not broad enough before we brought it" -- Bill 44 -- "into this chamber." He went on to say: "Over the course of the next few months, we'll go through a process. We intend to bring legislation back in the spring."

Well, this isn't the spring. Today is the first day of the summer solstice. I think it's probably a fitting metaphor for Bill 26. Here it is; they brought it in on the longest day of the year, and it is the start of darker days in this province. It is the start of days that are going to be shorter in this province, and I think that's an appropriate metaphor for the effect that Bill 26 is going to have on our economy.

But hon. Speaker, what did the Premier do after he announced that the only thing that was wrong with Bill 44 was lack of consultation? Well, he went out and struck two committees, but it was clear from day one that they were prepared to defend the legislation. They said it was good legislation, but they admitted that there hadn't been consultation. So the consultation became an exercise in a process rather than real decision-making, as we know, because the fix was already in.

Let me just grab another quote from the Premier, where he says: " . . . with respect to the legislation, there are clearly concerns in elements of the business community and others. Therefore it's incumbent upon the government to engage people and to discuss with people the explanation and

[ Page 8944 ]

rationale for those changes and to assure British Columbians that it meets the test of fairness. That's all we're doing." In a newspaper quote, the Premier referred to Bill 44 as being "near and dear to my heart."

I think if we look at what the Premier said at the time, clearly the fix was in then. They weren't out to rewrite Bill 44. They weren't out to back off on sectoral bargaining in the construction industry. They weren't out to back off on the successorship provisions. Instead they went for a process of consultation to put forward the appearance that they were listening to the business community. But what was clear was that they already had their minds made up: Bill 44 was good legislation, and they were going to go ahead with it.

What we have here in Bill 26 is perhaps not everything that was in Bill 44 -- I recognize that -- but it's a big chunk of it. The other thing that we recognize is that this is obviously the first stage in a strategy of sectoral bargaining in British Columbia. I go back to the comments that were made by Ken Georgetti at the annual convention of the B.C. Federation of Labour. He made those comments in November of 1996, when he said quite clearly that the labour movement needs new tools in order to broaden the reach of the unionized sector in British Columbia. He talks specifically about sectoral bargaining. He talks about janitorial services, the fast-food industry and service stations.

When you look at Bill 44, and now when you look at Bill 26, what is clear is that they are starting down that road. There may be organizations that were caught in Bill 44, that would have been caught into that web of sectoral bargaining, that are not caught in that web today under Bill 26. There are some companies, but there are an awful lot more companies than this minister has admitted to in the last two days . . . . I think those companies felt that under Bill 44, this government had a pistol to their head; it was a loaded .44 Magnum.

Now, for all those companies that perhaps are not caught in Bill 26, they have to realize that that pistol is still at their head and that there is more than one bullet in the chamber. Bill 26 is clearly the first bullet in the chamber. All those other sectors have to realize that if this government gets its way in terms of the direction they would like to take labour legislation in this province, all of those sectors are next in line -- not just the construction industry. If you look to Mr. Georgetti's words, then obviously that reach is expected to go much farther than just construction.

Some documents came out earlier this year regarding the communications strategy that was put into Bill 44. It's interesting to note that the documents show that the government consulted only with labour before bringing that bill forward. In it, there's a great quote.

In this document, it admits: " . . . government can expect criticism for lack of consultation with, and input from, the business community." When the Premier announced that they weren't going to go forward with Bill 44, it was this great revelation that had just suddenly occurred to them -- that they hadn't done an adequate job of consultation with this great piece of legislation. Yet their own documents show that even before they introduced Bill 44, they knew they hadn't done the consultation with the business community.

They knew that they had listened only to the labour movement, and it was written right into their communications documents.

Last year the government tried to peddle Bill 44 as housekeeping legislation -- minor changes. Doesn't that ring a bell? Last year we heard about the modest changes to gambling in British Columbia -- only an 1,800 percent increase in gambling revenues to the government coffers. That was just a modest change.

We know that last year Bill 44 was also described as just a modest change, just minor housekeeping in terms of labour legislation in British Columbia. Yesterday -- both in terms of the minister's press releases and of the comments he made to the media -- he again described these as simply modest changes. It seems to be a pat line that they come out with. Quite frankly, whenever I see something that this government is describing as a modest change, I'm immediately suspicious, given the track record that we now have. It's the third example of legislation that's going to have significant impact, that they're trying to bill as being modest in terms of its impact.

The communications plan last year said: "The proposed legislation will make significant changes to the collective bargaining structure in the B.C. construction industry." Again, their own internal communications documents stated that they knew the significance of the changes. Yet they trot this out in their media interviews as being modest. "Don't get excited; it's really a very minor change." Frankly, this year we're not buying this, and the public isn't buying it either. They recognize the impact that this will have.

I also find it interesting that in that communications plan, there were two processes when it came to fielding questions and informing the various stakeholders about the legislation. It's interesting that the business and industry representatives were to be informed by either a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister. The B.C. Federation of Labour and the building trades unions, on the other hand, were to be contacted directly by the Minister of Labour himself.

Doesn't that remind you of the letters that went out in December of last year, I believe it was, to the various stakeholder groups that were involved in this so-called consultation process? The letter that went out from the Minister of Labour to the trade unions started out: "Dear Friends . . . . " The letters that went out to the business community said: "Dear Stakeholders . . . . " I think that that in itself sums up where this government's priorities are.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: The Minister for Children and Families is asking me who my friends are. I would suggest to her that I'm very proud of my friends. I'm certainly not indebted to them by paying them back with legislation like Bill 26 . . . .

I want to talk about some of the elements that have come out in the last few weeks. The minister talked yesterday about the very cordial discussions that he had had with various industry group leaders in British Columbia. What is so obvious is that the minister was clearly not listening to the advice that he was getting from those groups. There was an appeal. Here's a perfect quote from the leader of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses: "Labour law changes like those planned will only make matters worse." She goes on to say: "B.C. small and medium businesses don't want special treatment or bailouts from government.

They just want a fair chance to succeed. Balanced and flexible labour policies are essential to their abilities to respond to the needs of their customers and to continue to be our province's overwhelming source of new job creation."

I want to refer to the

section 3 committee report that came out. The minister was very quick to point out that he had heard complaints about the

section 3 committee report from the business community, which felt that going ahead with those recommendations would have a detrimental effect on the B.C. economy. As a result, if you listen to the minister's words, he heeded that advice and backed off on going ahead with the

section 3 changes that were being recommended.

[ Page 8945 ]

What is clear is that the trade union movement in British Columbia also didn't like what they saw in the

section 3 report, and that's why they decided not to go ahead with

section 3 -- not because they were listening to the business community. What the business community said was not: "Don't go ahead with

section 3 changes." They said: "Don't go ahead with any changes to the Labour Code." On the one hand, the minister thinks that's good justification to back off on the

section 3 recommendations . . . . I'll tell you, if that logic is good enough for the

section 3 recommendations, it definitely applies to the construction industry panel recommendations as well.

I'd like to refer to something that the

section 3 committee said in their report, where they're talking about sectoral bargaining. This minister has gone to great lengths to try to convince us that what is in Bill 26 is not sectoral bargaining, yet what Bill 26 does is take one entire segment of the construction industry and say that all unionized workplaces, all unionized employers, all unionized employees in the craft sector are going to fall under one master agreement. That is sectoral bargaining. That is sectoral certification.

I have raised that with many experts in the labour relations field, and I have yet to have anybody say to me that this is not sectoral bargaining. In fact, one of the authors of this construction industry report -- after I had said that this is sectoral bargaining and had gone through my rationale as to why -- said to me: "Okay, maybe it's a form of sectoral bargaining." It's clearly sectoral bargaining.

I want to read to you what the

section 3 committee said about sectoral bargaining:

"Sectoral bargaining imposes standards on employers once their workplaces become unionized. This puts some employers in a difficult position. They are operating the businesses to the best of their abilities, and their employees are also working to the best of their abilities. The imposition of higher standards without accompanying support to achieve those standards may be a recipe for disaster."

This is directly out of the

section 3 report, which basically describes the imposition of a master collective agreement on a workplace -- exactly what Bill 26 is doing. That

section 3 report says that the "imposition of higher standards without accompanying support to achieve those standards may be a recipe for disaster."

Let's talk about the company that's going to get caught in Bill 26. This is a company that is today a non-union company. They are working in the ICI sector, and now we have this organizing tool that's been handed to the building trades organizers in this province. They will be able to take this tool, this master collective agreement, and they will be able to go to the individuals that work on a particular job site . . . . The minister said it doesn't affect small business. There's a lot of small construction companies that are working in the ICI sector, and if he doesn't know that, he certainly proves that he doesn't understand the construction industry.

[3:00]

That particular worksite gets approached by the organizers with the building trades unions, who come in and say: "Look, we have this master contract that applies to everybody in the ICI sector." They say basically to just sign up on the union card, sign your membership here, and you will get this master collective agreement. What we know now, because of the changes this government made in 1992, is that the very signing of union cards will result in an automatic certification -- if 55 percent of the workers in that worksite sign membership cards.

There's no democratic proof of support for the certification initiative -- unlike other provinces that this minister's been trying to talk about in the last few days. Hon. Speaker, because they took away that right to a secret ballot, they can go in and shop this collective agreement to those workers.

If the employer were to become aware of this union sign-up drive that was going on -- although the way these are done, employers are usually the last ones to realize that this is happening -- and they went to their employees and said, "Look, I know what's in that master collective agreement, and this company cannot afford it; if those terms of that master collective agreement were imposed on this company, then this company would go broke -- it would be considered an unfair labour practice by this government's Labour Code. And you know what would happen in that case?

It wouldn't even take 55 percent of the workforce to sign up; they may only have 2 people on the entire worksite. But if an employer had the audacity to say, "Wait a second, guys; if I have this master agreement imposed on me, this company's going out of business, and you're all going to be out of work, because your employer will go bankrupt", and there were only two people signed up at that point, that would be a recipe for a remedial certification -- automatic certification slapped on the company.

That would be considered an unfair labour practice by an employer who's basically trying to say to his employees: "This is what you've got to do for us to keep this company viable. This is a way to keep your jobs."

This government would be quite happy to have everybody sign up and become members of the building trades unions in this province, but what they're not worried about . . . . They don't care one iota about the fact that once they sign up them up, they can't ensure them jobs. They can't assure them that companies are going to be able to stay economically viable under this master agreement.

What this sectoral bargaining in Bill 26 does is take away the rights of workers in those workplaces to go out and negotiate with their employer . . . . If you've got workers in a workplace who through a majority vote, secret ballot and good democratic information from all sides make a decision to join a trade union, all the power to them. Next stage, you sit down and you negotiate a collective agreement that works for the employees and also allows the employer to stay in business.

If you impose a collective agreement on a worksite that drives the company out of business, you are doing nobody a favour, and you are doing the economy of British Columbia a huge disservice. That is exactly what is happening under Bill 26.

The

section 3 committee was the first to recognize this. First of all, go back to the first construction industry review panel report that came out in February 1996; it said the same thing, that sectoral bargaining and sectoral certification was not the answer to the problems of the construction industry in British Columbia. But the government didn't like that information, so they rejected the report. Now here we've got another report, that of the

section 3 committee, and it says that sectoral bargaining is a recipe for disaster. Well, you know what? Government didn't like that report either, so they threw it out. "Ignore it; we don't like what they recommended."

They went through three committees before they got a recommendation on sectoral bargaining that they liked. So it's finally . . . . You know, it's like the whole referendum process in Quebec, where the Parti québécois are going to keep asking the question until they get the answer that they like. Hon. Speaker, this is exactly the process that this government has gone through in terms of getting advice on sectoral bargaining and advice on how to deal with the construction industry.

[ Page 8946 ]

They went through three reports. Three committees looked at it and filed reports, until the government finally got one of the committees to give them a recommendation that they liked.

And now, before there's any public debate, they're saying: "Quick. Let's get this thing into the Legislature, and let's ram this thing through before the public has a chance to take a serious look at the legislation." Hon. Speaker, the public is not on their side on this issue. The public is not on their side.

The

section 3 committee actually went out and commissioned a poll of public opinion. There is some interesting stuff that came out of that survey done by the government's own

section 3 committee, which they appointed. Our tax dollars went to paying for this poll, which the government is now choosing to ignore. Let me just read some of the results from that survey.

Most believe that labour laws in British Columbia need only minor adjustments. Do you know how many people in this poll indicated that they thought that significant changes to the Labour Code were required? It was 14 percent of British Columbians that thought there should be significant changes to the Labour Code.

The poll also said that 46 percent thought that whatever changes there were should encourage labour and management to work together. That's a novel concept, isn't it? That was something the

section 3 committee spent a lot of time talking about recommending. They've chosen to ignore

section 3.

The public in this survey also showed that most people support innovative employee practices -- 89 percent -- which are things such as share distribution and profit-sharing, all of those things that this party on the other side has fought so strenuously against in British Columbia. So 89 percent of the public think that those would be good initiatives.

Hon. Speaker, 78 percent supported an increased role in decision-making. Think about that one -- decision-making. That's the ability of workers in a workplace to have an impact on the decisions that affect their working environment. That's about collective bargaining. That's not about some big master collective agreement that's imposed from on high, that comes in and says: "We don't care about your particular workplace or the needs of this group of workers. What's good for you is this master collective agreement. If you don't like it, lump it." That's what Bill 26 says.

Bill 26 says that if you don't like the master collective agreement that's being imposed on you, your only alternative is to go and work somewhere else. There's not enough work in the ICI sector, never mind enough work in any other sector in this province.

Let's look at some of the other things that come out in this survey. Do you know that the survey asked people's opinions on secret ballots and that 72 percent of the respondents said they wanted to see secret ballots on union certification? This is compared to only 21 percent who felt that the existing system of signing membership cards was sufficient. I've been through Bill 26. I don't see anything in there that brings back secret ballots when it comes to union certification.

Let's look at what the respondents thought about the current regulations on union certification. B.C. residents were typically satisfied with current regulations, and only 11 percent of the public thought that it was too difficult for workers to achieve certification if that was the majority rule in that workplace. Clearly the government didn't like what it read in the

section 3 report. Clearly one of the reasons they tossed it out the window, good and bad, was that it didn't tell them what they wanted to hear.

There's a more recent poll that was done by Marktrend, I believe, just within the last few weeks. This poll asked a question about B.C.'s labour laws. It said: "Thinking about B.C.'s labour laws, in your view should the government modify the laws to make them" -- then it gave them a choice of answers -- "more pro-business?" And 36 percent of the respondents said: "Yes, labour laws should be changed to make them more pro-business." Then it asked: "more pro-labour?" What percentage of the public would buy what's in Bill 26? Hon.

Speaker, 19 percent of the respondents to the Marktrend poll supported more pro-labour labour legislation in British Columbia, and 27 percent said that the labour legislation in this province should be left as it is. Just to round out the numbers, 4 percent said that they should be modified to accommodate both sides; 2 percent was "other" -- whatever that means; and 12 percent said nothing or that they didn't know. We know now why the government is not proceeding with

section 3. It's not because of the concerns of the business community, which was opposed to

section 3 recommendations, but because of the concerns of the labour movement that didn't get everything that it wanted in that report.

I want to refer to the report of the construction industry review panel itself. The construction industry review panel noted in their discussions that they had many presentations that were concerned about the economic climate in this province and that were concerned that now was not the time to change the Labour Code.

You know, there are two strikes against this legislation. The first one is that the economy can't handle it; it's another kick in the teeth for the B.C. economy. Second, it is bad legislation. Even the committee recognized that the economic climate was an important factor. When it got to their recommendations, they included a

section to discuss this very point. I want to read what Kelleher and Lanyon wrote in the report of the construction industry review panel. They said: "The recommendations we are making in this report are what we consider to be sensible changes for long-term stability in construction industry collective bargaining. They are not based on the state of the economy at any particular point in time. Whether they will be introduced and the timing of their introduction are ultimately questions for the government to decide." Certainly, even the panel itself had doubts as to whether or not now was the time to make any of these changes, given the state of the economy that we have today.

When the minister was making his comments in his introduction today -- and other comments he's made -- I jotted down some notes just about different things that he mentioned. He talked about this legislation as being moderate. Well, we touched on that. You know, they called Bill 44 moderate. They called gambling expansion moderate. Clearly this is anything but moderate by most people's definition. I guess it tells us what their definition of moderate is. I hate to imagine what kind of change we would have to the Labour Code if they thought that they were bringing in significant changes.

Hon. Speaker, he also said that it was reasonable -- again, reasonable by whose definition? Reasonable, I think, by the Labour minister's definition, reasonable perhaps by some of the members of the caucus that have such strong trade union backgrounds, but most British Columbians do not see this as reasonable.

He also used the word "balanced," -- that these were balanced changes. You know what I found interesting? It's how he justified balance. He said that he had had an equal number of complaints from both business and labour. That

[ Page 8947 ]

defines balance in British Columbia? I don't think so. Balance in labour legislation allows for the protection of workers and, at the same time, allows for a dynamic economy that's going to create jobs in the province. That's what balance is all about.

[3:15]

He also mentioned that this was a compromise position. Well, I find that interesting. It's like saying, when you've got a teeter-totter with one person that's barely six inches to one side of the fulcrum, and the other person is at the very end of the other side of the teeter-totter, that somehow you achieve balance by compromising. Well, I hate to tell you this, but if you did that, you've got both parties on your teeter-totter going downhill fast.

He frequently talked about Alberta. He said that Alberta has legislation like this. That's clearly not the case. I had somebody who is very familiar with the labour codes in different jurisdictions in Canada who said to me this morning . . . . They said that they would gladly trade Alberta's Labour Code for B.C.'s Labour Code today. I'd like to see any member of the government stand up and talk so favourably about the Alberta Labour Code that they would be willing to make a commitment that they would trade B.C.'s Labour Code for Alberta's -- anytime; stand up.

We've also heard, in many cases, the minister talking about the fact that small business is not affected. There is nothing that makes it clearer to me that the minister doesn't understand this legislation than when he makes a comment that small business isn't affected. Our construction industry today is increasingly made up of small businesses. I would suggest to the minister that the majority of companies that are working in the ICI sector today are small businesses.

If you've got a company with ten employees, all it takes is for six people to be convinced that the world's going to be a wonderful place if they sign a union card and suddenly they start down a road for which there is no return. They start down a road where they wind up with a collective agreement being imposed on them, which doesn't suit their needs.

I think there's a lot of misinformation about what these Labour Code changes are all about. After the construction industry report came out, there was some comment on what the impact of that report was. There was a column written by a member of the Legislature, which I think showed that there was a lot of misunderstanding of what this Labour Code was about. I just want to read some of these comments.

It says: "What the proposed changes to the code will do is secure proper apprenticeship and training to make sure that the people who are doing the construction are qualified to complete the work." That demonstrates to me the kind of misinformation that's out there. Bill 26 has absolutely nothing to do with apprenticeship; it has absolutely nothing to do with training. It has everything to do with ensuring that the craft unions have a leg up when it comes to unionizing an entire sector of our construction industry.

This goes on to say: "It's hard to understand criticism of the proposed changes when one considers the huge cost that is handed down to those who buy a building that has not been properly constructed, especially when we are faced with the staggering costs of leaky condos." There is absolutely nothing in Bill 26 that will do anything to address the issue of leaky condos, which is a fundamental problem. There's a report that I gather was released this morning about the time that I started talking.

As a result, I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I know that there are a lot of people with real problems that need to be addressed in that area. But Bill 26 does nothing to solve those kinds of problems.

This goes on to say: "It is also hard to fathom why, at a time when British Columbia needs properly skilled workers who are paid well for the work they do, small business would be so opposed to the changes." I think that's the kind of misinformation that gets put out about what these Labour Code changes are all about, because that's not in this legislation.

Hon. Speaker, I know my time is running out. I've got a lot more material to cover, but I probably have only about five or seven minutes left. I guess that means that I will have to skip over some of the material I was going to use. I'm sure there will be another opportunity later on.

Let me talk about the issue that has come up from time to time about this legislation. One of the questions that gets asked about any piece of legislation that comes in is: what is the problem that is being fixed? Clearly we see that there is no problem being fixed by this legislation that could not be fixed by other means. In the Vince Ready and Stephen Kelleher interim report of February 1996, they said that the problems that exist in the construction industry and the building trades sector of the construction industry should be solved through a collective bargaining process.

They did not say that there should be legislation. They specifically recommended against legislation to deal with these kinds of problems.

I want to talk about some of the things that the minister said in a letter. I'll just read to you how the minister prefaced these comments. He said: "Let me close by stating the criteria that I will use when evaluating the recommendations from the two panels, as well as submissions from interested groups such as yours." This is a letter he's writing back to a business organization: "1.

We must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplace." The minister said that that is one criterion he would use to evaluate the recommendations that were coming before him. What he did was adopt the recommendations of the construction industry review panel, yet it flies in the face of the very criteria that he said he would use to evaluate it.

Instead of a measure that's going to ensure efficiency and ensure our ability to compete nationally and internationally, we have legislation that is going to make things worse for British Columbians. The number one criterion of the minister was not met. This legislation fails his own test.

The letter continues: "2. We must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected." If the minister wanted to do that, he would have to bring in secret

[ Page 8948 ]

ballots and certification. That's not in Bill 26. The second criterion of the minister as to whether this is good or bad legislation was not met.

Let's go to the third point. The minister says: "3. We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." The minister said that that was a criterion that he was going to use to evaluate his legislation. Yet what we see is legislation that has the effect of driving investment out of British Columbia, of destroying jobs. So the minister's criterion No. 3 was not met. He fails his own test.

Let's look at the fourth criterion that he has set for himself: "4. We must consult carefully with key stakeholders before making changes to laws, policies and regulations." Well, they went out and got people to write briefs, and they had hearings. The minister had people come to his office to say: "Don't do this." There might have been a process of inviting people to inject their comments, but the minister clearly did not listen to any of that advice. So on criterion No. 4, he fails.

Now let's look at the last criterion: "5. We must work to bring business, labour and government together to address issues of common and public concern." Clearly, what he has done is he has invited this input from the business community, the labour community and government. What we see in here is that they're not working together with the business community and labour; they're working together with the labour community to make sure that we have a Labour Code that is even more "union-friendly," to quote the regional vice-president of the Canadian Auto Workers. On criterion No. 5, he fails.

So here we've got in his letter the five points that this minister sets out. Again, I'll just remind you of what the minister said in this particular letter. He says: "Let me close by stating the criteria that I will use when evaluating the recommendations from the two panels, as well as submissions from interested group such as yours." Clearly the minister has not taken his own advice; he hasn't adhered to his own principles on this legislation. That's why this legislation is bad, and that's why this legislation should be defeated.

If the minister had the guts to stand up and go through his own criteria in this chamber, he would recognize that this was bad legislation and that this legislation should be pulled.

After setting out these five points, the minister says: "I believe these goals are shared by most British Columbians . . . . " I agree with him on that. On those five points, most British Columbians would agree with him. But what most British Columbians will not agree with him on is whether this legislation meets even one of those five criteria. Most British Columbians would recognize that this legislation flies in the face of the very five items that he has set out as his own self-evaluation.

If I can just recap, hon. Speaker, what we have is legislation that is being forced into this House without adequate public debate. We have a government that is afraid of the public discussion on this legislation, because they know it's unpopular. They too have read the polls that I quoted from earlier. They know that the public will overwhelmingly condemn what's in this legislation. They are afraid of that, and that's why this legislation has been brought into debate so quickly after its introduction for first reading.

If this government had the guts to face public opinion, they would have allowed the public to have a close look at Bill 26 before this is called for debate. They are afraid of the public debate on this; they are cowards, because they are not prepared to allow the public to have their input into how this legislation will impact on their lives.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is now up.

C. Hansen: I do have more material which I apologize that I wasn't able to get to. I know the minister was very concerned that I wasn't getting into the meat of the legislation, but I will certainly have lots of opportunity to do that in the days, weeks and months to come.

G. Campbell: I was very pleased to see at least some members of the government in the chamber today, because for the first time over the last few weeks, we've actually heard from someone who knows what he's talking about when he talks about the labour bill. I think that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena has done an excellent job of framing up some of the discussion that will follow, I'm sure, in the days ahead.

One of the things that's very interesting is that yesterday, as the Minister of Labour was trying to justify this imposition of the government's ideology on the economy of British Columbia, he referred to an America would-be politician by the name of Ross Perot. He's evidently using Mr. Perot as one of his economic advisers. We know that he's done no economic studies in the introduction of this bill; we know that he's paid no attention to the small business community in British Columbia; we know that he's paid no attention to the chambers of commerce in British Columbia.

I know that many members on the other side of the House are wondering what our concern is here. Well, Mr. Perot came to the American scene in 1992. In 1992, as you probably know, there was a presidential election campaign going on. There was a fellow by the name of James Carville, who worked for the Clinton campaign. So that everyone would understand what the issue was that they were talking about, Mr. Carville had a major sign put up in their campaign headquarters, and the sign said: "It's the economy, stupid." Every member of the government should understand that the problems we face in British Columbia are a result of their economic policies. It is still the economy, stupid.

[3:30]

Why shouldn't Bill 26 have been introduced? It's the economy, stupid. Why shouldn't we have sectoral bargaining? It's the economy; it's clearly the economy. That's what has gone wrong in this province. When this government was elected, we were the number one economy in Canada. When this government was first elected, B.C. is where investors wanted to invest. It's where job creation was taking place. It's where people felt that they could come and create a future for their families. You know, when we say it's the economy, you've got to remember that the economy isn't owned by business or labour or government.

The economy has an impact on all of our lives: on every home and every family in the province of British Columbia. It's the economy that has changed their lives. It's the economy that is causing them concern. It's the economy that makes them worry about the future of their children. It's the economy that has taken families and torn them apart.

One woman from Vancouver Island told me that her husband could not find work in British Columbia; he had to work in the Northwest Territories. She said she has effectively become a single parent to her two kids, because of the economy in British Columbia. I was talking to a woman in the media, a single mother who has worked for a long time supporting her two children. She said that when she started, she thought that things were going to be great. She thought that by the time she got to this stage of her life, she would

[ Page 8949 ]

have a future, and she could start thinking about retiring. She can't do that anymore. She's worried about her future. Her house value is falling; her job isn't as secure as it seemed to be. Why is that? It's the economy.

Every step that this government has taken, every single step they've taken, has hurt our economy. For this government to intentionally introduce a bill which will make things worse in one of our major industries, that will drive people out of work, that will damage small business and that will take away opportunity is simply not acceptable to this side of the House, and we will do everything we can to stop it.

The first thing you have to have to build or rebuild an economy, to restore an economy, is a sense of trust. You have to re-establish and restore the sense of hope that used to define British Columbia. I was born in British Columbia. I remember when British Columbia was the place where there was nothing but opportunities. Young people in this province thought: "Boy, this is the place to be. Look at what I can do when I go out and work hard."

We have a government today that nobody trusts. Literally no one in this province trusts this government, and it's not hard to figure out why. First we have a government that inherits an economy that's vibrant, an economy that's creating opportunity, an economy that's encouraging investment. Slowly but surely -- by extra taxation, by one tax after another, by regulatory burden loaded up on one business after another -- they've sucked the life out of that economy.

As they've done that, have they learned their lesson? Well, I can tell you that this year I remember the Premier making a big fuss. This is what the Premier said: "We want to say it's not business as usual. We want to change some things, to get the economy moving, and we intend to do that."

What I didn't understand at the time was that he meant that the economy would be moving out of British Columbia into Alberta and to Washington State. What's happened this year as a result of the introduction of Bill 26 is this: things have been made worse -- substantially worse. People were led to believe that this government had learned its lesson. So the Premier went out and did a series of what he called consultations, meetings to turn our economy around and try to encourage investment again. What did the Premier hear? He heard that our taxes were too high, and we had to see a dramatic reduction in tax.

He heard that our regulatory burden was too great, and we had to see a dramatic reduction in red tape. He heard that our labour laws were too restrictive. One message came through in one meeting after another: "Do not touch the Labour Code. Do not touch it."

The Premier left those meetings and said: "Oh, these were very good meetings. We're going to work something out here." What happened? After asking people to come forward and tell the Premier and the government what they have to do to start restoring the economy, they got a virtually unanimous message: "Do not touch the Labour Code."

After all that time and effort that people put in, the Premier just slapped them across the face and said: "I don't care what you think. I don't care what the small business community in this province thinks. I don't care what the chambers of commerce tell me. I don't care what the Business Council tells me. I don't care what the board of trade tells me. I don't care what the Hongkong Bank says or what economists from across the province tell me.

We are changing the Labour Code, and we're doing it for one reason: we have to pay back our political friends and supporters." It has nothing to do with jobs, nothing to do with good economic policy. It has everything to do with payback time. That is, unfortunately, what's taking place in the province right now.

The Premier came out of those meetings, and he said that what he had learned . . . . It's good that he learned it, but evidently these were just words again. This is why the trust factor for this government is below zero. He said that what we need is a positive climate for business investment.

I've heard the Minister of Labour say that the problem with all of the people who are telling us what's taking place in British Columbia is that somehow the truth hurts. We should try and hide the truth about what's taking place in our economy. Well, I think that if we don't tell the truth and start acting to rectify the problems that have been created by this government, we are going to lose more opportunities and more jobs in British Columbia.

Let's start by looking at what the truth is. The truth is that our province -- British Columbia, with all of its assets, with all of the talent of all of the people who live here -- was the only province in Canada to lose jobs in 1997. What that means is that that little province over there in the Atlantic -- that tiny little province called Prince Edward Island -- generated more jobs than we could in British Columbia. That has never happened before. British Columbia used to be at the top -- the top economic performer in this country. In 1997 we were the only province to lose jobs.

What about the forest industry? Remember the forest industry, with thousands of people who used to work -- the pride of British Columbia? Over the last year what has happened is that 12,580 have lost their work for good in the forest industry.

Our economy was in trouble, and the Premier said: "I'm going to turn it around." What does he do to turn it around? He introduces Labour Code changes which send a signal that says to people across the continent and around the world: do not invest in British Columbia. The minister says that we, the opposition, are somehow at fault. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses and the B.C. Business Council are at fault, because they identify what the problem is. Somehow this government thinks that if they cover their ears up and cover their eyes up, the problem will go away.

The problem is that if we close our eyes, those people who are not at work today -- who can't pay their mortgages today, who are worried about their kids today -- will fall further into poverty and into despair. We want to open this government's eyes. We want to open their eyes and ask them -- or tell them, suggest to them -- how they can create a positive economic climate, a climate where they start to reestablish trust.

The first thing you have to know is that you don't do it by not telling people the truth. You have to tell them the truth. The truth is that we have been going through an investment recession in this province for the last two years, and we are looking at a major economic recession hitting the people who live here in the year ahead. Rather than deal boldly and aggressively and positively to make the changes that need to be made, this government gets out its shovel and starts digging the hole even deeper.

We have a construction industry that is in serious trouble. Again, let's not think about the industry; let's think about the thousands of people who work in it. Does the government really believe that when there is a 40 percent drop in housing

[ Page 8950 ]

starts in the lower mainland, there are not thousands of people who are having trouble finding work? A 91 percent drop in housing starts in Campbell River . . . .

Can you imagine the kind of economic impact that has, particularly -- and I see the member for North Island is here -- when you look at the situation in the forestry industry and the mining industry in the North Island? We have a government -- we have a member opposite -- that is willing to support a bill that will hurt the construction industry and drive that industry further down. Is that the kind of performance we're expecting from people from the North Island?

I can tell you that they would like an economic recovery plan there. And the only way to get it is to have someone in their constituency who will stand up and speak for them and say: "What on earth is this government doing introducing legislation that's going to kill construction and kill jobs in my constituency?"

What about the member for Skeena? He's sitting there and saying nothing. He's going to support a bill that is going to drive the very investment that's required in the northwest of this province out of British Columbia. It will drive jobs with it, even more jobs than they've lost in the northwest in the last few years under this New Democrat government. It's totally unacceptable.

What about the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, whose communities are reeling today under this government's economic policy, who won't stand up and speak for his constituents? For the major industry in his constituency -- the forest industry -- to take off again, we're going to need major economic investment. What do changes in the labour bill do? They drive investment out of the province.

You know, hon. Speaker, when we come forward with these messages, they're not messages that we're making up. They can be read in every analysis of B.C.'s economy that has been done over the last 18 months. All the government has to do is open their eyes. We'll give them a remedial reading course, if that will help. But please read the reports, because I'll tell you that you won't solve the problem by just closing your eyes.

It reminds me of when there are little kids and their parents are coming to tell them that they're supposed to do something and they start making lots of noise, covering their ears and saying: "We won't hear it; we won't hear it; we want to pretend it's not there." It's there. Unfortunately, it's there for thousands of people across this province.

If we're going to move forward in this province, we have to turn this around. The fact of the matter is that even the government's own reports tell them that this is the wrong time to introduce any changes to the Labour Code. As the Wall Street Journal points out, there is a flag with a black spot over British Columbia today. Investors are afraid of coming to British Columbia. They're afraid of British Columbia because they know this is a government that hasn't told the truth about its books. They know that this is a government that says one thing and does another.

They know that it's a government that will attack small business and interfere with court processes. They know that it's a government that doesn't care about quasi-judicial processes in the province. They don't care about due process. They don't care about workers in this province. They don't care if people are losing their jobs, because if they did care, they'd pay attention.

[3:45]

When their own self-appointed panel, the Kelleher-Lanyon panel, says to them quite clearly that they consider these are sensible changes for the long-term sustainability of the construction industry, but they are not based on the state of the economy at any particular time, that is a warning. Don't bring in legislation that's going to hurt your economy at a time when the economy is going down. The government tries to create this spin. This is a government of spin. Unfortunately, the spin has turned into a downward spiral. That downward spiral is hurting everyone.

We hear from the minister that this is just a modest proposal and these are just modest changes.

An Hon. Member: Jonathan Swift said that.

G. Campbell: Jonathan Swift did say that; you're right.

It was a modest proposal when we had Bill 44. The Premier told us that it was a modest proposal. This modest proposal, unfortunately, takes away people's rights. This modest proposal drives investment out of the province. This modest proposal kills jobs in one of our most important industries. The construction industry in British Columbia is valued at between $16 billion and $17 billion. The minister says: "Well, this is only a little part of the construction industry. We're only talking about taking away the rights of 11,000 workers here. Who cares?"

The fact of the matter is that it is not a modest proposal. It's not a modest proposal when you say to an employer: "You are no longer able to negotiate an agreement between you and your employee." It's not a modest proposal when you say to employees: "Sorry, you can't negotiate how you'd like to work. You can't negotiate the rules that you'll have in your workplace." It's not a modest proposal when we know the damage it's going to do to the economy of British Columbia.

Let's tick these off. We know that this government has ruined the mining industry in B.C. We know that the forest industry is now on its knees, and now we have the government going after the construction industry. The construction industry has said clearly and irrevocably that this is the wrong thing to do at this time. The government is going to go after that industry, and that's going to mean that thousands of people lose their work in the province.

This is not, as the minister suggested, about providing people with choices. It's about eliminating people's choices and about taking away their right to decide. This is not, as the minister suggested, a mirror of what's happening either in Alberta or in Ontario. This is a special piece of legislation for British Columbia -- a special piece of legislation for this government's friends. This is a special piece of legislation that will drive investments and jobs out of the province of British Columbia.

I take no joy in the fact that in 1997 -- in that one year alone -- we lost 107 companies that fled this province, and this government and its policies, to go to one province: Alberta. And what do we get? What response do we get from the government? Zero. Do we see a dramatic reduction in tax rates? No. Nobody is getting any tax benefits in 1998. No one has looked at their paycheque at the end of the month and said: "Boy, my paycheque has really grown, because the provincial government isn't taking as much out of my pocket as it used to."

Do they see a dramatic reduction in regulations? Absolutely not. What we've watched in this session of the House is an increase of red tape and an increase in the intensity of the attack on small business across the province.

Interjections.

[ Page 8951 ]

G. Campbell: That's exactly what is happening. Hon. Speaker, when you think of what's taking place . . . .

Interjections.

G. Campbell: I really love the informed comments from across the way.

Let me just point out the names of some of the sectors of the economy that are opposed to this, and I think it's important to note this. The B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association is opposed to it. The Urban Development Institute is opposed to it. The B.C. Restaurant and Food Caterers are opposed to it. The B.C. Automobile Dealers Association is opposed to it. The B.C. Trucking Association is opposed to it. The Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association is opposed to it. The Council of Tourism Associations is opposed to it. The greenhouse and nursery trades are opposed to it.

The Canadian Retail Hardware Association is opposed to it. The technical industries association is opposed to it. There are more than two dozen industry organizations that are opposed to this.

Who is for this? There is only one group that is for it. The B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council is for it, because they know what it is: it's purely and simply another tool for union organizing. I am not opposed for a moment to people deciding to belong to a union because they decide to, but not because it's ordered by legislative fiat that they must.

As soon as we allow this government or any other government to say it is going to take away your right as a worker to choose, as soon as we allow this government or any other government to take away the right of an employer to negotiate openly and freely with their employees, I will guarantee you that what happens is that we lose the investment we need to turn this province's economy around.

It does not take an economics degree to understand what's taking place here. Over the last seven years, we've watched as investment has shrunk, so that today in B.C. we have the lowest level of private sector investment of any jurisdiction west of Quebec. It shouldn't be a surprise that when there's no private sector investment, you start to watch as unemployment grows. We now have 197,000 British Columbians who are jobless. We now have an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent in British Columbia -- again, the highest unemployment rate of any place west of Quebec.

And our children, the young people who count on us to husband our resources and to marshal our economic resources to make sure that they have opportunities in the future like we inherited from our parents, what happens with them? Young men between 15 and 24, a 21 percent unemployment rate; young people generally, an 18-1/2 percent unemployment rate in this province.

You know why that happens? It's because we've lost private sector investment. We've driven another nail into the coffin of the small business community in British Columbia. The problem is that they've worked so hard for this government to hear their message. They've reached out to this government -- week in and week out, month in and month out -- to say: "Help us. Help reduce the burdens that you've put on us so that we can employ young people."

I remember talking to a woman who worked in a hardware store in Fernie. She made a point of giving first jobs to four young people every single summer. When I visited her, she said to me: "You know, Mr. Campbell, I can't do that anymore. I can no longer afford to hire those young people, to give them the training they need, to give them the understanding of what it's like to go to work and to do a job and to be responsible for it." She can no longer do that because this government's tax regime and regulatory regime and labour codes and employment standards are killing her opportunities to hire those people. That's what is going to happen in the construction industry.

We use the term ICI and everyone gets these big, big thoughts in their heads. The fact is that there's a whole bunch of very small businesses that are involved in the ICI sector of the construction industry. As members of the industry will tell you, you can't split the industry up like that; that's not how the world works today. So let's not kid ourselves that this is just one tiny segment of the construction industry. This is the construction industry, and the construction industry with its $16 billion of contribution . . . .

I will guarantee you this, unfortunately: if this government passes this bill, if this government imposes this bill on employers and employees, if this government is insistent on taking away people's rights, one thing is going to happen. People that are involved in the construction industry are going to leave the province of British Columbia. Investors in construction are going to leave the province, and future investors will leave.

Let's remember: this isn't about a building company. It's not about the construction company itself. It's people that use those companies as a tool to create a capital plant. That's what they're doing. So say you're interested in investing in the forest industry. We have to have investment in the forest industry if we are going to be competitive; we must have it. So if, in fact, we are going to have that investment . . . . As Jerry Lampert from the Business Council said yesterday -- Mr. Lampert was very clear: "Look, when investors come to British Columbia, they are going to think about the labour climate." We know that.

If you read the Hongkong Bank of Canada report, it's very clear. There are three things that are hurting economic growth in the province of British Columbia. The first one is our high level of taxation. The second one is our labour laws, and the third one is this government's exceptional incompetence. When you take the arrogance of this government and you combine it with the incompetence of this government, you have a lethal combination which is killing the economy, killing our jobs and killing opportunities for the future in British Columbia.

So we take the job creators of this province and we say to them: "We really don't care what you have to say." By saying that we don't care what they have to say, what are the results that we see? In this government's first full year in office, what we saw were 28 companies leave the province and go to Alberta. By the second year, 46 more companies left the province and went to Alberta. By the third year, 62 companies; fourth year, 71 companies; fifth year, 77 companies. In 1997 the new record: 107 companies leave British Columbia and move to Alberta. It's absolutely disgraceful.

We have to remember that those companies are moving with jobs today. And if they're strong enough and economically viable enough to move, they are creating even more jobs for tomorrow. That's part of what we're losing as a result of this government not paying attention to the small business community of this province.

So what is the small business community reduced to doing? What they're reduced to doing is saying: "This government doesn't listen." They're reduced to pleading with this government to pay attention to what they have to say. They're reduced to saying to this government: "We are working day in and day out to hire people, to make our businesses succeed,

[ Page 8952 ]

and you, the government, are the problem; you, the New Democrats, are the problem. You, the people who won't stand up for working people, are the problem."

Let's be really clear. The fact of the matter is that if the government doesn't understand that you have to create job opportunities for working people to have a future, working people are in a lot of trouble. And this government doesn't understand. The results of this government's actions are very straightforward: a recession. This isn't about being on the brink of a recession; we are in a recession. As someone said, hon. Speaker: "When you're in a recession, if you're unemployed, things are looking pretty bleak."

I started by pointing out: "It's the economy, stupid" -- which we have to pay attention to. It is, and this government has ignored it and ignored it and ignored it. The damage that this government's policies have done has been huge: huge damage in the forest industry, major damage in the mining industry, major damage in the small business sector of this economy, thousands of people out of work, thousands of people unable to support their families the way they should, thousands of people looking for hope. Instead of looking for hope in British Columbia, they are looking to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Washington and Oregon.

I ask this government to take this bill and stand it down. Do not proceed with this bill. This bill is simply going to add another nail to the coffin of B.C.'s economy. Let's work together to make this province a province of hope again as opposed to a province of despair, which this bill will surely add to.

[4:00]

G. Abbott: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Abbott: I'd like to introduce today in the gallery a constituent from the Shuswap, who's also a friend and a former colleague on the district of Sicamous council and, I'm happy to say, a personal supporter of mine as well. I'd like to introduce Councillor Fred Busch from Sicamous, who's here as a library trustee. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

C. Clark: I seek leave to make an introduction as well.

Leave granted.

C. Clark: Joining us today in the precincts -- although I'm not sure if they're in the galleries -- is a group from Moody Middle School in my riding: 43 visitors, grades 7 and 8, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Blenkinsop. I hope I got that right, and I hope the House will certainly make them welcome.

J. Doyle: I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Doyle: On behalf of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, I'd like to introduce 55 students from Vanier Elementary School. They're in the galleries right now with their teacher, Mr. A. Jiva. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, in rising to Bill 26 . . . . It brings to mind the other evening when I was knocked off my feet by a bit of a bout with the flu, and in an unusual manner had a chance to sit and watch a baseball game on television -- which is about the only time one can sit that long to watch that kind of a game on television. What I witnessed was a great deal of expectation because one of the members on the batting roster was said to be a home-run hitter and was going to come up and win the game by hitting a home run, and this was going to put the team over the top.

When the fellow got up to bat, the team at field actually walked him to the plate and the batter had a tantrum. He wanted a pitch he could hit, because he wanted a pitch that was going to win the game. He wanted a pitch that he could put out of the stadium, but he didn't get it. He had a tantrum, because that's not the way it was supposed to be. It was planned for this fellow on the roster to be able to knock this ball right out of the ballpark.

When I look at Bill 26, I see a bill that had a million-dollar wind-up and a ten-cent throw. It's the same thing. There is nothing in this bill that's going to bring the economy of British Columbia to its knees. There's nothing in this bill that's going to do anything to the economy of British Columbia that is going to force people to leave in droves. This is not a bill that's going to plunge us into the deepest of recessions. This is not a bill that's going to kill our economy or our communities.

I'll tell you how serious this is. I am quietly -- with members of my community, through a mayor's task force -- negotiating with international aluminum companies to come and invest in the Powell River community. I'll tell you, when these international investors come in and hear the diatribe we heard today about how bad it is in the province -- how the labour laws are terrible, how the investment opportunities are terrible, how the economy's going in the sink, how nobody should invest in B.C., how everybody's leaving, how downright lousy it is here -- you know what they're going to do?

They're going to go and invest in Quebec. They're going to go and invest somewhere else. The only thing that causes them greater concern than uncertainty about what this government may do is the complete lack of anything positive that they see on the Liberal opposition side of the House with respect to building the economy of British Columbia.

I anticipated with trepidation what was coming down, because when I looked at Bill 44, I had concerns about sectoral bargaining. This is not sectoral bargaining. I don't care what anybody tries to put into the verbiage of this debate; it is not sectoral bargaining. I'll tell you something else that really makes my blood boil. When the political agenda is set . . . . When the stage is there because you think you've got a batter who's going to come up and finally have a pitch they can hit and they're walked to the plate, for goodness' sake, acknowledge your walk to the plate.

I guess one could argue and debate, and one could ask the legitimate question: why is this coming in now? What is the need to bring this in now? In order to answer that question, you have to go back through a year's worth of negotiations and submissions to a commission that sat down and reviewed, over and over again, the information that was given to them by both the employer and the union sides. I don't know if the official critic, who spoke for almost two hours on this bill, has read the submissions to that commission. If he did, I'm really at a loss to know what he saw in them.

I've read every single submission that was made to that commission. I have met with not all, but many on both sides. I've spoken with organized labour as well as the management side of it, and the only organized group within the construction labour relations side that I see as being really uptight about this is the ICBA -- Mr. Hochstein and the non-union

[ Page 8953 ]

sector. And of course they don't like it, because they're anti-union. They don't want a union movement in the province, and they certainly don't want union construction. When I see the Leader of the Opposition stand up and say, "These are the guys that are out there supporting their friends and insiders," and I know that the ICBA and Mr. Hochstein gave a hundred thousand bucks to the Liberal election campaign, I'm saying: "What hypocrisy is this here? What kind of absolute hypocrisy are we dealing with in British Columbia?" My God, if anybody's paying off friends and insiders in this debate, that's it.

Bill 26 is not Bill 44, folks. It isn't Bill 44. Let's be very clear about it. The concerns that were expressed by people in independent business and out there in the unionized sector have been, in part -- and I say in part -- addressed, because there are issues that have not been resolved in this bill that are going to have to be at some point. But my goodness!

If you've spent any time reading the materials in front of the Kelleher commission and trying to understand the niceties and problems associated with the construction industry, surely to goodness you read Bill 26 and you see that this is the least noxious of labour bills that could have come forward. The issue of double-breasting isn't dealt with here. There's nothing in here that tells us about the matter of the secret ballot vote and the issues that are really divisive within . . . . They're not even addressed here.

The concern that average British Columbians had that this bill was somehow going to push residential housing construction prices up is taken care of: it's not there; it's not in the bill.

The other thing we have to look at is the whole idea of roads, bridges and all of the infrastructure cost side of it, which everybody said: "My God, it's going to put incredible costs to the municipal infrastructure cost." The association of municipalities came together and said they had those concerns -- it's not in the bill. It isn't there. I know that the Liberal opposition wanted it in the bill. They wanted it there because their whole political strategy was geared up to fight it -- like that poor batter that went up there ready to hit a home run and got walked to first base. But it isn't there.

To stand in the Legislative Assembly -- and I hope that they'll reconsider -- and put up speaker after speaker to tell the world -- and that's who's going to be looking at this debate -- how terrible a place British Columbia is to invest right now, how terrible an opportunity any investor might have here, how everybody ought to go to Alberta or to Quebec or some other jurisdiction outside of B.C., is just downright irresponsible. It's downright irresponsible because we are in a serious situation in British Columbia, and we do have to pull together and work together.

We do have to find ways in which we can attract investment here and make sure that our communities get the kind of investment that we need.

I've never seen anything quite like this, and I've been around here for five years now, where a party has so focused its hopes that finally there's going to be something to get your teeth into, that when it doesn't show up, you decide you're going to try and get your teeth into it anyway. It can't be done. It's going to be a most divisive issue if we put out a lot of misinformation to the public to get people hyped up and all kinds of rhetoric over what essentially are some moderate -- and they are moderate -- changes to the Labour Code.

Now, hon. Speaker, let me say this. I am angry with this government around a whole host of areas, because I think their public policy is hurting the economy of British Columbia. I don't hesitate to stand up and tell them where I think we're going wrong. But surely to goodness we have an obligation and a responsibility that if we're going to criticize, we have to stand up and say: "All right, what do we do in its place? Where do we put it?" The Liberal opposition are saying: "Well, don't make any changes to the Labour Code."

Let me tell you what I heard from business. Business said: "Don't bring in Bill 44; do not reintroduce Bill 44." I said: "Amen. That was a bad move." The government recognized it was a bad move; they pulled it out. British Columbia went to a commission. We had a situation where we had both sides able to present, and they came out with what they thought were some rational approaches to being able to solve the problem. And Bill 44 did not come back; it is not reintroduced.

This -- and I hope British Columbians will hear me -- is not sectoral bargaining, or I would not stand and vote for it. I'm opposed to sectoral bargaining for a host of reasons which, on some other day and in some other debate, we'll get into and we'll discuss.

What does this do, fundamentally and primarily? I've consulted with many people who are in the employment sector. The employers, who are actually the people there who are already unionized -- because that's all it affects: those people who are unionized -- are saying that by putting in a master collective agreement, this means that the subtrades that come into those worksites are going to have to buy into that master agreement.

That is going to eliminate a lot of labour disputes, a lot of very expensive -- in time and cost -- labour delays and some very difficult times when you try to get these labour groups to come on that site and they then engage themselves in the attempt to either negotiate a collective agreement or somehow to be able to challenge the language of a collective agreement because of one that is grandfathered. What this says is that this bill will bring in a master agreement that will allow smaller subtrades to be able to lock onto that master agreement for the duration of their time on that site.

I am not a fan of provincewide master agreements. I've spoken out against them for B.C. teachers, for health unions. In all of those areas I have said that I'm not a fan of provincewide master agreements. But construction trades workers are not like teachers who go to a yearly job, nor are they like health workers. They go on a site for maybe one week, two weeks, five or six weeks -- for a short period of time.

If they go on unionized and then attempt to negotiate a collective agreement in that short period, it is going to cost the employer -- the very people that the Liberals say they're trying to save money for -- lengthy and very expensive labour disputes on site. The attempt is to try to get rid of that, and it does that.

I don't know why we're locked into a three-year agreement. That's something I'm going to find out in committee. Why did we sit at three years? That's a good question. It could be a minimum of three years, and I think we could move forward on that -- I don't know.

The second issue that is not addressed in here -- and I think that there is an inherent unfairness in the law . . . . I'd like the minister, when we get into committee, to talk about why it is that a unionized company -- under the existing law and because it's exempted here -- is still not able to run both union and non-union sites, where a unionized worker is able to work both union and non-union sites. There's an inherent unfairness there. I need to know what the rationale is for not introducing what some people call double-breasting. It's called other things in other provinces. But why isn't that in this bill?

I think that that's an important consideration -- to know why that is not in this bill.

The other thing, hon. Speaker -- and I offer this in some positive way to try and resolve a contentious construction

[ Page 8954 ]

labour issue -- is around the whole matter of the secret ballot vote, and the difficulty of trying to apply the secret ballot to the certification process. There's nothing in here that talks about amendments to the certification process, I would point out. Why did they not look at what I think is a fair trade between the employer and unionized workers with respect to the secret ballot, where the union would agree to a secret ballot certification provided the employer would agree to an exchange of lists of eligible union voters. Now there's a fair trade, and I think that some negotiation could be done on that.

What that will do is satisfy the concerns that some people have. Some unionized workers, for that matter, would prefer to have the opportunity to vote on certification through a secret ballot. One of the concerns the unions have expressed, of course, is that they don't want to do that if they don't know what the numbers are, because they don't have access to those who are eligible and therefore there's an opportunity for the employer to basically rig the vote. Those are issues that I think weren't addressed in here and might be.

The third area where I think that we really didn't go far enough . . . . I'd like the minister to address the whole matter of trades qualifications and the need for us to put in place the apprenticeship programs that I was, frankly, hoping I would start to see implemented here. If we're to stay competitive in the world market, we have to start putting an emphasis on training the most skilled workers possible. The best place to do that is through an apprenticeship program where we can start to build long-term training opportunities for British Columbians, so that we can enhance the number of skilled trades workers on the job site.

[4:15]

All of those are issues that I think need to be addressed by the minister. Why did they back off that issue? I think that's a very positive issue for British Columbians. When I see my kids go into a school, I want to know that the workers who were involved in building that school are skilled tradespeople who know what they're doing. When we're building our institutions, our hospitals and other kinds of ICI construction projects, we want to know that the people who are actively working on those projects are highly skilled, highly trained people. We want to make sure that the work that is done is of the highest quality possible, and we need to know that the people are properly ticketed.

The concern that I have is this trend toward a multi-ticket for the subtrades, where you start to have people who sort of wear their certification like a badge on a string -- the notion that we can somehow deskill the workforce by saying: "Well, we're going to give people partial training. You're good enough to do half a dozen of these jobs, so you can kind of wear your badges like a Boy Scout." It's like, you know: "I've got the following, so I can do the following jobs."

All of those issues are serious issues that need to have ongoing debate in this province. We need to do it, hon. Speaker. We need to have the opportunity to debate those issues in the absence of what I believe to be inflated rhetoric -- which, for the life of me . . . . Having read this document, the reports and the Labour Relations Code amendments as provided through the committee, and having talked to members on the management side -- the employers -- and to members on the union side, for the life of me, I don't know where this Liberal opposition is coming from.

I do know that when Leader of the Official Opposition of a province stands up and says that this bill, if it's passed . . . . And it will pass, because there is a majority over there even if every one of us on this side voted against it. The Leader of the Opposition says that the passage of Bill 26 is going to further erode our economy, it's going to make an unworkable labour climate, and it's going to cause us all kinds of grief. I'm trying to negotiate with a major international investor, who says: "Well, the Leader of the Opposition says I shouldn't come to B.C.

I would like to put our investment in the aluminum plant in Powell River, but -- gee, you know what, Mr. Wilson? -- the Leader of the Official Opposition says we should go invest in Alberta. Or maybe we should invest in Quebec or somewhere else, because he says it's an unworkable place to put our money."

Now we're going to have to go and sit down with these international companies and take this little piece of legislation and say: "Hang on, hang on. Look, never mind the rhetoric in the Legislative Assembly; there's a lot of political nonsense going on over there. There's a whole bunch of hype being played out to try and get headlines in newspapers and to try and look like the big aggressor for whatever groups they're trying to satisfy.

Let's look at the letter of the law, and let me impress upon you what you're going to be faced with when you come in to construct your mill or your aluminum plant." They're probably going to use predominantly unionized workers because of the size of the contract. They're going to want to know that when they make their mill investment and start construction, they're going to have fair labour legislation that will allow them certainty. I can point to the

section in this bill that simply says that when you move in there and have a master agreement, you will have that certainty. We will be able to make sure that the language of that is going to provide you with the certainty required for you to get your work properly completed and properly done."

You know, I want to also say that whenever I stand up and I challenge . . . . And I am challenging now, because there's never been a more clear example of the differences -- not just between government and opposition, but between the political parties represented on the opposition side of this House. Let there be no doubt, as one member -- and I am one member in this Legislative Assembly . . . . Our party, the Progressive Democratic Alliance, is growing and growing in great numbers, and is likely to grow even more after the kind of debate I just heard in this Legislature today.

There's never been a more clear line in definition. The only thing I can contemplate in my mind when I hear the rhetoric coming out of the benches of the official opposition Liberal Party is that it's not so much that they are anti-Bill 26 or anti-sectoral bargaining or even anti-labour legislation. They're anti-union.

I can tell you that most of the major construction companies . . . . Let's be clear. The ICBA of Mr. Hochstein represents, I'm told, somewhere between 8 and 10 percent of the industry. There's another 90 percent of the industry out there.

I looked at the Christian Labour Association of Canada press release today. They are an independent union. Let me tell you what they say: "The Christian Labour Association of Canada has expressed general support for Labour Code changes contained in Bill 26." This is their quote, not mine. It says: "The right of workers to choose between different types of unions is essential in a democratic system. This legislation provides room for both traditional and alternative approaches to construction labour relations." This is from one of the largest of the independent unions. They're saying: "You know what? This is not a bad deal."

CLAC, the Christian Labour Association of Canada, opposed Bill 44 vigorously and for good reason. Now they're saying: "This isn't such a big deal." It's a million-dollar

[ Page 8955 ]

windup for a ten-cent throw, and they're just mad because they walked to the plate. That's the truth.

Let me say . . . . When I do make the differences and distinctions between this party, the Progressive Democratic Alliance, and the Liberal Party, many people ask me . . . . I get asked all the time. I got asked just the other night during a speech I was giving in Qualicum Beach. They were saying: "Why don't you go back over and join the Liberal Party?" I said: "Because there is a fundamental difference in our approach, our philosophy. We are not anti-union -- right?" Today, let those who asked me -- and I hope some may be watching and possibly some may read my words . . . .

Let this be evidence of why I can no longer be in that camp. That kind of rhetoric is just so unproductive; it is so unhelpful.

The other problem is that when I stand up I get accused of being a lap dog of those members opposite. It's like you can't have an independent point of view in opposition. If you stand up and challenge the official opposition and that point of view, it's automatically assumed -- because there is black-and-white thinking among some members; if you're not white, you're black and if you're not black, you're white -- that somehow we accept that point of view of the NDP opposite . . . .

I chuckle when I hear the members of the Liberal Party say: "The government over here, who protect their unionized workers and their unionized friends . . . . " You know what? I don't think there's been a government over here that's been more harmful to the labour movement in the last two or three years than these guys. People say: "What are you talking about?" I say: let's take a look at this for a minute. This was the government that removed the right to localized bargaining in the public sector and went to centralized bargaining.

It was this government that took away collective bargaining rights at the local level. It was this government that, when the teachers were on strike, brought this House into special session and legislated them back to work. They took away their right to strike. This was the NDP government's back-to-work legislation. In fact, I believe I was the only member in this Legislative Assembly to oppose it.

It is this government that has now turned around and, in my judgment -- and it is my judgment, and we'll see when the Labour Relations Board rules -- completely violated the terms of free collective bargaining in the matter between the teachers and the trustees. I'll tell you why I believe that.

I believe that because I know that when that Minister of Education and I sat in labour school together -- this goes way back when we were both members of a trade union in the college system -- and we were talking about free collective bargaining and the need for free collective bargaining and how that process works, I know how staunchly opposed we were to direct government intervention in the free collective bargaining system. I knew it was a tenet of free collective bargaining -- how important it is for there to be very clear lines drawn.

Yet, this government directly interceded; they bypassed free collective bargaining.

I believe -- and it's only my belief, and we'll find out in time -- they've even violated the very legislation that enacted BCPSEA. But I'm not a lawyer; it's not for me to say. It will be for the Labour Relations Board to rule, and presumably we're going to hear about that. But that's my view today, and I think this government has violated that issue.

If I were a public sector worker today, I would be pretty angry at direct government intervention. I think the only reason they get away with it, frankly, is because every time they complain that this government is trampling all over union rights in British Columbia, this government sits back and chuckles and says: "Well, check out the other side of the House over there, guys. Do you like that system any better? Because if you want those guys . . . . " Just listening to today's commentary, it's no wonder the union movement is prepared to simply sit down, zip the lip and say: "Okay, I hear your point.

Okay, trample over our rights because, my God, for all of the trampling on our rights you do, it would be a whole lot worse if we got the other side." I'm saying: hold on a minute here; there are principles that need to be dealt with and upheld, and it seems to me that we need to that.

Let me say that from my point of view and the point of view of our party, we recognize that we do have serious challenges within our economy. We recognize that the construction industry is a very important and integral part of it. We recognize that many of the key players -- indeed, most of the key players -- in the construction industry are already unionized. We recognize that most of those players want some level of stability, certainty and fairness in a proposition put forward with respect to labour legislation.

Most importantly, we believe that when legislation is introduced in the Legislative Assembly, we should be debating the language of what is actually introduced into the Legislative Assembly. We should not be debating what we had hoped would be introduced, what we thought might be introduced or possibly could be introduced or what we think, if we could only convince people it actually had been introduced, might somehow advance our political cause.

This is, for all intents and purposes, a modest amendment to the Labour Code. People in British Columbia who have not had the benefit that we have of reading Bill 26 and of looking at this amendment should not fear it. The employers who are listening to me today and the people who are members of the Employers Council and the senior CEOs of the major corporations should, I believe, have their people sit down and make a rational, dispassionate, sensible review of the words in this bill and understand it for what it is. It is a modest amendment and a change that should build greater stability into the system.

It does not introduce sectoral bargaining; nor is it going to drive private home construction costs through the ceiling. It isn't going to send our economy into a tailspin. It isn't going to put masses of people out of work. It isn't going to be doom and gloom. And it certainly isn't an issue that is going to divide this province.

My goodness, if we divide on an issue like this, and if we try to get everybody whipped up and hysterical over the language of Bill 26, I shudder to think what we're going to do when we're faced with really contentious issues in this Legislative Assembly, when we have a really hard issue to put our minds to.

We do not believe that we should try and cover what is essentially anti-union rhetoric in the guise of a belief that you're going to deliver something better for British Columbia. If you're anti-union, say it. Come out and say: "We're anti-union, we don't believe in the union movement, and we'd like to get rid of it." Make it clear. If you're not, then let's work constructively to build labour legislation that is fair for the employer, fair for the unionized worker and that will train the best-skilled British Columbians possible, so that together we build an economy and we don't, by our rhetoric, drive anybody with an interest in investing right out of the province.

[4:30]

S. Orcherton: Let me say first that it was indeed a breath of fresh air, in many senses, for many members of this House to hear some positive statements coming from at least one of

[ Page 8956 ]

the members opposite. I thank the previous speaker for many of the remarks that he made. In my view they were quite poignant, to the point and on the mark.

I've had some involvement in the construction industry -- not directly but indirectly -- over a lot of years. I say that this legislation, frankly, is long overdue. I know that this government, through a number of efforts over the last 15 years, has tried to bring in something to address some of the inadequacies, injustices and inconsistencies that the Labour Code had when it was applied to folks working in the construction industry.

I think we have to ask ourselves in this House, in the public, on the streets and in the workplaces: really, what are we talking about when we're talking about Bill 26? What we're talking about is finally correcting a situation in the Labour Code that has occurred for a long time and that has prohibited workers in the construction industry to in fact belong to a union when they choose to do so.

Let me also say that the Labour Code of British Columbia, since recent changes to it in this government's mandate . . . . Actually, it was the previous government to this one, but it was certainly the NDP government's mandate. With those changes that occurred, we've actually seen less time lost in the workplace due to work disputes, stoppages and strikes than at any time since before the Second World War. When the members opposite argue about economic instability and about the stability of labour relations in the province of British Columbia . . . .

They made those arguments when this government was bringing in the changes to what is now the new Labour Code. They are continuing to make these arguments today, and I really think that the proof is in the pudding here. The prior changes that were brought into the code did not achieve the wrack and ruin that the members opposite were arguing would occur.

But there was a piece missing in those Labour Code amendments -- the Labour Code changes that came in in the early 1990s -- and that piece was around the construction industry. What happens in the construction industry currently is that when workers make the decision to join a union, those workers sign cards, the union is certified to represent t