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, JULY 9, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 17

(Part 2)

[ Page 9847 ]

The House resumed at 6:37 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. In this House, I call Bill 26.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading continued)

On the amendment (continued).

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak to the amendment to Bill 26 referring the subject matter to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. I support this motion.

We on this side of the House are opposed to Bill 26, and we will do everything in our power to delay or stop it. We on this side of the House have an obligation to the people of this province to stand up against this incompetent government. There is not one member on the other side of the House who has the courage to stand up to Ken Georgetti and say no to this bill and to say loud and clear that this bill is wrong and destructive for British Columbia. Do they have the courage? The answer to that lies with the members opposite, and we'll have to draw our own conclusions on that. I have drawn my own conclusions.

I believe they are missing their courage. The members opposite should read the Wizard of Oz and find out how the lion found his courage. They may find the story interesting and informative.

Every one of the reasons we have given about this bill is a reason why this bill should now be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. This is also a good reason for the government to make use of the committees we have and for committees to do the job that they are supposed to do. A select standing committee would be able to go around the province and find out what the people really feel about this bill. The committee will have the information to make the right decision for this province.

Why are the NDP so afraid of being fair and treating people with fairness and equality? Do they really believe they have all the answers for everyone? I shake my head at the mere thought of it. This government has its own agenda. It's an agenda that is destructive to this province, an agenda that has brought British Columbia to her knees. I keep asking myself: why would anybody, especially the people elected to serve this province, want to bring British Columbia to her knees? I'm really trying to understand the members opposite, but their actions make it very difficult.

The NDP can't seem to find it in themselves to follow parliamentary procedure. They make their own rules and expect everyone to follow without question. The opposition does not have many tools to work with to fight government legislation, but it gives us a tremendous amount of hope when we catch the government ministers asleep at the switch or out to lunch or simply not doing their job. It gave us a tremendous amount of satisfaction when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson adjourned the House and dropped Bill 26 right under the noses of two ministers. That's where the government should have left the bill, and then they should have deposited the bill in file 13 for the rest of its days.

Another reason this bill should be referred to a select standing committee is because of the way this government has decided to ram it through the House. The NDP introduces the bill to the Legislature one afternoon, and the very next morning they call second reading. Usually a bill doesn't get called for second reading for at least a couple of weeks, to give everyone a chance to go over it.

The way this government does the business of this House is deplorable. They have no respect for this chamber, and that's really sad. There was no consultation with the business community, the ones that will be seriously impacted by this bill. The NDP just can't be bothered to do an impact study. An impact study would show the NDP what a negative impact this bill will have on the economy of this province and the message that it would send to investors.

The NDP are not concerned that businesses will leave the province or just completely go out of business. They are not concerned that workers will lose their jobs when these businesses leave the province go out of business. What is important to them and their intrepid leader is that this bill is big payback time for Ken Georgetti and big labour. It doesn't matter how much opposition is given to this bill. What does matter is that the real leader of the NDP has spoken, and what Ken wants, Ken's going to get, no matter who gets hurt along the way.

When you look at this bill, you ask yourself: what happened to free choice? What happened to secret ballots? What happened to equality among employers and employees? You only have to read what is in this bill to realize that it needs to be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology -- and, I would say, the sooner the better.

This government is in a financial mess. Our health care is near collapse; our unemployment is at an all-time high. Yet we have a government which can't seem to understand what is happening in this province. They continue their reckless behaviour without any thought for the people living in this province. The members opposite are either wearing blinders or else they just don't care about the people who are affected by this legislation. Maybe they pretend that the people that are hurting aren't real, because if they were real, this government might actually see some suffering.

They might see the suffering that happens when you don't have a job, and you have hungry children to feed and a mortgage to pay. How much suffering do the people of this province have to go through before the NDP will take any action?

Referring this bill to a select standing committee will be a start. It will show that the NDP have actually started to pay heed to what is happening in this province.

The NDP got a bit of a shock last year when they introduced Bill 44. There was an enormous outcry from all over this province. The anger that was felt was not anticipated by the government, and they withdrew Bill 44. People are paying attention to the antics of this government, and it's time the government paid attention to the people.

Will this government allow a public debate on this bill? Will the government allow the public a chance to get an understanding of what's actually in this bill? The answer to both questions is no. The answer could be yes if they sent this bill to a select standing committee to find out what the impact would be.

If Bill 26 carries only a modest change, why is the Labour minister trying to rush it through the Legislature before the public gets a chance to look at it? What is he so afraid of? I'll

[ Page 9848 ]

tell you why. Warning signs are blasted throughout the newspapers every day, informing people what is happening in this province. Maybe the members opposite can't read, hear or see.

Every time the members opposite get up to speak, they tell us that if you are not a union member, you don't have a real job. It's scary -- isn't it? -- if they really believe that. There are many union members in this province who are real people and who don't have jobs. They don't have jobs because their jobs in the forest industry were destroyed by this government. Their jobs were destroyed because businesses left this province in droves to places that welcomed them, such as Alberta, Washington and Oregon. These places actually said: "Come to our province; come to our state. We are open for business.

We will invest your money here, and we'll even let you earn money on your investment. In return you will create jobs for us." I think that's the way it works: working together for a future all of us can enjoy.

[6:45]

Not with this government. Businesses left this province because we are the highest-taxed province in the country. This government puts more red tape and regulation on small business every time this Legislature sits. Businesses cannot afford British Columbia. That is why this bill and the message it is sending to investors around the world is so destructive to this province. This bill needs to be sent to a select standing committee, and the sooner the better.

This socialistic government has lost the confidence of the people of this province. The people of this province want an election, and they want this government out before they completely destroy and bankrupt this province. The government hasn't learned anything in the seven years they have been in government. There hasn't been any progress made since they became government. The economic growth of this province has gone from being number one in Canada to the bottom of the list. Is that something to be proud of? Our credit rating has gone down. Is that anything to be proud of? I can't think of one thing this government can be proud of. That must be tough on the members opposite.

Think about it: the less investment that comes into this province, the more money it's going to cost the taxpayer -- and we only have one taxpayer. If the government can't get anyone to invest in the province, where will the money they need for schools, health care and children come from? The taxpayers in this province are taxed to the hilt. They can't afford to pay more taxes and still manage to support their families and pay their mortgages.

The NDP think that gambling will generate enough money to pay their bills. Wait until the social bills start to come in -- and then who will pay those bills? Again, I have to mention Alberta, because the NDP should take a look at what is happening to gambling there. The NDP could learn something constructive for a change. Alberta is now suffering the consequences of their gambling policies. Once again it's the NDP government with blinders on.

An Hon. Member: Speak to the motion.

B. McKinnon: I am speaking to the motion. The members opposite, hon. Speaker, don't think I'm speaking to the motion. It's just a point on what their policies are doing to this province and why this bill should be sent to a select standing committee.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, members.

B. McKinnon: Hon. Speaker, if the minister opposite wants to speak, she can have her opportunity at any time. Right now it's my turn. I must have been hitting a button on these guys across the way, because they sure are reacting.

Once again it's an NDP government with blinders on. They haven't got the courage to stand up for this province. In a press release the Minister of Finance was quoted from a letter she wrote to her federal counterpart, and this is what she had to say: "Given the challenges facing the provincial economy, this is not the time to take a chance on introducing measures which could damage the investment climate." We agree with her. So why is the NDP continually doing things to erode investor confidence in this province? The NDP knows, and we know. The fact is that Bill 26 will do enormous damage to the investment climate in British Columbia.

Bill 26 is an investment-killing, job-killing, small-business-killing law designed to give a boost to unions that are desperately in need of new members. To prove it, the Premier went around the province holding economic summits. Everywhere he went he got the same message: stop wrecking the economy with your high taxes, red tape and anti-business labour laws. The Premier said that he heard what the people were saying. He said that he got the message and would change his ways.

So what happened after all the hype and all the promises of dramatic action to revive the confidence of the business community and the consumers of this province? The NDP came up with Bill 26. Keith Sashaw, who is the executive vice-president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., says that this is the worst possible thing that could happen to the housing industry at this time. Housing starts are down 40 percent in the lower mainland, and down 55 percent in Kelowna, and down 91 percent in Campbell River. We are losing an estimated 7,000 housing starts this year. That converts into 17,000 jobs.

That's 17,000 jobs in the construction industry, and they are not here in this province now. We have lost thousands of jobs in the forest industry, we are losing thousands of jobs in the mining industry, and we are losing jobs in the fishing industry. When will it stop?

To introduce a bill like this when the construction industry is in free fall will do untold harm to this industry. Government cannot continue to impose regulation after regulation and tax after tax on the small business creators of this province. Bill 44 was described as a bill with modest changes, as just minor housekeeping in terms of labour legislation in British Columbia. The Minister of Labour is calling Bill 26 a bill with modest changes. The public isn't buying that spin anymore and neither are we. This government has lost all credibility with everyone.

The motion that has been put forward for this government is an important one. It's important because it gives the members opposite another chance. It is another chance for the NDP to reconsider what they are putting forward with this Bill 26 and to reconsider their decision.

The Minister of Finance wrote to 90 separate business organizations across the province, asking them for their input on how to improve the business climate in British Columbia. On page 6 of this report, these 90 separate business organizations said: " . . . the streamlining initiative will not be credible unless the objectives of this initiative are applied to other current initiatives and appropriate changes made." It points out that the Labour Code amendments are in contradiction and in contravention of everything the government has said.

[ Page 9849 ]

Isn't that interesting? It's too bad the Minister of Labour isn't listening, nor the rest of the members on the opposite side.

This government spends a lot of time and money having these reports made. They seem to use them as dust collectors, because nobody seems to be taking any advice from these reports. If they were listening, they would not have rushed through Bill 14 -- a bill that adds more cost, more regulation and more red tape to already overburdened business owners.

The NDP have been warned on numerous occasions that even the thought of changing the Labour Code will send the wrong message around the world: that British Columbia is not open for business. Thousands and thousands of families and young people are looking for jobs, but the NDP have shown they just don't care whether they have a job or not. The only thing they are focused on at the moment is to make sure Bill 26 is rammed through to satisfy big labour, and that is really what this is all about.

Every time I read the newspaper, there seems to be a bad-news story for British Columbia, and today isn't any different. In Les Leyne's column, he mentions that the NDP are having one of the biggest recruiting efforts ever. They're looking for communications people to go out and spin what a good government they are -- on taxpayers' money, no less. This government has really sunk to the bottom with this one. They are so low in the polls now that they are floundering all over the place.

Michael Campbell had an excellent column on how lower taxes add up to higher government revenue. Maybe the NDP should hire him to be their Finance minister. It would sure help them a lot. Let me quote something from that column:

"Imagine someone in power in 1994 saying: 'I know we are the number one economy in the country, but I have a plan that could bring us to our knees. If we do it right, we could get to the bottom of the heap in terms of capital investment, job creation and economic growth. In fact, if we follow this strategy to the letter, we could be looking at a recession while the rest of the country is experiencing dramatic growth.' That would be crazy, and obviously no one had that goal, but that's where British Columbia's economy has ended up."

Today it's at the bottom of the heap. The bad-news stories keep coming to us day after day, and with these bad-news stories, you would think that the government would pay attention and let Bill 26 go to a select standing committee.

Experts from around the world are giving the Japanese Prime Minister advice to help him get his economy working again. The advice the experts are giving is to lower taxes so that the economy can get rolling again -- not a year from now, not two years from now, but right now. If you look across Canada at Ontario, their economy grew 4.5 percent last year. They added 219,000 new jobs and government revenues were 5 percent higher than forecast. Ontario just lowered their tax rate again to help boost their economy. Or we can once again look at Alberta.

Their economy grew by 6.5 percent, and they have the lowest taxes in the country. The Alberta government experienced a surplus of more than $2 billion. Is there something there that this NDP government could learn from these provincial governments?

If this government would accept our amendment, that gesture would show that they are beginning to listen. It would also show that there is still hope for this province. With Bill 26, each MLA on that side of the House is saying to a worker in his or her constituency: "Don't mind me; I'm just taking away your rights. I know what's good for you; I know what kind of agreement you should be working under. Just trust me." To the business person in their constituency, they are saying: "I know how much of your profit should go to the worker. It doesn't matter if you can't afford it. I know best -- just trust me." That's what they're saying by ramming this bill through.

The majority of the businesses in this province understand that their employees are their most valuable asset. They know that if they are to be successful and make it in this very competitive world, it's their employees who are going to be the ones who help them to do it. They need each other to survive in this competitive world, and they need fair and equal labour laws to do it. The government talks about creating a climate where jobs will actually come back to British Columbia rather than leaving. Well, I say: "Do something.

Get on with it." Give this bill to a select standing committee and let them find out whether British Columbia needs this bill. Do something right for British Columbia for a change. That's the message the NDP need to hear over and over again.

This bill means fewer jobs, less investment and fewer opportunities for the people of this province. Our economy is in a downward spiral, and once that downward spiral gains momentum, it's hard to stop. The province of Saskatchewan has an NDP government, and we don't see them floundering like British Columbia. While British Columbia is looking at a 1.3 percent growth in capital spending, Saskatchewan, with their NDP government, is looking at an 8.1 percent increase in capital spending. Saskatchewan doesn't put roadblocks in the way of business.

Look at us. We have the highest marginal income tax in North America. We have a 7 percent sales tax, while Alberta has zero. We have a corporate capital tax. We have a government running a $1.2-1.3 billion deficit which has no control over its budgets, which can't be trusted to keep agreements or its word. Can they not do the right thing and give this bill to a select standing committee, to find out the impact this bill will have on this province?

In 1997 we were the only province in Canada to lose jobs. We shouldn't be losing jobs. We are a province of many resources. We have a talented workforce. People used to move here in droves, but now that has reversed. Do you know what else happened in 1997? Mr. Speaker, 107 businesses moved from British Columbia to Alberta. Those businesses provided jobs for families in this province. These companies are thriving in Alberta, but for the workers in British Columbia, someone else has their job.

[7:00]

This government has an opportunity to turn things around for this province, and they could start with the opportunity that we, on this side of the House, have given them today. It's a small start, but it is a start. Give Bill 26 to a select standing committee -- and do it now.

The Minister of Labour says that there isn't anything to worry about. Well, I'm desperately worried. I'm desperately worried for the families in this province. I'm desperately worried for the children in this province. When mom or dad doesn't have a job, guess who goes hungry and suffers. When a single mother is desperately trying to support herself and her children, guess who suffers. Well, it's not the members on the opposite side of the House. They're not going to suffer.

This government tried to get rid of volunteers in this province and made one big mess of things. When they found out they couldn't do what they wanted, did they say they were sorry to the people? Not very likely. We have a government that doesn't think they are accountable to anyone in this province. They told us themselves that they can do anything they want to do. Their standard answer is: "We have more votes than you do." Well, this bill should be removed from the

[ Page 9850 ]

order paper. It should be removed, just like Bill 44 was removed last year. The people of this province should have some input into the impact it will have on them.

We know that Bill 26 is just a small piece of the pie and that Ken Georgetti wants the whole pie. That's what greed does to someone. They have to be in complete control, and it's a shame the members opposite don't recognize that.

Bill 26 says that the ICI construction craft unions must bargain through a designated bargaining council. It also said that in Bill 44. The building trades bargaining council would only be mandated to bargain for craft bargaining units and ICI construction in Bill 26. In Bill 44 it would have allowed for separate trade union bargaining councils to be established for each of the seven designated subsectors of the industry, including residential construction. This applies to the ICI sector only.

There are other similarities, and for this government to say they are only minor changes makes me think of big-time spin-doctoring. That's all this is -- big-time spin-doctoring. This bill should be sent immediately to a select standing committee as soon as physically possible.

We must create a climate of stability in British Columbia. We must encourage investment to come to this province. We need investment to create jobs that are so desperately needed for our citizens. Take a look at the number of people unemployed. This year alone, 18,200 new people were added to the unemployment list. That's hard to imagine. You only have to visit the smaller communities outside of the lower mainland to get a picture of how badly British Columbians are suffering. What is it going to take to make this government understand that Ken Georgetti is not in charge of this province? He was not elected to serve the people of this province.

Do something right for a change and give this bill to a select standing committee to do an impact study. Give the province some hope again. If this government could give the people of British Columbia some hope again, it would be a wonderful gift. We have lost all sense of democracy with this NDP government. Let's begin to have a change. Let's put this bill to a select standing committee.

C. Hansen: The amendment that's before us is to refer Bill 26 to one of the select standing committees of the Legislature. This is now the third session of this Legislature since I was first elected, and I have been a member of this standing committee for the whole time, since shortly after I was sworn in as a member. And in those three sessions, this committee of the Legislature has not met once -- not once. It's the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. When you think about it, hon.

Speaker, and if you look at the problems that are facing this province today, this is a committee that should probably be sitting 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Even then, it probably wouldn't come close to addressing the very serious economic problems that are facing this province today. This is a committee that is essential in order for us to start addressing the economic malaise that has hit our province.

When you start to look at all the other routes this government has taken to try to address the problem of the economy . . . . First of all, we wound up with a government in denial. I can remember that after the 1996 election, for about the first 12 months afterwards, they kept talking about how they'd created 40,000 jobs in the previous year, how everything was rosy . . . . And clearly the signs were there then that we were starting to go into a very serious economic crisis in this province, and they were totally oblivious to it. They ignored it; they ignored the warning signs constantly.

We see other strategies that were taken by this government during that time, when they started to realize that maybe government had to do something to address the problem of an economic downturn. But they clearly did not understand what had to be done. They clearly did not understand the role that government should take to put an economy back on its feet and start creating jobs again. What they did instead was start looking at job creation programs. You know, it almost harkens back to the 1960s or probably even before. You can go back to the 1930s, when Keynesian economics became popular.

It was that government had this vital role to create jobs in our society, that as the economy started to go into a downturn, government spending somehow had to be cranked up in order to create jobs. History has clearly shown that that does not work. Some economists may argue that it worked in the 1930s or the late 1940s, but I think even that's debatable.

What is clear today is that that approach to job creation and to economic development does not work today in British Columbia. It doesn't work today in Canada, and quite frankly, it doesn't work anywhere in the world. That has been proven. What has happened is that this government today hasn't recognized that reality, and they're still living in this bygone era -- an era when we had a totally different economy, when life was much simpler. We didn't have the high-tech challenges that we have today, and we had a very different kind of workforce, which I will talk about later when we talk about the specific changes that are proposed in Bill 26.

What we have had in the last two years is a government that's tried to cobble together different programs to get this economy back on the rails. They started looking at the enormous crisis that we have in student unemployment in British Columbia today. Twenty percent of 15-to-24-year-olds in this province are unemployed. Those are the ones who are actually looking for work, not the discouraged ones who have gone out there to try to find that first job, that first career, and realized that the opportunities are just not there. That is a tragedy. That is something that will be part of the legacy of this government.

But you can see how they tried to address the problems as they started to figure out that maybe something is going wrong. They started to go after things like a jobs and timber accord, where they say they're going to create 40,000-some-odd new jobs. Instead, what we see is a decline of 12,000 jobs since the program was first announced. They go out and look at something like Power for Jobs. Here it is, a year since that program was announced, and the number of jobs that have been created under that program is zero.

Well, I shouldn't say zero, because we've probably created some jobs in public relations houses and advertising agencies. This government has been great at putting communication strategies together and buying advertising in the daily newspapers and on television and radio. I'm sure that creates jobs, which are all paid for by the taxpayers. But there are no real jobs being created, because we don't have the fundamental, underlying basis in our economy for creating those kinds of jobs.

One of the merits of referring this piece of legislation to this particular select standing committee is that we can get that committee working. Bill 26 is going to be one more serious nail in the coffin of the B.C. economy. But over these last 50-some-odd hours of debate in second reading, we have urged this government to withdraw this legislation. That would be a good first step at getting the economy back on the rails -- just that announcement. They wonder what they can do to get our economy moving again. There is one very specific thing that they can do today which will help get our economy back on the rails. This government could call a press

[ Page 9851 ]

conference and announce that Bill 26 is dead. I will guarantee you, hon. Speaker, that that alone will be a very important positive signal to those that can help create a better economy in this province. The job creators, the entrepreneurs, the people who create the jobs that are going to employ that 15-to-24-year-old -- those people are not willing to take the risks today. Clearly Bill 26 is one more reason why those job creators are not prepared to put their efforts into the B.C. economy today.

By taking this legislation and referring it to the committee, there will be one very big advantage, and that would be to get the committee activated. This is a committee to look at economic development, and clearly that is an area on which the government -- the 39 members of the government bench -- has failed to come up with any ideas. The committee, if it's activated under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke, who's the chair of this committee -- though the committee has never met -- could not do a worse job than this government is doing today.

Anything that we do with this committee is better than what we have today. By getting this committee to look at Bill 26, we can start examining the impact that this bill is going to have on our economy. There are certainly a lot of facts that we on this side of the House have put forward to this chamber over these 50 hours of debate, facts that are indisputable in terms of the effects that this bill will have. But I'm the first one to admit that there are things that we don't know. We know it's negative, but we don't know to what degree.

It's clear, from the response that we've had from the government side, that nobody there has any sense of the negative impacts that this legislation will have.

By pulling this committee together and starting to look at this bill specifically, there is at least going to be an opportunity for us to address some of those unknowns. That is one very good reason. If this committee were to look at this bill and dismiss it and say: "The committee has met, even done public hearings, received input from around the province, started looking at some of these unanswered questions and even done an economic impact study . . . .

" Now, wouldn't that be a novel idea for this government -- to bring in a piece of legislation that they have actually done an economic impact study on to determine the negative effects it will have? Some of the people who have knowledge of economic impact in British Columbia have already spoken out on this legislation. Later in my remarks I will refer to some of that material, which has not been referred to previously in these debates.

This is a committee that could actually engage some experts in British Columbia to start looking at the effect this legislation will have on the construction industry. I know that some of my colleagues in their comments have talked about the impact it would have on residential construction. Some of those numbers are out there, and we have presented them from this side of the House. I know that some of the members opposite question whether or not those numbers are valid, and that's fair enough, but they're coming from some pretty good sources.

They're coming from some people in this province who know what they're talking about. If they want to challenge some of this material we've put forward, then fine. Let's activate this committee, and let's charge it with the task of taking the numbers that have been presented by the Canadian Home Builders Association in terms of the impact this legislation will have on residential construction. In this committee we can start pulling those numbers apart. I'm quite sure, and I'm very confident, that when we do that and start examining some of those numbers carefully, we will confirm the impact that's there.

I know the kind of research that has gone into developing that in the first place.

[7:15]

We could start looking at what is being said about the impact on the retail sector. I'll be the first one to admit that I don't have any numbers on how much it's going to drive up retail rents in British Columbia, but I know it will. It will drive up the cost of retail rents. We've heard so many comments from the other side, including the Minister of Labour, saying that this has no impact on small business, no impact on any sector outside of the industrial, commercial and institutional sector -- this ICI sector we keep talking about. The minister says it will have no impact outside those sectors.

That is blatantly false. It's wrong. It will have an impact on the retail sector. I can't tell you how much it will be, but that would be a very good question to put to the standing committee.

Let's start to examine this. Quite frankly, if the committee meets and does some good solid research backed up by some good economic facts and good data, and if the facts come out that there'll be no impact on the retail sector, I'll be the first one to stand up and say: "Okay, I was wrong in the second reading debate. I said there was going to be an impact on the retail sector in terms of commercial rents, and I was wrong." But I don't think that's what is going to happen.

What's going to happen when this committee sits down and starts the process of doing an economic impact study is that we're going to find that everything that's been said on this side of the House in terms of rising costs is in fact true. This Minister of Labour and the government members have said that it will have no impact on the residential sector, and we have pointed out that there will be an impact because you wind up driving up the costs generally in terms of the construction industry.

You wind up imposing a very rigid form of jurisdictional construction on a sector that they say is just ICI; but it extends to residential when you have mixed-use construction -- or, at least, that's certainly one of the inferences.

I would like to hear the minister -- or any government member, for that matter -- stand up and say that they would absolutely ensure that this legislation cannot and will not have an impact on the residential sectors. We haven't heard that. We can only assume that part of the strategy is to take this definition of ICI and make sure it has far-reaching impact in terms of how to define it. Secondly -- and this is more important, I think, to those who are behind this legislation -- they want the tentacles. They want the tentacles that are going to reach out and, through the back door, do to the residential construction sector what Bill 44 last year was trying to do through the front door.

If we activated this committee, that's the kind of stuff that that could be looked at. Frankly, if the government had done a proper economic impact study before they tabled this legislation, referring it to a committee wouldn't have been necessary -- if this government had done its homework before it tabled it. When I say doing homework, I don't mean simply striking a committee of two people on a construction industry review panel and having them go out and hear the conflicting views of stakeholders. That's a pretty predictable process.

When you ask for submissions from the building trades unions and from the various employer groups in British Columbia, it's a fairly predictable process. What's obvious is that this government already knew what it wanted out of that process. What they wanted was, basically, what we saw last year in Bill 44. They wanted it, either through the front door or through the back door. Bill 26 is getting it that through the back door.

I think the whole notion of referring this to a committee is one that has a lot of merit. I think it solves a dilemma that a lot of the government members may have. I'm sure that none of

[ Page 9852 ]

them now want to stand up and say: "Bill 26 was wrong; Bill 26 was a mistake." One of the great Canadian traditions, when you wind up with disagreements, is that you send it to committee. How often do we see that happen? You get parties who are too polite to say, "No, I disagree with you," so instead they say: "Well, let's send it to a committee." Maybe this is the opportunity to do that, so that the government members can save face.

They won't have to face their friends in the building trades unions and say: "Sorry, but we changed our minds and pulled it." Here's the opportunity for everybody on the government bench to save face. All they have to do is basically say to their friends: "Well, we didn't vote against it, and we didn't pull it. We just put it in this committee to study some of the weaknesses that may be there." You know why they should do that? It's so they can stand up at the end of the process -- after this committee has met -- and they can say: "We've studied it; we've examined all of the questions that the Liberals raised.

And you know what? The Liberals were wrong." Wouldn't the government members like to say that? Wouldn't they like to go through a process that actually takes this thing, questions some of these details, comes up with the facts, so that they can stand up and say that the Liberals were wrong?

Hon. Speaker, I'm quite sure that's not going to happen, because once we started looking at those details, the answer would be: the Liberals were right, and the Liberals knew what they were talking about in second reading of Bill 26. But as I've said, this could just be the opportunity that the government needs, to send it to a committee so that we can start examining it. When they talk to their friends in the building trades unions, all they have to say is: "We're determined to prove that those Liberals are wrong.

Therefore we're going to send this to committee and do the work in committee to prove that the Liberals are wrong." That's all they have to say to their building trades friends. That's a pretty acceptable reason -- and that's called saving face. People talk about saving face as a tradition that comes out of Japan, but it is something that is very Canadian as well. I can accept that. I will accept it if the government members want to save face on this. Here is their opportunity to do that, by sending it off to committee.

I want to turn to some of the information that was circulated to us when the legislation was first tabled. This is a press package that the minister put out on June 17, the fateful day when they tabled Bill 26 for first reading. On that day Bill 26 was introduced for first reading in this chamber at about 2:15 in the afternoon -- only to find that they would call it for second reading debate at 10 o'clock the very next morning. That was barely time for people to read this press package, never mind time for people to fully understand what's in the bill and the ramifications of that.

As I've pointed out at other stages of second reading debate, it's probably one of the very few times in this chamber that a piece of legislation as significant as Bill 26 has been called for debate in less than 24 hours. The other times that I can remember it happening are when you have things like an interim supply bill, which has about two paragraphs in it, or when you wind up with legislation of a very urgent nature, such as back-to-work legislation. You know, there have certainly been reasons in the history of this Legislature that legislation would come in and then be called very quickly for debate.

Or the other side is that it's something that's very innocuous. Now we have another reason why that particular tactic was used in this chamber. It was used because this government was determined to ram this legislation through as fast as it could. This government was clear . . . .

Interjection.

C. Hansen: Actually, the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine said: "Yeah, after 65 days of debate." Well, that clearly wasn't the intent of the minister when they brought it in. It was the clear intention of the minister that they were going to call this for debate the very next day, and they were going to ram this thing through the Legislature as fast as possible.

I think it's a clear indication that this government is not proud of this legislation. If they were proud of this legislation, they would be letting it see the light of day before it proceeded through this chamber.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: The hon. member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine just referred to it as a housekeeping motion. This legislation is anything but housekeeping.

They talk about it as being modest legislation. I got the sense that they actually believe that. They actually believe that this is a minor little thing. Well, it's not a minor little thing, As we on this side have presented, this minor little bill will have some very serious ramifications for our economy. The other thing is that if this was a minor little piece of legislation, why is it so important to the NDP? Why is it so important that they get this thing rammed through? Why didn't they agree with us, for example, to hoist this bill for six months? Do you know why?

If they had hoisted this for six months, they could take the legislation and parade it around this province with pride. They could say to the public throughout British Columbia: "This is Bill 26. We brought it in; we're proud of it. Do you know what everybody in British Columbia should do? Lobby the Liberals to vote for it, because it's such good legislation."

Well, it's obvious that they don't believe that. The reason it's obvious is because they call it for debate so quick, and now they're ramming it through. We had some procedural motions here that managed to delay this, so the public would at least have a chance to get a better sense of what is in it and what its ramifications are. Clearly that was not their plan. Now, here we are at a stage in this debate where they want this so badly -- they don't want the public to understand the legislation -- that they want to debate it until the wee hours of the morning in this chamber.

We have set sittings in this chamber. This chamber meets from 2 o'clock to 6 o'clock on Mondays and the same on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. It meets Tuesday and Thursday mornings from 10 o'clock to 12 noon, and it meets Friday mornings from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. When you think about the amount of work that everybody has to accomplish in terms of their constituency affairs and just explaining legislation like Bill 26, that's a pretty full week. But what this government has chosen to do instead is sit in this House into the evening -- here we are at 7:30 on a Thursday night . . . .

Last night this House sat until 2:30 a.m. The night before it sat until 2:30 a.m. Why? It's because they are not proud of this legislation. If they were, they would be allowing it to see the light of day. They would be allowing for public debate to take place. If they were confident in this legislation, they would be certain that that public debate would come back in their favour. But that's not what is happening, because Bill 26 is bad legislation. It is going to have a bad effect on the B.C. economy, and it's the kind of legislation that should not proceed.

As I mentioned earlier, I want to talk about the communications package that they put out on June 17. There were some things that they titled a "fact sheet." This is actually on the Ministry of Labour web page that they put out: "Bill 26 -- Construction Industry Legislation." There are some things in

[ Page 9853 ]

here that I think may explain where the government is coming from, but it also explains where their reasoning falls short in terms of justifying this particular bill. They talk about the nature of the construction industry. There are some things here that are quite valid. "Construction workers must be very flexible and mobile to maintain full-time work." That's part of the reality of today's construction. Later on I want to talk a bit more about the changing nature of construction in British Columbia. They recognize it right here in this fact sheet.

Bill 26 is not about flexibility and mobility; it's not about recognizing the realities of the construction industry that they talk about in their own documents.

It goes on to say: "No two construction projects [are] exactly alike." That's a very profound statement. Whoever wrote this obviously knew what they were talking about. What we have in Bill 26 is an inflexible process that is being applied to all workplaces that are unionized under the building trades unions, all craft union worksites in the entire province.

It doesn't matter whether that workplace is in Smithers, Golden, Prince George, Kamloops, Campbell River or anywhere else in this province: this is the same master collective agreement that is going to be imposed on all those workplaces as a result of this legislation. It fails to recognize one of the key things about the construction industry which the Ministry of Labour itself sets out. That's that no two construction projects are exactly alike.

Yet what they're doing is saying: "We've got one master collective agreement that will apply to all of those construction sites, regardless of what the differences are." Whether they're geographical differences in this province or differences in terms of the type of construction that's taking place, if it's in the ICI sector, it's all covered.

[7:30]

In fact, they go on to recognize some of this stuff. They say: "Every project is as unique as the location, materials utilized and design required. This makes the construction industry highly competitive and subject to constant change." I think this is key. If we want to have a competitive economy and a dynamic society that can truly create jobs in the future, we've got to be able to adapt to the changes that are taking place at these construction sites. The ministry recognizes it. The public servant, the public official, who created this page for their web site obviously recognizes it.

Why doesn't the government recognize it? Why don't the politicians? Why doesn't the Minister of Labour read some of this material that his own ministry is putting out and develop legislation that reflects those realities? The construction industry is a highly competitive industry and is subject to constant change, and that's not something that the government of British Columbia can come in and work against.

We can't build walls around this province and create our own little kingdom that's totally impervious to the rest of the world, because we're living in a global economy. We are living in an economy that has to be competitive with Alberta, with Washington State and with virtually every jurisdiction around the world. That's not to say that we have to set low standards, but we have to set flexible standards. What's key when you start talking about the workplace is that it's not up to government to come in and impose standards. If you have a workplace with a group of workers and an employer, it's not government's role to come in and tell them what's best for them.

If you've got a group of workers that want to form a union through a secret ballot vote -- which isn't allowed for under this government . . . . If they vote, under a democratic process, to form a union, then all power to them. This Legislature should pass legislation to protect those democratic rights of workers to form unions. What that democratic right to form a union means is not just a secret ballot; it also requires good information.

I think our democracy -- democracy at any level, whether we're talking internationally, nationally, provincially, civically or whether we're talking about a workplace -- requires two things: a vote in secret and good information. I think we look at democracies around the world, and they may have a secret ballot vote, but they clearly don't have the information -- the free information -- that is necessary for democracy to thrive.

If we have a worksite, a construction worksite or any other worksite, where the majority of the workers cast a secret ballot after good information, and they want to join a union, all power to them. But those are rights that this NDP government took away from them in 1992. This government took away the right to a secret ballot . . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time has expired.

C. Hansen: I'm the designated speaker on this motion.

Deputy Speaker: Oh. Thank you, member.

C. Hansen: In 1992 this NDP government brought in what is now known as the Labour Relations Code, and in the changes that were brought in at that time, they took away a worker's right to a secret ballot. This is a party that talks about standing up for workers' rights, and yet they took away one of the fundamental rights that any democratic organization should have.

To come back to the point that was being made here, to come back to this briefing note -- this fact sheet on the construction industry -- it talks about the construction industry being highly competitive and subject to constant change. Hon. Speaker, who is best to decide how to adapt to that change? It's not government; it's not the provincial government operating out of Victoria. The best forum for that change and that flexibility and adaptability to be decided in is the workplace.

The best forum is with workers who can exercise their democratic rights in the workplace, through their union perhaps, if they wish to choose a union, or through an employee association or through just basic cooperation with management.

They can determine what is in the best interest of their own family, themselves personally and their company, because all of those things are linked. The best interest of the worker is not protected if the economic viability of the company is not protected. I don't think there is a worker in this province that wants to see their employer driven out of business. It's certain that workers want to maximize their wages. Certainly in some cases they talk about joining forces to form a union so that they can negotiate with their employer to get the maximum benefits they can in terms of wages, benefits and working conditions.

It's incumbent upon the employer to make sure that what is granted in terms of a negotiation is realistic, to allow the company to survive. Otherwise, that employer would not be doing the responsible thing in terms of the long-term health of that company. If the long-term health of the company isn't protected, it is the employees who pay the huge price for it. They pay because they lose their jobs. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether they have a union that can get them $30 or $40

[ Page 9854 ]

an hour for their salary; it clearly doesn't matter. If the job is gone, the salary is zero. We have to look at what provides for the long-term economic health of those companies.

As I mentioned before, this fact sheet recognizes that need for change, but this legislation doesn't. This legislation, Bill 26, goes in exactly the opposite direction. This legislation starts to build in inflexibility; it builds in rigidity. It builds in a process by which companies will be driven out of business, not because of the economy and not because of a lack of ability to do the job, but because government imposes on them a collective agreement that they cannot afford. So whose side are these guys on? They are clearly not on the side of the workers. If they were, this kind of legislation would not be coming forward.

There was a brief

summary of Bill 26 included in the same package. It is entitled "B.C.'s New Construction Labour Relations Legislation: Bill 26 in Brief." It's interesting -- some of the claims they make about Bill 26, which I would like to take issue with. There is a

section which says: "Bill 26 will: [1] Apply mainly to the part of the construction industry called 'industrial, commercial and institutional.' ICI construction workers build sawmills, schools and hospitals, shopping malls and office buildings. They do not build condos or houses or roads."

This is where they're wrong. The companies that are working in the ICI sector don't just work in ICI. There are some cases, sure, of companies that specialize in just one type of construction, but mainly -- especially when you look at the non-union sector of construction in British Columbia -- these companies work in a broad range of industries. They may be building a shopping mall at the same time as they're working on a condominium development, or the shopping mall may well be the main floor of a residential building. What is clear is that this legislation, Bill 26, has . . . .

Well, I talked about the tentacles earlier. Those are the tentacles with which they're looking to reach out and pull in some of these other sectors.

The second point that they make is: "Require that craft unions and their employers include a plan in their contracts to resolve jurisdictional disputes . . . . "

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. The member for Okanagan East rises on a matter.

J. Weisbeck: I don't believe there are enough members in this House.

Deputy Speaker: The Speaker observes that there are more government members, but I will call for a quorum.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

Deputy Speaker: The member can resume debate.

C. Hansen: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I was speaking about this

summary of Bill 26, which was contained in the package that was released by the minister when the legislation was tabled on June 17. In here it talks about jurisdictional disputes. It says that this is one of the most common reasons for instability and delays in the construction industry. Here we have a piece of legislation in which we are entrenching a jurisdictional style of construction, a jurisdictional style of craft unionism.

Yet right in the document that the minister released that day, they admit that this jurisdictional structure -- the jurisdictional disputes -- is one of the most common causes of instability and delays. I think it begs the question that if we are looking for more stability -- which is debatable in itself -- in the construction industry, the thing we should be doing is looking for models of trade unionism in the construction sector that move away from jurisdictional disputes. Instead, what we have in this legislation is . . . . We are entrenching the jurisdictional process.

We're entrenching it in legislation; we're entrenching it in our Labour Code. You talk about building in instability. This is going to be the cause of it.

What we saw over the last two decades is a construction industry that was moving towards other styles of labour-management relations -- other than this narrow-focused, jurisdictional dispute. What I think would be very important for the committee to address is the issue of jurisdictional disputes. If you start looking at things like the Kelleher-Lanyon report, that report was clearly working from an assumption of status quo. They weren't looking at the challenges of ten or 20 years from now; they were looking at what we have today.

[7:45]

What we have today is a construction industry that is basically divided into three sectors. We've got our non-union sector, we have our wall-to-wall sector -- or the traditional form of industrial-style union -- and then we have the craft structure. The craft structure has been losing popularity in this province. In fact, it has been losing popularity throughout North America and around the world. Jurisdictions have been moving away from it, because one of the things they have found is that you can get more efficiencies and more stability out of the traditional kind of industrial-style union -- the wall-to-wall unions, or whatever you want to call them.

Instead of having narrow jurisdictions, where you've got one trade that can't do the work of another trade and you have to have all these different trades on a job site, you can have a wall-to-wall union that basically allows the workers on that union to do, first of all, what they're trained for -- which is, obviously, essential. You don't want to have somebody who is untrained doing the work of an electrician. At the same time, if the electrician needs to walk across the job site to pick up a couple of 2-by-4s that he's going to need, he can do that.

If he has to hammer in a couple of new studs in order to mount an electrical box, he's able to do that, in the traditional industrial-style union or the wall-to-wall union.

This is the kind of instability that we have seen in the construction industry, which is a product of this craft-style unionism. As I mentioned before, the ministry's own document recognizes that the jurisdictional disputes -- the disputes that arise when one craft disputes the work that another craft is doing on a job site -- are: " . . . one of the most common reasons for instability and delays in the construction industry." If there were any reason why Bill 26 should not go ahead, it's right there. It's not going to do what the minister and this government claim it's supposed to do.

They claim it's supposed to bring us stability. What it's doing is entrenching a form of unionism that the ministry's document says is one of the causes of instability.

It also goes on to say that it will . . . . Actually, I had better not skip points, because somebody may accuse me of skipping them deliberately. The third point that is in here is that it brings "all craft unions into one council and all craft union employers into one association to bargain in non-residential industrial, commercial and institutional construction." That's a point which I don't want to skip. I want to put it on the record that, in fact, it's here and I acknowledge it, but I want to

[ Page 9855 ]

come back to that later. I think it's also one of the fundamental problems with this legislation and one of the issues that the committee could address -- that is, in what other ways could that be addressed? What are the other solutions, the other alternatives? We can look at what some other provinces have done.

On to the fourth point: " . . . support continued competition between union and non-union building contractors." I know that there are many cases where they've talked about Bill 26 still maintaining competition. Clearly it doesn't, because what it does is give a virtual monopoly to a building trades council, when it comes to the craft union construction in this so-called ICI sector. It's also giving a monopoly to an employers' group on the same basis. So this bill is not about competition; it is about the opposite. It's about reducing competition.

This is reducing competition in a major way, particularly when you start looking at the impact that it will have on public construction in British Columbia. This is clearly going to have an upward cost impact on public construction. It will reduce the competition that's out there when it comes to competing on those projects. You know, this government has already taken some very significant steps towards driving up the cost of public construction. If you start looking at things like the HCL agreements and the fair-wage act . . . . Who is paying for that? It's the taxpayers who pay for that.

Why can't we allow companies to compete with each other to produce quality public construction in British Columbia for the best cost for the taxpayer? It's the taxpayers who are paying for those new schools. Why not allow the taxpayers to get the best value for their tax dollars? I'm not saying that they should go out to an open competition that allows incompetent firms to compete for those projects. But let it be an open competition. There could be qualifiers for that to make sure that companies that don't know how to build bridges don't build our bridges.

What we do not need is a process through legislation and through government decree that says that every company in British Columbia has to pay very high wage rates.

When you start looking at the wage rates that are paid in the building trades, they are some of the highest wages paid in this province today. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with high wages. What I'm saying is: allow the workers to negotiate that with their employer, which allows the employer to survive. The way some of the employers who have been hamstrung by the non-affiliation clauses and by the contracts of the building trades unions survive is by doing public construction.

So in essence we have the taxpayer being forced to pay a higher price for the construction of schools and hospitals, and these companies are certainly able to survive, because you've got a government-mandated process that is driving competition out of the process. So they can stay in business, because they have a client who's prepared to pay these exorbitant wages, and that's government.

The one who pays the price for that process is the taxpayer. If you start today looking at the critical shortage that we have of new school construction, if you start looking at the shortage of hospitals in this province, if you start looking at the decay in the road system that we have in the province . . . . We have a road system in this province that's desperately in need of reconstruction work. We are squandering the integrity of our road system, because it's not being maintained. If you start looking at the average age of our major highways in this province, it is getting older and older every year.

All we're doing is delaying the day when significant, major work has to be done on those roads.

One of the problems we have today is that the government doesn't have enough money to do the work that is necessary on these capital projects. It should be incumbent upon a government to try to make sure that it gets the best possible value for every bit of public construction that's done in this province. We want to make sure that we build good schools, good hospitals, good bridges, good roads and all of the other capital needs in this province. But we also want to make sure that it is done for the most cost-effective price possible.

That is not happening today, and the reason it is not happening today is because of the payoffs that this government has made over time to the building trades unions in this province.

This also goes on to talk about four things which, it says, Bill 26 is not about. First of all, it says that Bill 26 is not about bargaining in residential construction. I think this demonstrates one of the shortcomings that this government has in bringing this legislation in, because if they had done the cost-benefit work, if they had done the economic impact studies, they would know that this statement is false. They would know that Bill 26 is going to have a significant impact on bargaining and residential construction.

Let me explain it for the members, because I'm sure that once they start to understand some of these facts, they may have a different perspective on this legislation. In residential construction, you have the same workers as are working in the ICI construction sector. As I mentioned earlier -- to use the example of the electrician -- the electrician will be working on a school project in the morning and he'll be working on a condominium project in the afternoon. If you wind up with the building trades coming into that particular worksite on that school project, which is . . . .

You know, if you start to look at the organizing tools that the organizers have in the building trades unions, they have an awful lot of tools that this government has given them in order to sign up members on those worksites. Deny them a secret ballot; they're signed up.

A lot of those workers maintain their membership in building trades for reasons other than representation and collective bargaining. They maintain their membership because of pension plans or benefit plans that they may have had from previous job sites. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether it's the will and the wish of the majority of the workers on that worksite, including the electrician I just talked about, not to belong to a building trades union.

As soon as they wind up with 55 percent membership -- 55 percent of the workers on that school construction site -- holding cards, that union has certification. As soon as that happens, the master collective agreement that is provided for under Bill 26 is imposed on them. It doesn't matter whether that's what they want, that's what they get. That's what this government is going to impose on them, whether they want it or not. It doesn't matter whether that electrician is working on a school in a remote part of British Columbia or working on a school in downtown Vancouver.

The same master collective agreement is going to apply.

That extends Bill 26 to the construction sector, because once you have this master collective agreement imposed on

[ Page 9856 ]

that worksite for the benefit of the school construction in the morning, when that electrician goes down the road that afternoon to work for the same employer on another one of the projects, which is a residential project, do you think that electrician is going to say: "Well, now, let's see. In the morning I was getting $35 an hour working on that school, but now it's noon and I have to go down to the residential project, so I'm going to work under a totally different collective agreement"? That's simply not realistic. So you wind up with this master collective agreement imposed on the residential construction worker as well.

Let's start looking at what is happening today. It's this whole issue of empty certifications. You know, we've heard government members talk about empty certifications. That's where you wind up with the building trades going into a site, and they get 55 percent of the membership cards and wind up with a certification. Then they wind up going in, starting a process of collective bargaining -- which is what we have provided for today under the Labour Relations Code. But what has been happening is that the building trades will come in and say to the employer: "This is our master agreement.

Sign it." That's not collective bargaining, and that's not in the interests of the workers that have signed up for that union. What is in the interests of those workers is a process that will allow them to come up with a collective agreement that they want, that the workers on worksite want. It's not for the executive in the building trades to decide what's good for those workers, and it's definitely not right for government to decide what's good for them. Those workers can decide what's good for them.

They got that right to join a union, so that they can, through collective bargaining, join together to negotiate an agreement.

What's happening today is that they wind up with empty certifications because the building trades unions are not prepared to sit down with an employer and negotiate a new contract -- a first contract -- that is realistic for that particular worksite and that particular contractor. There is total inflexibility. As a result, you wind up at the end of a construction project . . . .

The union has been intransigent in trying to impose this master agreement that applies to everybody else in the province, and they've been unwilling to negotiate a specific agreement for those workers, so what happens is that the project is finished, the workforce is dispersed, and there was a certification but no collective agreement. That's what the empty certifications are.

Let's come back to the example I was talking about earlier, about the electrician. They wind up signing up 55 percent of the membership. They get the certification. Now, do you think that the building trades unions, given their past history, are going to walk into that particular employer and say: "Well, here is the master collective agreement that is imposed as a result of Bill 26. You're working in ICI construction; you're certified under a building trades union; here is the collective agreement. Oh, but by the way, it only applies to your ICI work. It doesn't apply to the contract you're doing down the road"?

[8:00]

What we have is a workforce that becomes unionized, not just for the ICI sector. Once a company winds up being unionized under the building trades, that union then has the right and the obligation to negotiate all of the work that those workers are doing, not just the ICI work. So what you've got is the ICI master contract imposed by government decree, by government statute, and then they have to sit down and negotiate another contract for the other work that this company is doing -- the residential work.

Do you think for a minute that the union negotiators are going to say: "Oh, well, yeah, okay -- we'll negotiate something totally different for your residential construction"? What they're going to say is: "Here's the master agreement for ICI. It's the same agreement that we're giving to you for residential construction."

When they say in this document that Bill 26 is not about bargaining in residential construction, that is false, and I am convinced that this government knew it was false. The reason that they brought it in, the reason that they're trying to put this argument forward, is . . . . They are trying to pretend that Bill 26 is this narrow little focused bill, when in fact it is what Bill 44 was about last year. But instead of bringing it in through the front door, they're bringing it in through the back door.

Point No. 2 on what Bill 26 is not about: "Organizing a union in construction or anywhere else." The government document to justify and explain Bill 26 says that Bill 26 is not about organizing a union in construction or anywhere else. What we have in Bill 26 is a gift to the trade union organizer. I'm sure that being a trade union organizer is a difficult task: to go out to workers and convince them that they should join a union, sign up for union dues and be a part of what could lead to strikes and everything else. It could lead to a process whereby they may be out of work from time to time.

I'm sure that that is a tough job for a union organizer, to try to make that kind of a sales pitch. You know, I've worked with people who are professional sales reps, and I'm sure that's what the union organizer is: someone that has to sell the benefits of a union. But what Bill 26 is is a gift on a platter. This is something that they can take when they're out trying to sell the benefits of the union. They can take this master collective agreement that is imposed by statute, by Bill 26, and they can shop it around.

It's not a case of that organizer going out and saying: "Well, sign up. We'll negotiate for you. We're going to get the best deal possible. We think we might be able to increase wage rates here, and we're going to get better health and welfare benefits for you. We're negotiating hard for them." They don't have to make that sales pitch anymore. What they have to do is walk in and say: "This is the master collective agreement." They can say: "You know that electrician who is working down the road on that other school project? You know how much he's getting? He's getting $35 or $40 an hour" -- or whatever it is.

They can say: "Here it is in the master collective agreement. You know what? Just go read the Labour Relations Code as amended by Bill 26, and it says right there in the government statute that you too can get this master collective agreement."

Hon. Speaker, now we have a document that says that Bill 26 is not about organizing a union in the construction sector. That's clearly false; it's everything about it. Quite frankly, I do not believe that this was part of the accident. I know that there's a fair amount of naïvety on the government side when it comes to the impact that this will have on the economy. But I don't believe for one minute that the Minister of Labour or the government was naïve about the effect that this would have on the work of the union organizer in the building trades sector.

They recognized that this was a gift, and this is part of the reason why, I think, they're so desperate to move ahead with this particular legislation and to get it enacted.

It also says as point No. 3 that Bill 26 is not about employers or unions outside construction. Again, the facts are clearly the opposite. What this will do is drive up the cost of construction. This will impact on every small business that is

[ Page 9857 ]

trying to rent a commercial space; it's going to impact on every small business that's trying to rent a retail store. All of these companies are going to be affected, because either the cost of their building is going up or the cost of renting that building is going up. So to say that employers outside construction will not be affected is simply wrong.

That's the direct impact that this will have, but I think the indirect impact -- as we've talked about -- is the cost it's going to have on our economy overall. It is an economy that desperately needs some lifeblood put back into it, but instead, Bill 26 is sucking that last little bit of lifeblood out. That affects every company in this province and every British Columbian when you start having that kind of impact on the economy. For them to say that it has no effect outside of the construction industry is simply wrong.

The fourth point that it talks about is that Bill 26 is not about non-union versus union worksites. They would like to pretend that this is all about just tying up a nice neat little package for the craft unions and ICI. But, as I talked about earlier in terms of it being an organizing tool, this is a great organizing tool for the buildings trades unions to go after the non-union worksites. I think it's clear that it has those kinds of ramifications.

These are all points that I think they were very much aware of when they brought in this legislation. Through these kinds of information pieces, they would like to convince us otherwise, but I'm afraid it didn't work. The spin didn't work.

The very next page on this web site talks about what's in Bill 26. There was one in particular that jumped out at me, and it's talking about project collective agreements. This is an interesting one, because in this legislation it allows for all the craft workers who are working within the ICI sector to have this master collective agreement. It's interesting that the government has given itself an out when it comes to major-project agreements.

We've seen major-project agreements in this province, like the Vancouver Island Highway construction, where they set it up as a special project agreement that resulted in significant increased costs to the taxpayer. Basically it was a gift to the buildings trades unions. It's not the NDP who bought the gift. You know who bought the gift? The taxpayers of British Columbia bought that gift. Nevertheless, it was a gift, and it was presented on a platter. That was a major-project agreement.

Hon. Speaker, that is an agreement that basically superimposes a new collective agreement over and above the collective agreement that may be in place for the other jobs that those particular trades work on from time to time. But it's interesting, because in Bill 26 the minister is giving himself the power to designate what is or is not a major project. So he can basically bypass everything that's in here if they want to make a separate agreement that's different from this master collective agreement that's going to be imposed by Bill 26.

Start thinking about some of the possibilities for that. We've got, say, the construction of a trade and convention centre in this province. You could bypass everything that's in here, and you could set up a special project agreement just for building the trade and convention centre or for the Lions Gate Bridge reconstruction. We've already seen it with the HOV lanes, where they've imposed this HCL model.

In this legislation the minister is being given the power, if this legislation passes, to designate what is or is not a major project. If I can just read the explanation in here about this major-project collective agreement, it says: "Negotiation of project collective agreements will be included in the B.C. Labour Relations Code, and the Minister of Labour will have the authority to approve project collective agreements that take precedence over any other collective agreements in place at the time."

That sort of explains what it's about. But the next paragraph says why. Why are they doing this? Why are they bringing in this provision? This is the interesting part, so I hope the members are paying attention. It says: "Project collective agreements allow certainty and stability for the life of major projects and the flexibility to address issues like local and equity hiring." Here we have, in this legislation . . . . We're building in inflexibility. We're building in this master collective agreement, with all of the inflexibility that comes along with that. We're building that into all the ICI construction that's done by the craft sector.

The minister is giving himself the opportunity to opt out of that. He gets to opt out of it. Why? Because of flexibility. Well, if it's good enough for the Minister of Labour to have that flexibility, to be able to access that flexibility, why isn't it good enough for the rest of our economy? Why can't all of our major construction in this province -- all of our construction, period -- have the kind of flexibility that's needed for workers and management to sort out what's in their best interests? Why are we building in inflexibility?

The minister, for his own personal use, grabs this little bit of power that allows him to build flexibility back in again. It simply is irrational, but I think it speaks to what's behind this legislation.

One of the things included in this package that came out on June 17 to justify this particular legislation was a commentary on . . . . This is actually a study that was done by a Prof. Joseph Rose. This is a professor of industrial relations at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. What obviously happened -- and I'm making some assumptions here -- was that after the Kelleher-Lanyon report was released, this government knew that they had a sales pitch to do. They had to sell this legislation to the public, because it was obviously going to be a difficult sale.

Because of the experience after Bill 44, they knew that they were going to have a fight on their hands when it came to bringing in this kind of legislation. So they obviously went out looking for somebody to help build up their information base on all of the good things about what they were doing. They had to find fans wherever they could. They had to find somebody with some credibility, who would basically be able to pretend that they were an objective third party and say: "Yes, what you're doing is a good thing."

I have to question why we had to go to Ontario to find somebody to do an analysis of something that is so fundamental to the British Columbia economy. We wound up going to Ontario and clearly to somebody that was handpicked by government -- I'm assuming that, because they had a pretty good sense of what this particular professor would deliver them. They probably had a pretty good sense of where this professor's ideological views sat. I'm sure they weren't treading on thin ice when they were going out to try to find this academic to give them a review.

Earlier today, I pulled some of Professor Rose's writings on some of the other things he's done. At a quick glance -- I haven't had a chance to read them yet -- there's some interesting material there, and I'm quite looking forward to going through that to get a better understanding of where Professor Rose comes from in some of his other writings. What the government chose to do was to go out and commission a

[ Page 9858 ]

report from Professor Rose on this initiative that they were taking. On June 17, they inserted in the communications package a two-page

summary that pulled excerpts from Professor Rose's study.

[8:15]

I got my hands on the whole report -- all nine pages of it. What I found really interesting is not so much what the government chose to pull out of Professor Rose's report to quote, but the quotes from this report that they chose not to include -- the quotes that did not appear in this communications package. When you think about it, this is not a big document that Professor Rose put together; it's basically seven pages plus a cover and a biography at the back. It would have been quite easy for them to have included all seven pages in their communications package.

Instead of just including three pages of selected quotes, why not include all seven pages? It would have been easy to do. But no, they pulled out the particular quotes that served their purpose.

I find it interesting to compare the things that were taken and the things that weren't taken. This is what was quoted on page 1 of that particular report: "The recommendations for legislative change are sound and reflect a recognition of the unique features of construction labour relations in B.C." Now, I find that interesting. One of the things that we have heard is that we're adapting this because it's been done in other provinces. Yet they talk about the unique nature . . . .

The Attorney General may wish to make an introduction, and I will temporarily defer to him.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want to thank the hon. member for recognizing that I needed to make an introduction.

This is a very special introduction. I'm really delighted to be able to make the introduction. We have in the House with us the Minister of Justice from South Africa, Dullah Omar. I would like the House to please make him welcome. Accompanying the minister, we have in the gallery a chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission, Dr. Barney Pityana. As well, we have other people here: Judge Wally Oppal from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Fatima Ameen from Ottawa, Rick Craig from the Law Courts Education Society and Chris Meyers from the South African consulate, I understand.

Last -- but not the least, because I work for her -- is my deputy minister, Deputy Attorney General Maureen Maloney.

This is a very special privilege to be able to do this for Minister Dullah Omar and the others, because we in British Columbia have had a very special connection with South Africa. Just some days ago, we paid tribute to our former Speaker, Emery Barnes, who was instrumental in having South African wines successfully boycotted in British Columbia. When he was the Speaker, he was able to celebrate the liberation of South Africa and the reintroduction of South African wines into this great province of ours. From that great country come the minister and his companions, and I would like the House to please make them welcome once again.

C. Hansen: I'm certainly very honoured to have these distinguished guests in the chamber for my remarks, and I appreciate the time that the minister took to introduce them.

Hon. Speaker, I was talking about a document that was prepared by Dr. Joseph Rose. It is a critique of the Kelleher-Lanyon report, a critique of the draft legislation that had been put forward at that time -- which, much to our surprise, became the legislation that is now Bill 26, with very few changes. That was clearly something that I don't think was expected by very many people. They certainly expected that a very different bill would come forward, rather than the one that was in the draft legislation.

In fact, they felt that there would probably be some watering-down of it, but what we saw instead was the full force of what had been put forward in that report. As I was mentioning earlier, this government obviously went to great lengths to find a professor who would do a critique of it, and then they pull these quotes out of his critique, rather than presenting the whole report. To give credit, they did put the full report on their web site, but in the press package and the initial communications package, they just pulled out certain quotes to highlight them.

The quote that I mentioned earlier was one that said: "The recommendations for legislative change are sound and reflect a recognition of the unique features of construction labour relations in B.C." That's something that I've never heard the Minister of Labour admit, because the Minister of Labour has been talking so much about how we have to do these things because they do them in other provinces. Yet here we have an admission that the construction industry is so unique.

Let me quote from a part that was not in the excerpted part. It said: " . . . the panel chose to distinguish B.C. from Ontario and Alberta . . . where it was persuaded that practice within the province dictated a different approach." I think that's the key. In the construction industry in B.C. we do have something that is unique, and we do need a B.C. approach. We don't need the approach that Ontario has or Alberta has. We have a Minister of Labour who says that they have this in those provinces. Well, they don't.

They have gone to other provinces and cherry-picked certain features that serve their particular purposes or serve the purposes of the building trades unions. They haven't said: "Let's adopt the Alberta Labour Relations Code." Quite frankly, I would be very surprised if any member in this House stood up and said that -- or the Ontario labour code, for that matter. Instead, what they did is that they went and cherry-picked just the things they liked, not the balance.

You know, in the comments that I made on Tuesday, when we were talking about the need to hoist this motion, I talked about some of the history of labour relations in British Columbia and the essential need that any change we have to the Labour Relations Code be balanced. There have to be equal and offsetting powers for both labour and management if our labour relation system is to thrive and survive in this province.

Rather than going to other provinces and picking the things that would give balance, they went and picked just the things they liked, just the things that the building trades unions in this province liked. They brought those in and incorporated them, and now we have them before us as Bill 26. Here we've got the learned professor, who this government went out and contracted to give them the critique they wanted, and he emphasized that. He pointed out that there were distinguishing features from province to province which dictated a different approach. Yet they didn't choose to quote that in the communications package that they circulated.

Let me pick out another quote that they chose not to include. It says: "Successful and enduring labour law reform requires the input of both sides to the collective bargaining process . . . . " This is the balance that I talked about: it needs

[ Page 9859 ]

input from both labour and management. Let me just go on to say that it is only in this way that problems that are real to the parties can be identified, solutions can be devised and a balanced package, which responds to the legitimate needs of both sides, can be formulated.

Hon. Speaker, here we have this professor who is talking about that need for balance. We need to have a process that allows input from both sides and that allows for a balanced package to be formulated. Well, we did have a process that in theory should have been balanced, that had the opportunity for both sides to make input. So that part of it we got right. We had the public hearings -- or the panel did. They received submissions, but what is clear from the action that this government has taken in bringing forward Bill 26 is that they only listened to one side.

Maybe they did read the submissions from both sides, but this Minister of Labour chose to bring in a piece of legislation that only reflects the solutions that were devised by one side of the equation. It only reflects the solutions that were devised by the building trades unions. It doesn't reflect the solutions that were devised by the wall-to-wall sector; it doesn't include the solutions that were devised by the non-union sector; it doesn't include the solutions that were devised by representatives of employer groups around British Columbia. That's what would have been balanced input.

That would have resulted in this balanced package that Professor Rose talks about. But instead, while we had the process to do that, we had all of the appearance that this government was trying to consult. What we now know in reading Bill 26 is that they only listened to one side.

Let me go on to show you what they chose to quote. They didn't quote that section, interestingly. But what they did quote was: " . . . government, through a process of meaningful consultation, coupled with careful analysis, must weigh the various alternatives and to the extent warranted by economic considerations and labour relations norms, enact reforms that are responsive to the issues raised." That is what should have happened, but that's not what happened.

The other thing they quoted in this document that they circulated was, in Professor Rose's words: "I believe that the appointment of the two eminent former chairs of the B.C. Labour Relations Board and the review process undertaken satisfies these requirements." Clearly, hon. Speaker, they do satisfy that requirement of the consultative process. But the next stage of that process is that government has a responsibility, the Minister of Labour has a responsibility, to make sure that each side, or the many sides, are listened to fairly. Bill 26 should have come in as a balanced package, not as legislation that favours only the trade union inputs.

Let me continue with another quote that, interestingly, was not in the package. This is talking about the accreditation system in British Columbia. It says: " . . . it is also different from most other schemes in Canada, because it permits multi-trade accreditation -- most other schemes, including Alberta and Ontario, are limited to a single trade." Well, excuse me, but what's interesting is that we had a government that said that what is being proposed in Bill 26 is what happens in other provinces. They specifically said: "It's what we have in Alberta and Ontario."

They talk about how we don't have a distinctive

section for the construction industry in the Labour Code of British Columbia. One of the reasons for that is that we have a distinctive

section that no other jurisdiction in Canada has for multi-trade accreditation. We have a process in our Labour Relations Code today to set up multi-employer bargaining. But you know what? It's set up as a process; it's enabling. It's not something that government's going to come in and enforce. It is a voluntary process. We've seen it work; it works in this province. Now it's being changed, because they're going to build in inflexibility.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

They address the issue of specialized legislation here. This one is quite interesting because of the quote they chose to use. They actually pulled out a portion of a sentence that they didn't include. The sentence, as Professor Rose had written it, reads: "Considering the uniqueness of the construction industry . . . this recommendation makes sense and is long overdue." This is the idea of a special portion of the Labour Code for construction.

What's interesting is that they left out the part of the sentence that reads: " . . . that most labour codes are based on the industrial model." So what we have is labour codes all over this country that are based on an industrial model. What we've got in British Columbia is a government that's saying, "Bring in specialized legislation, to impose something else," and yet they actually deleted that

section from their quote.

The next

section they go on to is "Access To Collective Bargaining." Again, they have left out a very key part of the sentence. The sentence that Professor Rose wrote was: " . . . I strongly support the recommendation with respect to the ratification of voluntary-recognition collective agreements and that these agreements be filed with the board." Actually, I apologize. That is not the sentence that they deleted from; that is the sentence. What I found interesting is that they acknowledge in this that there is a need for ratification of voluntary recognition.

[8:30]

Just to explain it to members who may not be familiar with this process, today in British Columbia, if you have a job site that is not unionized, there are companies that . . . . If they recognize that their employees wish to have a union, the employer -- instead of going through this whole process of ratification -- will go through a process of voluntary recognition. Voluntary recognition means that the union will come in and start to negotiate on behalf of those workers and start to represent those workers.

Well, one of things that was pointed out is that they can then get through to a collective agreement without the workers ever having a vote as to whether they do or do not want that particular union. So in Bill 26 they are bringing in that provision to force a secret ballot vote. Now, isn't that interesting? The secret ballot vote is important when it comes to voluntary recognition, to ensure that workers are represented, but it's not good enough for other workers. That's the hypocrisy, I think, in the direction that this government is going in.

In fact, Professor Rose, had they continued with that quote and quoted his very next sentence . . . . It reflects that. He says: "This recommendation offers further support and protection for employee free choice." The concern raised in the report -- namely, that voluntary recognition is sometimes contrary to the true wishes of the employees -- is found outside the construction industry as well.

Here we have the government's handpicked academic professor talking about the importance of employee free choice and the fact that an imposed collective agreement can be contrary to the employees' true wishes. It begs the question: why does that same principle not apply to all certifica

[ Page 9860 ]

tions in this province? Why did this government take away the right to the secret ballot, when right here in their very own document they recognize the importance of employee free choice?

It goes on to say: "The recommendation requiring evidence of current membership support for certification makes good sense, given the nature of the industry." This is an interesting one, because in the Kelleher-Lanyon report they not only put forward draft legislation but they also put forward a provision that required that a union, when it seeks certification, has to get current indication of membership support. In fact, in the document, Kelleher and Lanyon actually put forward a form that they recommend be signed.

They never intended it to be incorporated in the legislation, so I should not be surprised that that particular process is not in Bill 26. But what I find very interesting is that the provision for current membership support -- this evidence of current membership support -- does not appear anywhere. In their media kit, in the minister's speech that he gave when he introduced second reading, he talked about how they were incorporating the recommendations of Kelleher and Lanyon. Then they conveniently forget this one provision that talks about requiring current membership support.

Then we have this report from Professor Rose. He says that this particular recommendation "makes good sense, given the nature of the industry." But you know what? When they put out their little

summary of Professor Rose's report, they omitted it. I think it begs the question: is this government planning to ignore that particular recommendation? That is a point that is going to be a matter of considerable debate before this process of Bill 26 is resolved.

I think it's incumbent upon this government to stand up and say to all of those who are following this process that they are accepting Kelleher and Lanyon's recommendation when it comes to requiring evidence of current membership support. I want to hear that from the minister. Quite frankly, I know that the minister has not yet spoken on this particular motion to refer this bill to committee, but that gives him a perfect opportunity. He doesn't have to wait until the end of second reading debate for his

summary comments. He can come into this chamber at the point when I sit down, which is going to be in about half an hour, and he can stand up and follow me and answer a couple of very specific questions that have not been answered.

First, is this minister going to assure us -- is he going to put in Hansard , on the record -- that this government will implement this recommendation to require evidence of current membership? That's number one. Secondly, in the Kelleher and Lanyon report, they set out a number of principles that are required for the renegotiation of the constitutions of the building trades unions, of the bargaining council. Also, there's appendix A in the report that sets out the principles respecting the trade union bargaining council constitution. Appendix B sets out the principles respecting the CLRA constitution and bylaws.

One of the things that Kelleher and Lanyon recommended was that both these organizations be given a very narrow time frame, after the passage of Bill 26, to revise their constitutions in accordance with those principles that they set out. Fair enough; it's reflected in the legislation. In the legislation, it actually gives a time frame within which they have to revise the constitutions. What is not in there is any requirement that they revise their constitutions according to the principles that Kelleher and Lanyon set out. That is very important.

Quite frankly, I say to the Minister of Labour that if he can stand up in this chamber after I sit down and assure this House on the record, in Hansard , that those recommendations of Kelleher and Lanyon will be adhered to -- that the principles set out in the report are the principles that must be adhered to when those organizations redraft their constitutions . . . . The provision in the legislation is that the Labour Relations Board has to approve these revised constitutions. If they can't come to a revised process, then it goes to the board to sort out those differences.

Hon. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent on the Minister of Labour to stand in this House and say that he will instruct the Labour Relations Board to only approve constitutions that reflect those principles that are set out in appendices A and B. As I mentioned earlier this thing about the evidence of current membership, if the minister comes in and gives that assurance to this House after I finish my remarks, that will save us a lot of time when it comes to further debate. I'm still not going to vote for the legislation, but I think he could effectively answer a lot of the questions and a lot of the doubt that's out there today.

One of the other areas that I think the minister should address -- and he has the opportunity to do now; we don't have to wait until we get to committee stage on this bill -- is the definition of ICI, the definition of industrial, commercial and institutional construction. Hon. Speaker, there are people all over this province who are extremely anxious about what the definition of ICI construction is. I know for a fact that there are construction projects today in this province that are not proceeding because this legislation is coming down. What those construction projects are waiting for is a definition of ICI.

We have made the point that this legislation is going to do great damage to the economy of British Columbia. But the Minister of Labour can come into this House tonight, once I've finished my remarks, and he can stand up in this House and give us a very concise definition of ICI on the record, in Hansard -- something that will stand up, which he will personally be accountable for.

If he comes in and gives a very narrow definition of ICI, which reflects the comments that were made by other members in this House, and says: "Oh, this legislation is about this very narrow little

section of construction . . . . " If the Minister of Labour is going to come into this House, stand up and give a very narrow, concise definition of ICI, that alone -- his words in Hansard -- will allow construction projects in this province, which are now being held up, to go ahead. There are projects that cannot get financing, because nobody knows what this definition means. It's not reflected in the legislation. One very small thing that this minister can do to mitigate in a very small way the excessive damage that Bill 26 is doing . . . .

The very small thing that he can do tonight to make this province a better place is that he can come in and answer those three questions in very specific terms, in ways that will stand up. His words in Hansard will be words that he will be prepared to adhere to in the long term.

I have digressed somewhat from what was in Professor Rose's report, but I did want to deal with that issue of the evidence of current membership, which Professor Rose felt was a good recommendation. Frankly, we don't see it anywhere here. We have no reason to believe from anything that's been written or said that this Minister of Labour is prepared to implement that recommendation.

It's interesting how they've edited this section. It says, in Professor Rose's words: "I have some difficulty with the rec-

[ Page 9861 ]

ommendation that a newly certified employer in the ICI sector shall be bound by the standard CLRA agreement and that special arrangements must be made to accommodate existing projects." I found that quite interesting, because when you start looking at what they circulated in their package, it takes on a very different meaning. What they say in the package, where they pull out the quotes of Professor Rose, is simply this: "I have some difficulty with the recommendation that" -- dot, dot, dot -- "special arrangements must be made to accommodate existing projects." What's interesting is that they deleted this one

section of that sentence, the

section that says that he was concerned with the recommendation that "a newly certified employer in the ICI sector shall be bound by the standard CLRA agreement."

When we talk about comparing to other provinces, there is no other province in Canada that has legislation that says that a bargaining council, whether it be on the employer side or the employee side, is going to be this particular association.

I gather from the body language across the chamber that the Minister of Small Business would like to make an introduction. If that is the case, I will defer to him temporarily.

Hon. I. Waddell: Thank you. I just seek leave . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, when you rise in your place, then I can recognize you. You have to ask for leave. I recognize the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

Hon. I. Waddell: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I know he has many things to say on this bill, and I hope he'll forgive me if I do. I'd like the House to welcome a former minister in this House, former Deputy Premier and minister of many things, who is now heading the B.C. Child Foundation and is promoting a campaign of "Smile B.C." -- a woman who never quits promoting and working for the public service and for the people of British Columbia. I'm really proud to ask the House to welcome the Hon. Grace McCarthy and her husband Ray.

G. Abbott: I hope the House will indulge me in also welcoming Mrs. and Mr. McCarthy on behalf of the opposition side. I had the pleasure back in 1976 of working as a legislative intern here and much admired the work and energy of Mrs. McCarthy. We would certainly like to join with the government in welcoming her back as well.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena continues his remarks.

C. Hansen: I had to stand up to resume my place in debate, but I would like to say that a standing ovation is certainly warranted. I'm honoured that the McCarthys are here to join us this evening.

[8:45]

If I can continue with my comments about Professor Rose's study, what is very interesting, of course, is that when they took excerpts to put in their media kit, they deleted the whole part of a sentence where Professor Rose is criticizing the fact that newly certified employers are bound by a standard CRLA agreement. I think this speaks to one of the concerns that we have about Bill 26: the requirement that employers, once they are certified in the ICI sector by craft unions, are forced into one particular organization. This is true not only on the employer side but also on the employee side, where you've got the Building Trades Council that must represent employee interests.

What we see in other provinces is the ability of employers to choose who their bargaining representative should be when they're setting up these types of councils, and you also have the provision where the unions have the ability to select their councils. This is interesting, because if you go back to last year's infamous Bill 44, it allowed for that. Bill 44 allowed for a process whereby the majority of unions representing the majority of workers -- if I remember the language -- got to select the bargaining council that they wanted to have bargain on their behalf. Likewise, Bill 44 provided for the employers to select their bargaining council.

What we have in Bill 26 is not that. What we have is a government that has come in to say that the bargaining council shall be the Building Trades Council and the bargaining council for the employers shall be the CLRA, the Construction Labour Relations Association. I've got no gripe with either of those organizations. I know of companies that used to belong to the CLRA that do not ever want to belong again. I know of entire industry sectors that have gone off to form their own bargaining councils that are now being forced back into the CLRA against their will -- involuntarily. I think that's what is key.

Is it the role of this Legislature to impose a bargaining council on a group of employers? Or should those employers be given the power to select the agent that they want to have? That's what happens in other provinces.

There's a process in other provinces that if the majority of the unions lose faith in their bargaining council, they can set up a new bargaining council through a majority vote. Yes, in some provinces there is an involuntary nature because once there is a majority vote, they are all forced into that bargaining council. But what's important is that they have that vote, and they have that right to select their council. It's the same in other provinces on the employer side.

If a majority of employers decide that they want to change their bargaining council -- they want a different association -- the majority can set up that separate council. But that's not what this legislation does. This legislation says that we are going to entrench in statute a permanent obligation of those employers to belong to the Construction Labour Relations Association and a permanent obligation of the unions to negotiate through their bargaining council. I think that's wrong.

I think there should be a provision in this legislation that allows those groups of unions or employers to select the bargaining council that they have majority support for.

I think you've got to look at it from the point of view of what encourages those particular bargaining councils to continue to be responsive to the needs of their membership. One of the things that exists today is that members in those councils will walk away from the table if they're not satisfied. We've seen that in the building trades. We've seen members that used to be members of the Building Trades Council leave that bargaining council. And now what we say is that they're going to be forced back in there.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: The member asks what this has to do with the amendment. Clearly, if we send this off to the committee, the committee can start looking at some of these alternatives, and I think we can come back with some very definite

[ Page 9862 ]

improvements to this legislation. And this is one of the areas that I think we have to look at. So, for the benefit of the member, that's what this has to do with the amendment to send this to committee.

On the employer side, as well, we have seen, over the past decades, companies that used to belong to the CLRA that have left. I have no doubt that that has put pressure on the CLRA to ensure that the way they run their affairs reflects the interests of the majority of their members. I'm guessing somewhat, because I don't know the internal workings of either of these organizations, but I have no doubt that they are forced to look at how they structure their affairs so that they don't lose members.

And yet what we have here today is that through statute we are imposing these organizations on the unions and on the employers. That's wrong, and that's something that we will have more to say about when we get into committee stage.

I just want to move down a bit further on Professor Rose's . . . . Again, this is still under the subject of access to collective bargaining and, if I can quote, it says . . . . I'm quoting from Professor Rose's study, which is not reflected in the excerpts that were circulated by the minister. This says: " . . . what happens if the parties are unable to agree on the accommodations? Is this to be resolved by the board or by interest arbitration?" What they chose to quote in the document that was circulated was this quote from that particular paragraph: "For example, the Ontario approach . . . .

" They've dropped the words "is different in that it" because they want to pretend that this is stuff that every other province has; they don't want to acknowledge the fact that in fact that's wrong -- other provinces are very different in many ways.

But they chose to quote: "For example, the Ontario approach . . . stipulates that a newly certified or voluntarily recognized bargaining agent will be bound by the appropriate provincial collective agreement in the ICI sector." We're talking about a sentence where they have actually chosen to delete a bunch of words to basically reinforce the message that they're trying to get across, that they're trying to spin.

Professor Rose also goes on to talk about the raiding period. Just for the benefit of those who don't know, the raiding period is written into collective agreements that say, typically, that in the seventh or eighth month of an agreement that particular worksite is open to raid from another union. In other words, it is one union that is trying to sign up the membership of that particular worksite and to get the workers there to agree to be represented by a different union. Professor Rose says: "This recommendation has merit in that it gives the board the opportunity to objectively assess union membership strength and employee preferences for union representation."

What is in Bill 26 that Professor Rose is talking about is switching the months that the raid can take place from the seventh or eighth month of whatever the duration of the contract is . . . . Because contracts could be signed any one month of the year, the seventh or eighth month can be any particular month of the year.

But what this legislation does is say that it doesn't matter what the workers and the employers have negotiated in their collective agreement -- that that doesn't matter anymore, that what they're going to impose through legislation is a requirement that it be the months of July and August, regardless. Their reason for that is that that is time of year when worksites have the maximum number of employees.

Think about that. Why is it that they would want to be able to raid a worksite in the months that have the most temporary, part-time workers, workers who just come in for a short period of time? Wouldn't it be in the interests of the workers to allow those who have the long-term attachment to the employer to decide what their union representation would be? Like, I'm not saying that it should be at a time when there are no employees on the worksite.

I know that's the counterargument that's put forward, that often employers will try to design this raid period so that it happens at a time when there's virtually nobody working -- the months of January or February, let's say. But to go to the other extreme, to say that it should be July and August, means that you have a whole bunch of workers who have no particular loyalty to the union that is there already trying to serve the workers. These workers have no particular loyalty to the long-term stability of that particular company or that worksite.

So these are the ones that are going to get the decision on the raid.

Think about what the implications of this might be -- the implications for summer employment for students, for example. How many students today rely every summer on getting a job on the construction sites in July and August? That is the time when a lot of construction sites hire new people. The workers that come for those months are interested in work for a period of time. They're interested in the work for that two-month period. These are not the workers who are relying on 12-months-of-the-year employment. They aren't the workers who are relying on their jobs for their future relationship with that particular employer. But they are the workers who have the most to lose.

Why don't we come up with a process by referring it to the committee? These are things that we could examine. We could examine whether or not there is a time of the year that we can best serve the interests of the workers who rely on that workplace for their long-term security. Isn't that what collective bargaining is all about? Isn't that what belonging to a union is all about? It allows you to negotiate collectively for that long-term security for your family, allowing you to negotiate the best wages and benefits possible that you can get from that particular employer.

Why is it in the interest of those long-term employees who rely on that as a career to have a bunch of temporary workers in July and August decide on what union should represent them? I think, again, that's something that we will be talking about.

Professor Rose also talks about the wall-to-wall unions -- the industrial-style unions that we have operating in the construction sector. Again they've chosen one particular quote, which is curious. This is the quote that they chose to put in their communications document: " . . . . there is merit in continuing to recognize the legitimacy of these unions." To a lot of people involved in the building trades . . . . I know the significance of that sentence. I know the significance of Bill 26. There are a lot of people in the building trades unions who would dearly love to get rid of the wall-to-wall unions.

They fundamentally disagree with that style of unionism. What we've seen through rulings of the Labour Relations Board is the LRB upholding these unions as bona fide unions, and they are there to serve the interests of their members. So when they pull out this one sentence, that sentence in itself has importance, because they're recognizing their legitimacy.

Let's look at the sentences that they did not quote. This is the opening sentence in this section: "The extent of representation by non-building trades unions in construction is a distinctive feature of B.C. construction labour relations." The extent of the success of wall-to-wall unions in this province to recruit members is unlike any other province in Canada. I know that we see in Alberta that the wall-to-wall unions have been successful to a certain extent. But B.C. is unique. B.C. is not the same as other provinces.

[ Page 9863 ]

[9:00]

When they talk about this need for a special

section of our Labour Relations Code to reflect the construction industry, what they're saying is: "Help!" The building trades are saying: "Help! We're being taken over by the wall-to-wall unions." The wall-to-wall unions are having far more success at increasing their membership base in this province than the building trades unions. So what they have done is come in and say: "We need protection." They've found that they can't compete in the market of recruiting new union members in this province. They can't compete because the wall-to-wall unions are being more successful, and that's what Bill 26 is about.

Bill 26 is about coming in to say to the building trades unions: "Don't worry about the fact that you can't attract new members. We're going to force that. We're going to put in legislation that basically gives you this new recruiting tool on a platter."

The last sentence in this paragraph that Professor Rose wrote was also not singled out in their communications document. That is the sentence that says: "Surely, workers performing construction work should be afforded the freedom to choose their bargaining agents." That's in this document by Professor Rose, their handpicked academic. That is not what we see in Bill 26. That's not what we see as a result of the changes that they made to the Labour Code in 1992. What we see is this government denying secret ballots. Now we see that in spite of the wishes of workers in their workplaces, they are having master collective agreements imposed on them.

Professor Rose also talks about jurisdictional disputes. The quote that they chose to use was: "Given the craft structure of construction labour relations, the tendency is for jurisdictional disputes to be a pernicious source of conflict and the success of the JAP" -- the jurisdictional assignment plan -- "the recommendation . . . is an excellent one." What I found interesting in this was their admission that the jurisdictional process is a "pernicious source of conflict." I'm probably not the best one to define what pernicious means, but I know the Minister of Labour would like to incorporate that into his remarks. Again, we have legislation that is not going to try to find a