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)

MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 19

(Part 3)

[ Page 9987 ]

On the amendment to second reading of Bill 26.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

K. Krueger: It's a pleasure to have such a strong audience on the government benches as I speak this evening to this amendment motion by the member for Matsqui that the House decline to give second reading to Bill 26 "for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." Certainly, hon. Speaker, the official opposition believes that this bill, if enacted, would seriously damage the provincial economy and would destroy any vestiges of confidence that potential or existing investors might presently have in the economy of British Columbia.

We ask ourselves: why are we here at ten after three in the morning? Why are we here in the middle of the night? What's the rush on this modest bill, as the minister continually characterizes it? If it's such a modest bill, why has there been such a tremendous zeal to push it through the House? The minister decided to call the bill for second reading the day after it was tabled. Why was that? Why is it such a high priority? The government hasn't stood to answer any of those questions or to say very much about the bill at all, in spite of the alleged urgency and importance of it.

Somehow none of the government members opposite seem to have the jam to get on their feet and speak to why this bill is a priority, why it is so important that we should debate it through the night.

The Premier is home from his gallivanting around North America -- you know: "Home is the sailor, home from the sea, and the hunter home from the hill." It would be a pleasure to have him stand up and explain to British Columbians why it has been so important that Bill 26 be brought into the Legislature, why it's been so urgent that the NDP wants to jam it down the throats of British Columbians, but he just won't do it. He won't get on his feet.

The ministers and backbenchers opposite just seem to be putting in time here in the House, wasting the time of the House, when in our minds we ought to be doing the people's business. There are so many urgent things to deal with. But no, we're here because the NDP wants to debate Bill 26.

What are our answers to why we're here in the middle of the night? The Bible says that men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. Is that why we're here? Are they ashamed of this bill that they've brought in? They say it's modest and that it's no big deal, that they actually want it for stability and to increase the competitive advantage of the construction business in British Columbia. Are they ashamed? Why do they want to sit through the night when they hope that people aren't watching television and seeing what is going on in the Legislature? I think that has to be the answer.

It may have had something to do with the BCTV strike. They were hoping to push this thing through while BCTV was out on strike, but of course, that's coming to an end. In fact, coincidentally enough, it just came to an end this week. Perhaps that's why this is the latest sitting so far. Not that we care. We'll debate through every night if that's what the government wants. Mysteriously, they generally don't seem to want to do that. When they're proud of something they do, they do it in the daylight, and they tend to do it early in the week.

We notice that when they have a very negative thing to announce, they tend to do it late on a Friday, when they think the media won't pick up on it through the weekend. Similarly with this bill, they jam it through in the middle of the night.

But it didn't really work for them, did it? They tabled this bill on June 17. They tried to bring it on the next day, and here we are on the July 14, almost a month later. Look at all the things that have had to be put on the back burner in the meantime -- really important things that probably could be helpful to the economy and the people of British Columbia.

Why is this one so important? Why is it such a priority? Of course, we believe that the answer is in the Premier's own words at the recent Order of B.C. presentation ceremony. He referred to Ken Georgetti as the nineteenth cabinet minister -- unblushingly. He was brassy and arrogant enough to come right out and say that in public and get a little appreciative chuckle from Mr. Georgetti's followers in the audience. He's the nineteenth cabinet minister -- and not nineteenth out of nineteen, but first out of nineteen by all indications. It can only be through the impetus of someone with Mr.

Georgetti's power over this Premier and this government that this bill would have been rammed through the way it has, that it would have been given the priority treatment that it has. Why else would this government put such a huge emphasis on it and inflict so much collateral damage upon itself just to try and preserve the status of a small group of companies they're working with the Building Trades Council in trying to preserve antiquated, outdated, fossilized collective agreements that no longer allow those companies or those employees to be competitive in the marketplace in 1998.

It's something that Mr. Georgetti wants. That's the only answer that really makes any sense. It's the only reason the Premier would be sitting at 3:10 on the morning of July 14, bleary-eyed and waiting for the opposition to run its course and exhaust every avenue that this opposition has in doing our duty to oppose this government's destructive path, the course that it's chosen to take.

It has gone rather well, from an opposition point of view, hon. Speaker. We're getting calls from business people, workers, communities, chambers of commerce and business associations all around the province. The opposition has been ticking like a well-oiled engine -- everyone doing their part, people coming in one after another, standing in their places, putting their positions on the table. All we get from the government benches across the way is snide remarks and jeers and little chuckles -- nothing that they're willing to put on the record.

Indeed, it's going to be very difficult for these people to justify to their constituents the damage they're inflicting on the economy of this province, all in the name of giving Mr. Georgetti, the nineteenth cabinet minister, what he wants.

Those people in the Building Trades Council and the CLRA don't want to sit down and negotiate collective agreements that work in 1998. They want to stick with what they've got. They want to continue to work under the provisions the NDP have given them, like the fixed-wage policy, whereby we can only afford a fraction of the schools, hospitals and roads that we could afford if we had genuine open tendering and competition for public works and government contracts in the marketplace in British Columbia.

Rather than march into 1998 and prepare for the millennium that's just around the corner, the CLRA and the Building Trades Councils want to draw everybody else in British Columbia into the same box they're in and further tie up the economy.

[3:15]

I listened to the Premier at the Kamloops economic conference. I listened to him paraphrase and feed back to the people what he heard there. I was impressed, frankly, and I told people so. The man wasn't looking at notes. He had

[ Page 9988 ]

obviously been listening. He had heard what people said. Some of the big messages were: don't mess with the Labour Code; change your ways; do a 180-degree turn from this really unfortunate approach that the NDP has taken over the last seven years of overtaxing, overregulating businesses and interfering with labour-management relations. The Premier heard that, and he promised to act on that. I had high hopes that he would.

It's not too late, of course. It's not too late to support this amendment and put Bill 26 back into limbo where it belongs -- or better yet, withdraw it forever and stop trying to cram a B.C. Federation of Labour agenda down the throats of British Columbians. It's not too late to stand up to the nineteenth cabinet minister. It was the Premier who was elected, not Mr. Georgetti, and he should call the shots. He should make the decisions. What are we going to do? Knight this man next? Make him king? Why does Mr. Georgetti hold such sway over what happens to British Columbians and what legislation gets enacted in this House?

There's no acceptable answer. The clear answer, of course, is that it's payback, the big payola that went back to the B.C. Federation of Labour and the big unions that fund and drive NDP campaigns. It's amazing to me the crass way that Mr. Georgetti presumes to speak publicly for the government of British Columbia in various matters. It's a tremendous insult to this government, frankly, and an insult to every one of those government backbenchers.

How must it feel to their constituents? They elect an MLA. They send the MLA to Victoria to represent them. That MLA sits silently on his or her hands, won't get up in this House and speak to the hoist motion on Bill 26, won't get up and speak on the motion to refer Bill 26 to a select standing committee of the Legislature and apparently won't get up and speak to this motion tonight to not proceed with Bill 26. Why is that? Why does Mr. Georgetti have the status, in the Premier's mind, of being in cabinet -- to the extent that he would say that in a solemn ceremony like the Order of British Columbia ceremony?

Why does he have that kind of power while all of these people are expected to be silent yes-people and just sit there, say nothing and do nothing except wait it out while the opposition does everything it can to protect British Columbians from this misguided move?

Why the haste to have this bill debated the very day after it was tabled? Why the closed-mindedness and the refusal to listen to what the opposition is saying -- or indeed to what the people are saying? The Premier said he heard it when he spoke with Mr. Pattison and the other business leaders prior to the commencement of this session. The Premier clearly did hear it in Kamloops, because he repeated it and he paraphrased it very well. But the NDP refuses to listen. Instead, they try these weak dodges.

In speaking against Bill 26, as we are committed to doing, and in working against Bill 26, as we are obviously doing with everything we've got, they try to take the position that somehow we're being anti-worker. Of course, that isn't true at all -- far from it.

I have a history in the labour movement in British Columbia as a shop steward, as an executive council member, as a board member of an 8,000-member union. I never lost a union election. I represented workers for half my career, until I entered management. I found that with the grievances and concerns I handled for workers, more often the upset was with the union than with management. That's a curious thing, isn't it? Workers tended to be upset about things like promotion on the basis of seniority rather than on the basis of merit.

That offends people in 1998, and it's something that unions are going to have to come to grips with. It's something that makes businesses and workers uncompetitive in 1998, because it's really outdated thinking. It's the sort of thing that deeply offends workers.

The official opposition believes in the right that workers have to choose who is going to represent them and, indeed, whether or not they want to have representation by a union. We believe that if a union has something to offer, it should be able to represent itself forthrightly.

When the member for Victoria-Hillside spoke . . . . I commend him for speaking, because there weren't that many government, NDP, members who had the courage to stand up and speak. When he spoke, he talked about organizing and how he and his comrades would go around to pubs and bars and sign people up while they were drinking. That's a mysterious thing, I thought. Why would they have to go where people are drinking? Do you need to get them a little drunk to convince them that you've got something to sell or give some reason that they would want to be associated with a union?

When I represented workers in a union, I didn't need to have them in a position of being affected by any intoxicants for them to know that I was representing them and working hard for them. So why is it necessary for these people to sneak around and sign them up in pubs and bars, instead of being upfront with them? It's something that's troubled me.

On this side of the House we understand full well the sacrifices that people have made in the past in order to have unions, and the grief that's been brought on people by bad management in the past. But a lot of those things are things of the past. It's very destructive to the economy of this province to carry on these ancient adversarial positions, instead of seeking to march into the next millennium equipped to compete in the worldwide marketplace that British Columbia is up against.

Bill 26 is another major step backwards, and it will damage the economy of British Columbia. It already has. Just the fact that this government has demonstrated that there's been no change at all in the course of the provincial NDP has been very destructive to the economy. The kinds of jurisdictional disputes that the Building Trades Council is famous for are the very kinds of things that cause people to shy away from British Columbia as a place to do business.

When I was a member of the OTEU, Local 378, and on their executive council and their board, I and many others resisted this drive amongst the big unions to donate money to the NDP. We felt that it was wrong to take people's union dues and give them to a political party, because many of the workers who paid those union dues weren't NDP members or supporters at all. We felt that it really compromised the ability of the union to represent its members when it was so clearly seeking to get in bed with the provincial NDP.

Sure enough, it's been a very destructive outcome for this province, and it has led to this kind of closed-minded thinking by the government members, where they seem to feel that they actually have to compromise all the best interests of their constituents and ignore all the input from their constituents. We know they're getting the same input we are -- that this is a tremendously damaging piece of legislation. Somehow they're forced by the loyalties that they have internally to ignore the input of those constituents and, rather, do what Mr. Georgetti wants them to do.

When I was a shop steward, I was frequently a delegate to B.C. Federation of Labour conventions and would listen to the speakers at the microphones. I was always astonished at

[ Page 9989 ]

the malevolence toward volunteers -- the anti-volunteerism that many of the union bosses at the B.C. Federation of Labour conventions would exhibit. Again, we've seen the destructive force of that anti-volunteerism in the things that have happened in the Children and Families ministry and in many things that have happened to volunteer associations and societies -- and their property -- throughout British Columbia under the reign of terror that this NDP government has been for volunteer agencies. It seems to be a party and a government that have completely gone over to the side of select special interests. Mr.

Georgetti clearly is prince among those special interests -- a very destructive thing for B.C.

So what is the result? In British Columbia we have tremendous pessimism with regard to our economic future. The Toronto-Dominion Bank published a report saying that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year and for the next two years. That's going to take us right up to the next election and probably past it.

Surely those types of results would cause the NDP members opposite to have some second thoughts about the course that they and their government have been taking, which has led to these terrible results -- snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, poverty from riches and bringing about this tremendous level of unemployment, unhappiness and fear about British Columbia and its economy.

The minister repeatedly said that somehow, in his mind, if the Liberals would just stop talking about the problems, the problems would get better. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister -- through you, hon. Speaker -- but we can't be your Pollyannas. We can't pretend that things are good in British Columbia when the economy has gone from first to worst, from the best in Canada to the worst-performing economy in Canada. What a shameful thing! What a perverse result!

Bill 26 is just one more dumb move on the heels of a whole parade of dumb moves made by this government over the last seven years. The reason that it makes moves like this, of course, is its bad motivation: the fact that it's captured by the B.C. Federation of Labour. It's a captive of the nineteenth cabinet minister, Mr. Georgetti.

British Columbia is referred to as the most negative investment climate in the world. What a reputation for our province to have. What a terrible thing! When we talk to executives from major international companies who look at British Columbia and other places as potential sites for new plants and places to do business, they tell us that British Columbia ranks down there with China and Third World dictatorships as one of the most unfriendly business climates in the world.

We've had our Premier running around the province -- around the world from time to time; certainly around North America -- trying to come up with good-news announcements. He's been announcing potential smelters hither and yon throughout British Columbia -- in some cases, in places where everyone knows there'll never be a smelter. But there's a place that's a logical location for a smelter, and that's Alcan, where they already have one. Alcan recently published an analysis saying that they weren't sure that they could proceed with a smelter.

The taxation policies of this government and the high labour costs in British Columbia were going to add between 20 and 30 percent to the cost of that development, rendering British Columbia an unlikely site, apparently, for that kind of expansion.

We hear those results from major forest companies and major mining companies. And when we hear it from someone like Alcan, which clearly is in a position to proceed and has a long and proud history in the province already, surely it should give this government some pause. Surely, hon. Speaker, members opposite -- government members -- should stop and think that there is hard evidence that NDP policies have been hurting the economy of British Columbia, causing investors to turn away.

If they could only reach that point in their minds, instead of mindlessly and endlessly regurgitating and repeating the talking points that their spin doctors give them . . . . If they could reach that point, it wouldn't be much of a step to move on to actually recognizing that Bill 26 is another huge negative for British Columbia -- absolutely huge, a very bad thing. Even the gentlemen who published this report, "Looking to the Future," on behalf of the government, having looked into this whole question of whether or not to bring around any aspect of last year's failed Bill 44 effort . . . . Even Mr.

Kelleher and Mr. Lanyon said that they weren't confident that this was the time to be introducing this type of legislation. There's a clear warning to the government. They seemed to be lacking in confidence that there would ever be a right time, and if that's the way they felt, we believe they were right that there will never be a right time to introduce Bill 26 or last year's Bill 44 or anything like them, because it is unfair to tip the balance so far in favour of one of the parties in the whole labour-management equation, in that whole question.

When a government intervenes in this way, then investors regard the location -- British Columbia, obviously, in our case -- as an unfavourable place to do business. They have many options; capital is tremendously mobile in the late 1990s and going into the next millennium. Once they make their decisions, they can be there for a very, very long time, as we've seen with the existing smelter that Alcan has in Kitimat. I've toured it several times. It's been there generating huge incomes for people for many years now -- decades. A person who has trained for three years there can make $70,000 a year from then on.

[3:30]

The mining industry generally, throughout Canada and formerly in British Columbia, is a huge generator of wealth for our economy. It used to be one for British Columbia's economy. But just as mining has substantially effectively shut down in British Columbia, just as the forest industry has been brought to its knees and is shutting down all around British Columbia as we speak, the construction industry is going to be ground to a halt by these wrong-headed approaches by a government that doesn't seem to be able to learn from its mistakes and its failures. And that is a terrible result.

Are we approaching the day when British Columbia will be sort of a vacation destination for other Canadians -- that Albertans will continue to buy up the recreational property around the Shuswap and throughout the Kootenays and up and down the Columbia Valley?

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The member from the government side calls out "Six Mile." Maybe that'll be the case; maybe only Albertans will be able to afford property at Six Mile, because this NDP government is reducing the economy of British Columbia to such shambles that there are perhaps only going to be minimum-wage jobs for the asking. We look at our youth and the incredible unemployment rate that's been reported this week: 23 percent. What a phenomenally bad result, and how demoralizing for those young people. It's wrong that young British Columbians have to move out of the province in order to have any kind of economic prospects.

[ Page 9990 ]

Interjection.

K. Krueger: I hear the minister's wife across the way heckling, the way she always heckles. She has feathered her nest so well in this House. She won't listen, won't change her ways, won't look at the NDP's results and the way that they affect this province. She just jabbers away, and she and her husband -- the first couple in cabinet . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I don't think that's appropriate.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Perhaps if you'd intervene with her, then you wouldn't have to intervene with me.

But it's just phenomenal that people could be so wrong-headed and so perverse in their outcomes that they would deliver this kind of result. The minister himself, of course, is not only the Minister of Labour but also the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. And there's a priority. With the Delgamuukw decision last December, the Supreme Court of Canada put a huge black cloud of uncertainty over the economy of British Columbia. It's long past time that the minister showed some leadership in the area of interpreting the Delgamuukw decision for British Columbia. But has he done that? No.

Instead, he announced that his priority would be introducing this sectoral bargaining legislation. Incredible -- another blow to this province, to our reputation, to our credibility, to our stature. We've got a minister who thinks it's more important to jam sectoral bargaining through the Legislature than to deal with aboriginal treaty settlement issues and the whole issue of

interpretation of Delgamuukw.

We're faced with the prospect of more blockades. Not far from my constituency is the whole unfortunate Adams Lake situation, where residents have to take a ferry at government expense to get to their homes because the road was severed, arising out of a dispute with aboriginal people because the agreement they signed with this government was never honoured, was never put into place properly. They finally reached the point of frustration, and they dealt with it in that way -- by severing the road.

That's what happens when governments refuse to come to grips with their responsibilities, to make decisions or to show leadership. That's exactly what this minister has done. He has two very important portfolios, obviously. Why would he ignore the one that is clearly so pressing -- the Aboriginal Affairs issues, dealing with the Delgamuukw decision? Why would he turn his back on that and instead decide to drive this sectoral bargaining legislation through the Legislature?

Turning to that question, it troubles me that the government persists in saying that this is not sectoral bargaining. What is it if it's not sectoral bargaining? I'm just reading from the government's news release of June 17, 1998, in which the minister says that this will allow for different forms of trade union representation in the construction industry, and sectoral bargaining schemes of any sort will be rejected. Well, if it isn't sectoral bargaining, then it's just imposition of a contract on a sector, and of course, there's some truth to that

interpretation. I guess you don't have to call it bargaining if you're just saying: "I'm going to take this thing and jam it down the throat of every construction firm in British Columbia." Is that what it is, I wonder -- just another little dishonest play on words?

"We're going to increase competition in British Columbia by forcing you all to work under exactly the same collective agreement and to bid from the very same book, and you've got to know that you're going to be working under these rules no matter what you bid, so you're going to go broke if you introduce any kind of competitive bid." Is that why the minister says it's not sectoral bargaining -- because there's really no bargaining at all? Could be.

For the minister to refer to this as modest, just as this government referred to the massive gambling expansion last year as modest, is such a dishonest thing. These changes are huge, and they have huge consequences for British Columbians. The government ought to have the jam to stand on its feet, to say why it's doing what it's doing and not play around with words this way. Those members opposite who have fallen silent, after heckling so enthusiastically a few minutes ago . . . .

I encourage them to get up on their feet and tell us, if they've got anything to say that justifies not endorsing this amendment, that that justifies them imposing Bill 26 on British Columbians. I don't believe they do, because there is no justification.

It is the wrong thing to be doing; it's a bad thing to be doing. It's sending a message to everyone that nothing has changed in British Columbia under the leadership of this Premier and in the grip of this failed New Democratic Party -- nothing has changed. They will continue to be the same -- these conditions of overtaxation, overregulation and massive interference in labour-management relations that have broken the back of the British Columbia economy and driven us to a position where we're an unattractive location for any investor looking to create jobs or expand jobs or even maintain the jobs that they presently have in this province.

With that, I'll take my seat and defer to my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: It certainly is great to be here at 3:35 in the morning on July 14 . . . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: Bastille Day. I see the flight arrived. I'm really pleased to be speaking today. July 14 is a very special day in my life, and I'll talk about that later today.

I want to speak in support of my colleague from Matsqui, who had the courage to bring forward a very important motion. I'd just like to quote the amendment: "To delete all of the words after 'that' and substitute therefore the following: this House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26) . . . for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." Yes, I support this amendment. I am, quite frankly, very disappointed that government members have not in fact shown any care for the province of British Columbia and its citizens. Former U.S.

Secretary of State George Schultz once noted that trust and credibility are the currency of public office. Last year the socialist government . . . . Bill 44 was downplayed as minor by the former Minister of Labour. A year later the minister may have changed, but the government message remains the same. Step by step, inch by inch, this government and its actions are poisoning the labour relations climate in British Columbia and killing investor confidence, killing investment and taking away the precious jobs that British Columbians so rightly want and deserve.

It's not just jobs for the workers; it's the impact on their families.

I realize that many of the government members come from major urban markets and aren't in touch with what's happening in the north or the interior of British Columbia. Beyond Hope, there is a whole province, and these people, this government, should listen. When there are people in

[ Page 9991 ]

places like Kamloops telling them, as my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson mentioned . . . . People came with the sincere intent of helping this government, helping the province of British Columbia, helping to get families back to work. But what are the most current results of the economic policies of this government? Student unemployment in British Columbia was just under 23 percent at the end of June, the second-highest in Canada.

The same gang that brought the B.C. economy to its knees now wants to bring you, the province, the son of Bill 44. The economy of British Columbia is on life support, and introducing Labour Code changes now is like pulling the plug. We cannot afford more investment-killing, job-killing, small business-killing policies here in British Columbia. We all know, and members over there know, that Bill 26 is just the thin edge of the wedge. The Premier and the NDP know they can't impose Ken Georgetti's entire agenda all at once, so they're imposing it piece by piece, a step at a time. He's cabinet minister No. 19.

The Premier acknowledged that at a public ceremony. British Columbians should be embarrassed for their Premier, and they should be shocked at the way this government is treating the democratic process. To have to be debating in this House, at quarter to four in the morning, because this government is so intent on pushing through the Georgetti bill before he goes on his holidays later this week . . . .

This bill is going to kill investment. It's hurting investor confidence, and it's going to significantly hurt future employment opportunities for our youth. But we must remember that it is this government's Minister of Forests who has said so often: "Remember, government can do anything it wants." This government apparently does whatever it wants whenever it wants, with no regard for its responsibility to govern on behalf of all British Columbians. Bill 26 is not supported by the majority of British Columbians surveyed in two polls.

In both polls, British Columbians overwhelmingly turned down the concept of sectoral bargaining. Bill 26 is the latest attack on employees' rights and employers' rights.

Having operated and been part of a rebuilding operation of the British Columbia grape and wine industry, I know what it's like to work side by side with workers at the winery and to understand their problems, to understand the concerns of their families and to understand about job security. You know, I'm very proud of those workers that I worked with, because together we were able to work hard to turn an industry around -- more importantly, turn around the company they worked for. They shared together in the successes of that company, and their biggest dividend is their secure job.

That's what comes from viable businesses; that's what comes by allowing people that own a business to work hand in hand with their workers, who understand each other's situation as opposed to having something imposed upon them from some big union boss in Vancouver -- or even Washington, D.C., as many of these unions are international. So the one-size-fits-all approach is just not going to work in British Columbia. It never has, and it never will. You would think, as this government goes through disaster by ministry . . . . It doesn't matter what ministry this government has touched; the one-size-fits-all solution throughout British Columbia has not worked, and it will not work.

[3:45]

This government just cannot do whatever it wants whenever it wants, because people are sick and tired. They're tired of their children having to move to Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, San Francisco, Seattle or Oregon. People are fed up. I mean, quite frankly, as an elected official I was embarrassed for all elected officials having to read the Province paper on Sunday on how people are talking about moving to the promised land of Alberta -- people who were born and raised in British Columbia and who are having to move to Alberta. That is fundamentally wrong.

There is no reason for this great province to be in the position that it finds itself today other than the fact of the mismanagement by the socialist NDP government.

You know, hon. Speaker, some of the ministers on the other side of the House have said in public forums that they are going to act on behalf of all the constituents of British Columbia. One in particular, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, said on February 26, 1998, in Kelowna that he was going to act as the advocate for all small business and tourism operators in the province. I note in a recent July 6 release that, "96 percent of B.C. exports are from small and medium-sized businesses," stated the minister. Now, let us think: exports -- that means they are competing in the global marketplace.

That means we are going to have to be competitive to be successful. Yet that minister has failed to stand in this House and state his position as the advocate for small business and tourism with respect to Bill 26. This bill is going to kill investor confidence in British Columbia and lead us further down the road to bad results.

You know, it's really discouraging when you look at what the Labour minister said -- that he was going to use as his criteria, as his accountability matrix, if I could . . . . What he was going to use . . . . He says in his first points . . . . I think there are five points here, and I may have time to do them all. If I don't, you'll get the gist, hon. Speaker. The first one he said is that we must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and international marketplace. Well, that's a great goal to measure against.

But if that's the goal, why has this government, and in particular the minister responsible, not conducted a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate to British Columbians what the impact of this legislation would be? Why would he choose not to do that? Does he know that it can't meet his own tests? One would almost think that there's a conspiracy theory here. What are we really trying to achieve from that side? Who do they owe? What do they owe? Why are they pushing this through with so little public debate? Why is that happening?

The minister went on to say that we must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But this bill doesn't allow that. It doesn't allow the employer and the employee to build their own contracts -- a fundamental that I thought the NDP stood for. But maybe they're further to the left than we really think.

The minister went on to say that we must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs. Well, we know how we're doing on the job creation front. We lost 19,000, while Alberta gained 22,000. We know that youth and student unemployment is now the second highest in Canada, at just under 23 percent. We know that we've lost almost 13,000 jobs in the forestry sector since the government announced the jobs and timber accord.

But the issue here is creating stability. This motion talks about the risk of further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy. Investor confidence comes in large part from government's actions and what the commentators are saying about the government's actions and their intentions. The Wall Street Journal , probably one of the most respected investor papers in the world . . . . I quote from a

[ Page 9992 ]

June 4, 1998, report under the "International" section: "British Columbia's socialist government, led by former union leader . . . . " That's the Premier, of course. We can't use his name, but I think people know who he is. This

article goes on to quote Jock Finlayson, an economist with the Business Council of B.C. He notes that the province's economy "began underperforming Canada's well before Asia's problems surfaced late last year." Yet if we listen to this government, all of the problems in British Columbia are because of Asia, and that's just not so. The facts show it's not so. Major international corporations such as Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd. will look for acquisitions outside of the province. That means that investment dollars are going to flow out of our province, and investment dollars mean jobs. That's what this motion is talking about: the loss of investor confidence.

The closing paragraph is: "But many remain troubled by the province's track record and its continuing budget deficit. 'Until the government does an about-face on high taxes and [restrictive] labour laws, I think its actions are window dressing . . . . ' " Hon. Speaker, that's not the Liberals talking; that's not our leader talking. That is a recognized leader in the financial community of the Wall Street Journal. Some members on the other side may say: "Well, you know the Americans." Of course, the Premier was just down in the States wanting to meet a major Senator, but I guess that didn't happen.

Let's look at one of our major financial papers, the Financial Post , from Canada . On June 19 the headline said: "Rocky Labour Relations Cloud B.C.'s Business Climate." Now, that is certainly going to bring investors here. That's certainly going to bring investment dollars here; that's certainly going to help us create jobs. Their editorial closes: "The government would have been wise just to leave its labour laws alone and spend that political energy on issues that would improve the business climate."

Why is it, hon. Speaker, that these recognized leaders, who have no axe to grind with the socialist government of British Columbia . . . ? Why are they not listening? Why are they not acting? I thought I remembered the Premier saying that he was on the side of British Columbians, that he was listening. Do you remember that? I remember that. But he's also the Premier who said: "We're going to have our second balanced budget" and "We had nothing to do with Hydrogate" and "We're going to pay back Bingogate."

It's about trust; it's about confidence. The investment community has no confidence in this government -- whether it's the investment community in B.C., the Canadian investment community, the American investment community or the investment community of the world. It wasn't that long ago that the world entrepreneurial leaders met in Vancouver, and the Bill Gates of Taiwan said: "You know, there's only one thing wrong with British Columbia -- high taxation and labour laws. You can't invest here."

The chief, the Minister of Human Resources, snickers. She used to be the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. The minister should know that these are not joking matters. These are very, very serious times. Perhaps the title of the book that the minister is reading from time to time is appropriate, because the government is adrift. Check the title.

But the Minister of Labour says that we must consult carefully with key stakeholders before making changes to laws, policies and regulations. But did he listen? The answer is no. Did he act upon the advice? The answer is no. The Federation of Independent Business said: "Don't touch the Labour Code." COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations, said: "Don't touch the Labour Code." The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, which represents communities throughout our entire province, from Sparwood to Terrace to Chetwynd to Penticton to Merritt, said: "No changes to the Labour Code." That's what they said. What did the B.C.

Real Estate Association say? "Any changes to the Labour Code will negatively impact housing affordability." What did the Canadian Homebuilders Association of British Columbia . . . ?

Interjection.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: You know, hon. Speaker, before some of those members snicker at some of these organizations, perhaps they should get in touch with their constituents. Maybe they should find out who is creating jobs in their ridings.

What did the Canadian Homebuilders Association of British Columbia say? "No changes to the Labour Code." Now, these are people who get up in the morning, take their crew, go to work and try to build affordable housing for British Columbia families, and this NDP socialist government wants to put them down. That's unacceptable. What did the Restaurant and Foodservices Association say? They said: "No changes to the Labour Code."

You know, we hear all too often that you're not in touch with your constituents. Well, I try to be in touch with my constituents. When I get letter after letter after letter . . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Actually, they don't all say the same thing. At some point in time we'll share them with the minister. But we go from architects that say: "Stop . . . . "

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I haven't heard from them.

We go from automobile dealers . . . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: Just a minute. I think I hear them calling for a flight at the airport, hon. Speaker.

[4:00]

What are the automotive dealers saying -- the people who provide vehicles for working families? They say "Stop." That's what they say.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: This is the problem, the fundamental problem. The member for Victoria-Hillside has hit the nail on the head. They do not understand. He may recall that there was an American election, and one of the President's advisers said: "It's the economy, stupid. It's all linked together. It all works together. It's about investments. It's about jobs. It's about families providing for their children." Perhaps when some of the members over there wake up, and if the House rises later this fall, they should take a simple economics course. They may understand some of the concepts.

They may understand that if you take investors' money, you invest it. You create a product, you produce it, and you do that by employing people who they look after their families. Then they can look after

[ Page 9993 ]

providing education for their families, health care for their families and a future for their families. But perhaps that concept could be fairly deep for some of the members over there. I know that some of them profess to understand, but their actions say they do not understand how it works. They do not understand that it's the private sector that creates jobs, not big, centralized, socialist government. It does not provide jobs.

If we listen to this government, what do we have to be concerned about? We've only gone from number one to number ten. That's all that's happened in British Columbia. Our unemployment rate is almost double every other western province, and it's the highest west of Quebec. Student unemployment is now the second highest in Canada. Capital investment is running at 50 percent of the Canadian average, and 391 businesses have left British Columbia in the last five years. Last year alone 107 left for Alberta, hon. Speaker, and I know you understand the importance of that impact.

People vote with their feet. It's a sad commentary that the great province of British Columbia, with the richness of our minerals, our forests, our strategic location, our workforce . . . . Why are we losing so many people from our province to other jurisdictions in Canada and to the United States? Since 1982 the lowest figures . . . and now it's a net flow of people out of the province.

What does the future look like? The Toronto-Dominion Bank, I think, was actually a partner of this government in an automotive purchase and also in the Skeena bailout. The T-D Bank -- what are they saying? They are saying that we are going to be number ten this year, next year and the year after. It's hard to believe that our growth is forecast to be zero. Newfoundland is 5 percent; Ontario, 4.5 percent; Alberta, 4.1 percent; Manitoba, 3.7 percent; Saskatchewan, 3.4 percent; Nova Scotia, 3 percent; New Brunswick, 2.5 percent.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: You have to listen, because the important thing here is . . . . A member over there is mumbling that we've heard this before. But you don't get it. You do not get it. You haven't got it. You're not going to get it. The only thing is, you're going out. That's what is going to happen. You'll be going out.

What we have to ensure happens in British Columbia is that we have competent people managing this province, and to date this government, under the leadership of the one-man wrecking crew, has proved that it is incompetent. How can anyone take an economy, blessed with the riches of this province, from number one to number ten? How can someone take our debt to almost $32 billion -- higher than all of the other governments in the history of British Columbia added together -- in seven years? We can't take this government any longer. There is no investment. There are no jobs for the future.

I am very proud of the fact that our member for Matsqui has brought forward this motion.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: We hear, every once in a while, a little nattering from the other side, but very few have had the courage to stand up in this House and be held accountable, to their constituents -- to the people of British Columbia, whom they deceived in the last election.

Let us close with a . . . . It's happens over time. The former Premier said, on April 22, 1987: " . . . for the reasons that it is contrary to the interests of democracy and our traditions of free collective bargaining to grant the non-elected chairman of the Industrial . . . such wide powers . . . . " Then, of course, on April 14 the Premier was quoted: "Clearly, I think saner heads should prevail and that we should take some time -- maybe not six months; the motion to hoist was defeated -- to put it to a parliamentary committee, to take . . . the province to debate it, to look at the ramifications." Hon.

Speaker, what has happened to the Premier of this province? Why has he changed his position so drastically in a mere 11 years?

L. Reid: I too rise to debate the motion that would have us have some substantive discussion regarding the future of Bill 26. It is about investor confidence in British Columbia; it isn't about anything else. The motion reads: " . . . risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." My colleague talks about the package, and it isn't possible to have the discussion without ensuring that both of those elements are covered off this afternoon -- and, frankly, this morning as well, because it's now 4 a.m. in the provincial Legislature.

I too would reference some quotes that have gone before.

"What government has done with this particular piece of legislation -- which it is apparently bound and determined to push through, come hell or high water or other such stuff -- is simply to confirm the suspicions of so many."

Another quote, also of April 8, is:

"We would like to work on the assumption that while, to be sure, it is government's right and job to govern, the government, by definition, also consists of an opposition -- an opposition that ought to be consulted and yes, perish the thought, even listened to sometimes. However, what has happened in this Legislature thus far is that there has not been any evidence in fact, substance, that this government is indeed prepared to do that listening."

What a difference a decade makes, hon. Speaker. Those are the words of the current Minister of Labour when he was in opposition. At some point in his evolutionary life as a parliamentarian he had a grasp of what it was to have both sides of the House be part of a discussion that was in the best interests of the province. He has apparently lost that commitment. I'm certainly not impressed with the lack of homework, the lack of response, the lack of a cost-benefit analysis and the lack of an economic viability study and of an economic impact study.

All of those things are missing from this debate because this minister has chosen to not provide sufficient, reasonable background to the people of British Columbia. That's an enormous concern to me.

I want this to be a principled debate, because this is the principle of the future of this economy. This is all about safeguarding the economy. That is where we are today. We cannot somehow drift off into all the other legislation that this government would like to pursue, unless the foundation is firmly in place and the foundation is a vibrant economy. Today no one the world over is referring to British Columbia's economy as vibrant. That's a concern. We have the best chance of all the provinces of being number one. This House knows that we now sit in the tenth spot across the country.

It's absolutely nothing to be proud of when it comes to delivering the very best possibilities of life and livelihood to British Columbians -- to citizens, to families, to the people the members opposite profess to represent. They have a stake in this debate -- each and every one of them. At 4 o'clock in the morning, each and every British Columbian has a stake in this debate, because this is about safeguarding the economy.

I would submit that there is little understanding from the government benches. There is little respect for the fact that

[ Page 9994 ]

British Columbians will find it more difficult to keep disposable dollars in their pockets following this bill. That's a fact. They had a tough enough time after the government deceived the province regarding their balanced budget. They had a tough enough time ensuring that investors retained confidence in this province. This is one in a series of steps that will not be in the best interests of British Columbians and that, frankly, will not serve this province well.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank talks about British Columbia having the worst economy in the country for the next three years. There's no hopefulness in that statement; there's no optimism. There's no commitment on behalf of this government that they have some opportunities to make life better, to do the right thing, to ensure that some decency is in place for individuals who work really, really hard week after week to return a decent standard of living to their families. This statement crushes the optimism they might have had -- crushes it out and eliminates it for three additional years.

We've already had seven years of mismanaging the public trust, mismanaging public finances. This will round it out to a complete decade of, I think, bad money management. Certainly that's a concern to me.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank is forecasting zero percent economic growth this year. How does that offer hope to British Columbians, who indeed might wish to make some choices with their disposable income -- some decisions that are in the best interests of their families? None of this offers hope to individual British Columbians, who in the past probably supported much of the work of this government. That was prior to this scenario, which sees British Columbia being in the worst economic position in the country. It was only in 1991 that this province was in the best economic spot -- from the best to the worst in seven short years.

We have a climate that's uncertain, and then we have a government that introduces legislation that will craft further imbalance. Investment-killing Labour Code changes will craft further imbalance. Certainly the Minister of Finance has taken to citing readily in the last number of weeks the good things banks have done for the province, to the extent that she even gave them a tax cut. Now we have banks saying: "Sit up, take notice and listen."

You as a government need to listen when banks are forecasting dire consequences for a majority of British Columbians. This is not an isolated report. This will impact every single British Columbian as we move through . . . . That has to rest on some conscience of the members opposite; it has to have an impact on their thinking. For the next three years, they cannot ignore the plight of their constituents who are unable to find employment and unable to provide for their families. Those decisions result only in an increased call on the social service rolls in this province. They craft only greater dependence on the programs this government offers, which are paid for by the taxpayer.

[4:15]

We're not saving any money if indeed the demand is greater for social services in the province because of the government's ill-timed and ill-conceived labour legislation. There are no cost savings around that. You are rewarding one group while you turn around and punish an entire segment of the population that is not in a strong financial or earning position. That's what this is about. This is about punishing a sector of the economy; a sector of our constituents will be damaged by this legislation. That's not something anyone can be particularly proud of or should be particularly proud of.

The press of the day, in the last month, has talked about a battered B.C. economy, with thousands planning to leave. Since this

article was written on June 20, many more people have left this province. I'll put this comment on the record: "B.C.'s slowing economy caused an outflow of nearly 3,600 British Columbians to the rest of Canada during the first quarter this year, the first quarterly interprovincial loss of migrants since the mid-1980s, according to the B.C. Stats report." Their own report is telling them that people are leaving in the thousands to find their fortunes elsewhere, because they don't believe this is a fair and just place to do business.

That's what this is about -- a fair and just place to do business. It's not possible to separate out that notion from investor confidence, and it's not possible to separate it out from whether or not we have a vibrant economy. Those concepts are married together and will be for all time. When this government chooses to tamper with one aspect of the equation, the domino effect is significant. The repercussions are huge, simply huge, when it comes to whether or not the average British Columbia family has more dollars in their pocket. Disposable income is on the increase . . . and those decisions rest with this bill tonight.

That is why this official opposition is taking that so seriously. Whether or not British Columbians have disposable income next year and the year after is directly hinged to this bill. If you remove investor confidence in this province, and if people take their dollars and leave, you have hampered, hindered and diminished the possibility of British Columbians being successful. I know I've had this discussion many, many times about the lack of regard and understanding of the entrepreneurial spirit in British Columbia.

It cannot be further evidenced than by the lack of regard for scientists and researchers who would come to this province and create employment. They are the only individuals who can.

There's no durability to yet another government job of some interesting length and of interesting application. We are looking at jobs that can support individuals monetarily -- no question -- but also intellectually. We have individuals who are prepared to make significant contributions to how this province works and to answer some significant questions on behalf of British Columbians. Do they feel supported by this government? Not by a long shot. They feel that this government is out to diminish their likelihood of success.

Those are the individuals who are leaving this province. Those are the individuals who have mobility and are able to leave. Many people do not have that choice open to them, and they will continue to be subjected to bad legislation that will negatively impact how people live their lives in the province. Those who have the mobility to leave will leave; those who don't will be stuck here, subjected to the terrible lack of vision put forward by this government when it seems to knowingly talk about how to build a strong economy and does everything contrary to that, taking steps in the opposite direction.

On June 18, 1998, "Labour War Is Last Thing Province Needs Right Now . . . . " Again, there are some amazing articles by people who have often been supportive of things this government has done in the past. This is the straw that breaks the camel's back; they can no longer support the direction they see this government going in. They see this version of Bill 44 doing a lot of damage in British Columbia.

A concluding quote, hon. Speaker: "Whatever the reason, brace yourself as a B.C. citizen for exactly the last thing your struggling, debt-ridden province needs right now: a labour war, pitting the investors with money in their pocket against a government with a debt to repay." It pretty much sums up the discussion. Those words were spoken not a month ago. This

[ Page 9995 ]

scenario has not improved. That's exactly the situation we find ourselves in today, and will for many, many days -- and, frankly, the next three years, according to the Toronto-Dominion Bank. This scenario will not improve, by any stretch of the imagination, over the next three years. That's an eternity for British Columbians who are waiting for their life and livelihood to improve.

We know, based on numerous reports, not the least of which is the B.C. Stats report, that those with mobility will leave. There will be lots of individuals in this province who don't wait around on the off chance that this government will come to its senses and actually put into place a reasonable business climate.

If you listened to the Minister of Finance when she introduced her budget, she talked about having met with business, having listened to business, and said that she might actually do something that made sense for business. There's nothing yet; not a budget for 1998. Frankly, it's a budget for 1999 -- and a 0.5 percent tax cut maybe next year. Frankly, why would we suggest that this time we're getting the honest goods? Pretty soon, the train of deceit will speak for itself. This government hasn't been honest with the taxpayer, and it's not being honest today when it talks about this bill being modest.

The minister herself said many, many times that doing anything to unsettle the business climate would not be helpful. She seemed to have that message worked into her thinking. What happened? Somehow that message is no longer with us today.

I'll put the exact quote on the record: "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." It seems pretty straightforward. It was signed by the Minister of Finance. What happened to that since the third day of June of this year -- just a little over a month ago? How could this sentiment change that dramatically? These pieces of legislation are absolute contradictions to what the minister said when she introduced the budget.

I think that at some point the government has to come to grips with the fact that most of what they say is contradictory. Most of what they say is illogical when it comes to safeguarding the economy. They need to come to grips with the fact that people are looking for decent, fair and just government. They're not looking for people who unduly meddle in their lives, in their business. They're looking for people who take forward opportunities and craft employment. We all know that those are the only individuals in the province who do craft durable employment.

Government is not the economic driver; it's small business. Small and medium-sized business is what has made this province great. It is indeed what has crafted very fine employment opportunities for a whole range of British Columbians and will continue to do so if this government pulls back on this discussion today around Bill 26, doesn't tamper with the fragile economic climate and doesn't put forward legislation that is absolutely contrary to the stated objectives of the Minister of Finance. Someone has to coordinate the package on that side of the House.

Someone has to ensure that what is said at one point actually coordinates effectively with what is said by other members of this cabinet. I would suggest that that is not happening. One minister continually contradicts the work of another.

It begs the big question: who's in charge? We're not clear anymore. I'm not convinced that government truly understands how ineffective its current presentation is and how deplorable its current presentation is for supporting British Columbians -- the citizenry who elected these individuals. They truly want to see better, cohesive, more precise decision-making. A series of contradictions serves no one.

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind the member that the debate is on the amendment to the bill.

L. Reid: Absolutely -- and the amendment to the bill, hon. Speaker, is about fostering investor confidence and the British Columbia economy. None of my remarks have strayed from that topic, because that is the topic that we are here to address this evening. Frankly, it's the only topic that concerns British Columbians: is this government doing anything to improve its economic outlook, the economic forecast, that they and their families will experience over the next two to three years? The answer to that is zero. This government is not assisting British Columbians.

This government will unsettle the labour climate to the extent that more British Columbia investors will take their money and go. So I am absolutely speaking to the amendment.

I'll put on the record correspondence from the Gisborne Group, written to the Premier on July 9:

"Dear Premier:

"As the owner of a business in British Columbia and a creator of 300 jobs" -- when was the last time the government could say that they created a single job, let alone 300 jobs? -- "I am appalled by the government's latest labour legislation, Bill 26. This legislation will further undermine investor confidence in the B.C. economy. I urge you to send a strong and positive signal to the job creators of B.C. by cancelling this legislation immediately."

Cancelling the legislation -- that is what they believe is required to ensure that this province stays on a reasonable economic footing. We're a long way from vibrant, hon. Speaker, but trust that we can achieve some level of a reasonable economic climate. That should not be a difficult task. That should be something that this government strives to do. That should be their number one objective.

Indeed, if the economy is strong, governments can afford to purchase other services and fund other programs. If indeed the government's economy is not strong, where do they get those dollars? By increasing taxation? That would be a very sophisticated move.

There are so few choices in this life that it's interesting that they would make the choice that is the most damaging to the provincial economy, which is to unsettle the job creators to the extent that they leave, so that the only choice they have left is to tax British Columbians further. British Columbians today are only looking to have increased dollars in their pockets, to have somebody respect the hard work and the effort they put into sustaining their families. That's what the majority of British Columbians have asked for. We know that to be true, because they certainly asked it of government.

Frankly, again, ministers opposite send contradictory messages. Ministers opposite have heard that government is expected to deliver some honesty and some decency, some integrity, to the process. They are expected to make life reasonable, not unreasonable -- not to choose the harshest course of action and put that in place and then to somehow stand up and take pride in not having done an economic impact study. They say: "Well, we're not really clear on how bad this is going to get, so hang on for another rocky ride." Dead wrong. It's insensitive, it's callous and it's mean-spirited.

All of those things are not attributes that people are looking for in their government. It doesn't make me particularly proud of how disjointed, uncoordinated and illogical the legislation that emanates from the government benches is. It's a sad comment

[ Page 9996 ]

when you have legislation that contradicts the sentiment and the commentary of other ministers, because, again, it's not a unified package. If they can't manage a legislative agenda, I have serious doubts that these individuals can manage an economy. We've not been impressed with their level of management skill demonstrated to date. I would suggest that, frankly, it hasn't existed on the government benches.

[4:30]

Millions and millions of dollars spent by the Minister for Children and Families in a rewriting process around programs -- millions of wasted dollars, because again they didn't do their homework . . . . Think -- each and every member opposite needs to think about the value of that money, placed in the right hands. People in social service today could have done some wonderful things around child protection issues, which is the stated objective of this government -- a stated objective denied, ignored and now eliminated from the government's plan.

Misspent dollars in most ministries opposite confound the taxpaying public who provide those dollars. Indeed, this government can demonstrate zero accountability and zero integrity when it comes to disrupting the lives of countless numbers of British Columbians.

That's what the decision was all about around the Minister for Children and Families: disrupting thousands of lives, because the government didn't do their homework yet again. Then the government seems bemused when people bring them to task for that. This is about reasonable spending decisions that need to be supported by strong research. This government needs to do their homework and hasn't demonstrated on any front that it is indeed the case. Just think what British Columbia families, who are seeking $30 and $40 a week for respite care to assist them in the care of their special needs child, could have done with the millions of dollars wasted by this Minister for Children and Families.

Is that an economic question? Absolutely it is, hon. Speaker; there's no question that it's an economic question. There's no doubt that individual British Columbians know better how to spend their tax dollars than this government has demonstrated to date; that is a fact. So when we talk this evening in this particular discussion about investor confidence and the economy, those kind of decisions confound British Columbians who are attempting to make good on the promises to their families, to their employees.

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind the member again to speak to the bill -- to the amendment to the bill.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I believe I am. I am convinced that this discussion is about investor confidence in the economy, which are the only words on the paper on the motion we've submitted to the Speaker.

Interjection.

L. Reid: I'm intrigued by the commentary from the members opposite, because they too know that this is about investor confidence and about safeguarding the provincial economy. That is one of the basic tenets of coming together today; that is the basic tenet.

Interjections.

L. Reid: What I think the members opposite have forgotten, hon. Speaker, is the ability to listen. I would ask the Speaker to bring the House to order.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I would also like to remind you once again that a general discussion on the bill is not relevant to the motion. So I would also ask you to please continue to keep your remarks to the bill. I will also call the House to order.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

There is much discussion about individuals who could make a reasonable contribution to this economy, how they feel about Bill 26 and how important safeguarding investor confidence and safeguarding the economy is to their life and livelihood. Many of these individuals are members of the Chamber of Commerce. John Winter, president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, says he's "appalled but not terribly surprised." He's describing the business community's reaction to Bill 26, the proposed changes to the Labour Code. "It sends entirely the wrong message to the investment community . . . .

" That is the tenor of the motion: investor confidence. The man who is the president of the chamber of commerce says that it's sending the wrong message: " . . . that this government, despite recent initiatives, is not at all interested in creating a business-friendly economic climate in our province" -- which means they are discounting the ability of business people to generate employment. Yet the research is clear. We know full well that those are the only individuals that do generate employment of any durable nature.

It really is the son of Bill 44, and it introduces, de facto, collective bargaining in the construction industry. It takes away the right of each business to negotiate its own collective agreement. How in the world does that instil investor confidence? That's the question that this House must answer and that members opposite must answer. They must actually get to their feet, participate in debate and explain to British Columbians how that instils investor confidence.

It would be a very fine dance of the seven veils if any of them got to their feet and could answer that question, because we know that those are contradictory statements; we know that those two items do not mesh. British Columbians know that, taxpayers know that, and I think there are members opposite who also know that. They are charging down a path, hoping that somehow they can avoid further scrutiny and future scrutiny, when it's more than obvious that these measures will only impact negatively on the British Columbia economy. They will only impact negatively on investors in the province.

That's the tenor of our motion, hon. Speaker -- that this should be a discussion about fostering investor confidence and safeguarding the British Columbia economy. It's about individuals who don't understand the provincial economy today, the fragile state of the provincial economy, and are seemingly uninterested in crafting employment opportunities. There needs to be some reckoning on the part of these members.

They need to come to some decisions when they are facing their constituents across the table who say: "What have you done to the person who might have invested in my community, who might have brought some dollars to my community?" They won't be thanking you, hon. members. They won't say that this has somehow improved the quality of their lives. They will look at the whole array of government legislation, much of which is contradictory and sends conflicting messages to the taxpayers who fund this process, this economy and this province . . . .

This government needs to come to grips with what is vitally important about this debate this evening. The debate is about safeguarding the economy. Those who have a very large role to play as investors, who might bring money to this economy, this province and a variety of communities, who

[ Page 9997 ]

might say that they are prepared to do business in British Columbia because the government has some understanding of how business works . . . . Could they say that today with any honesty? Not a chance. They know full well that what the government speaks of is not consistent. They know that it is contradictory and that this government sends mixed messages.

The best example is the red-tape committee. The minister stands up and introduces the bill, one of a series . . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I will again remind you that general discussion of the government is not relevant to this bill.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Chair.

We have a government that brings forward contradictory statements, that does not have the future of British Columbia at heart, that does not have the needs of British Columbians at heart -- British Columbians who truly understand what it means to foster an economic climate or safeguard the economy. Either situation will be rectified only by an election.

R.

Masi: It's my pleasure to rise and support the amendment, which asks that this House decline to give second reading to Bill 26, "for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy." We all have concerns about the B.C. economy, but it's ironic that when you look at the situation today, on one hand you have the Finance minister meeting and talking to business leaders on a regular basis and encouraging investment, and you have the Premier calling summit meetings -- as is his wont -- meeting the top business leaders in British Columbia and getting very cosy with the likes of Jimmy Pattison and people like that.

On the other hand, we have the Labour minister tampering with the Labour Code, and we have the Premier, after cosying up to the business leaders of British Columbia, advocating sectoral bargaining and saying that it's a matter of human rights.

In the meantime, while this situation of irony is going on we have over 100 businesses that just upped and left British Columbia. It's sad to see this. It's sad when you see a longtime company like Finning Tractor -- one of the top-line corporate citizens in this province, I'd say, and a longtime employer for over 60 years in British Columbia -- moving its head office to Alberta. That's got nothing to do with the Asian flu. It's lack of confidence in the economic policies of this government. It's sad to see, when we have 16,209 British Columbians leaving the province. They're people that are saying: "We've had enough." They're voting with their feet.

It's also sad to see that the Toronto-Dominion Bank forecast that the British Columbia economy is the worst in Canada this year. You know, this is very disheartening for someone who has lived in this province all their life. Also, the Toronto-Dominion Bank has forecast over the next two years that this year -- 1998 -- there will be a zero percent increase, in 1999 a 0.5 percent increase, and in the year 2000, 1.5 percent. As has been stated again and again -- but I think it's something you have to listen to -- we've gone from first to tenth in economic development in this country.

When you compare our growth rate of zero percent, Ontario's is 4.5 percent, Alberta's is 4.1 percent, and even Quebec's is 2.9 percent. The Canadian average is 3.3 percent. We have a sad and very shaky economic situation in this province.

I think, as well, that no matter how many times the members opposite hear this . . . . Maybe they have to start to listen. Maybe it will sink it in; I don't know. Mark my words, hon. Speaker, they're going to hear it again and again. Maybe it will sink through the thinking department on the other side. Our province has suffered downgrades in credit rating. The Dominion Bond Rating Service has once again lowered us to double-A standing.

I'd also like to talk about British Columbia's after-tax personal income; this is your personal money that you get to spend. Actual spending money has declined by 1.9 percent in 1996 and by 2.3 percent in 1997. That means fewer and fewer dollars into the direct economy. This money goes into things like ordinary businesses: barbershops, hairdressers, restaurants, taxis, extras at the supermarket, home improvements and all these sorts of things that develop a vibrant economy in the province.

We're actually putting literally millions of dollars, which are coming out of the free economy, into debt service costs. That's the tragedy. If we didn't have the major debt, if we weren't in this economic situation, we'd have that money that could go back into the pockets of ordinary people and, of course, develop a more active economy.

So what happens? In the meantime, the Labour minister tampers with the labour bill, while the Premier goes on and on about future sectoral bargaining. But, you know, from January 1997 to January 1998, B.C. lost 19,000 jobs. Good old Alberta -- I hate to bring it up, because I like my province much better -- gained 22,000 jobs.

We have to talk about perception here. The Minister of Labour talks about perception. The minister says that the modern economy functions to a huge degree on perception. Well, I think he's got the seed of the idea there. But the minister's argument is somewhat fallacious, because perception is based upon fact and observation. It's not based upon fantasy. So we have to ask some questions: what do international investors perceive when they examine the economy of British Columbia? What do major corporations perceive when they look at the British Columbia economy?

What do smaller businesses and companies perceive when they leave B.C.? What do thousands of workers perceive when they lose their jobs? That's really serious; that is something we must all be concerned about.

[4:45]

What they perceive is a very shaky economy with zero growth potential. They see unemployment of between 9 and 10 percent. They see youth unemployment at 18.9 percent. They see aftertax income going down. They see credit rating downgrading and very unfortunate forecasts by major banks in the country, and that's why we have difficulty attracting investment. That's why aluminium companies hesitate to come in after looking at the additional costs, the additional problems they will have if they put their investment into British Columbia. When over 100 businesses leave, this is a concern. It has a snowball effect.

Again, in reference to Bill 26, it's just the bad timing we have in relation to that.

Roosevelt's famous remark in the thirties was: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." He was talking about perception, but he took steps to stimulate the economy. I think that's what's lacking here -- not to upset an already fragile economy, as is British Columbia's, with a very ill timed, unnecessary piece of labour legislation.

The timing of this bill is horrendous. If there was ever a time not to implement a change in the Labour Code, it is now. The only demand for this change is the move towards sectoral bargaining. It comes from a

section of the union movement

[ Page 9998 ]

that is not in step with changing times, and that's unfortunate. It's simply a one-off piece of legislation, and it will create an artificial division in the construction industry. There's no doubt that there will be overlap. Overlap will occur between ICI interests and the housing industry, and there's no question that this will happen. Even though the bill may not intend that to happen, there will be -- and I hate to use the word -- a certain amount of seepage into the housing industry involved.

This bill has also created a situation where any new employer is required to accept the master agreement without the right to bargain. Just on general principle, that's not good labour management practice, and it certainly inhibits bargaining rights for the employer. If you're going to have a balance in labour legislation, you must keep a balance at all times.

So what is the problem? Why attempt to pass this one-off bill? Why now? The construction industry isn't hurting. Of all the segments of the economy, it's healthy. Even in the Kelleher-Lanyon report, they stated that in 1997, 129,000 persons were employed . Employment edged upward in the construction industry. That's not too bad, because it's not edging upward in any other component. Unemployment reached a ten-year low of 10.5 percent in 1997, and that was well below the unemployment rate of 17.1 percent in 1993.

If the situation is somewhat stable, if it is fairly stable or looking good, why bring this in? Why bring in this one-off piece of legislation? It's sad to see. I don't want government moving into this area in this manner, because when government moved into mining, we had disastrous results. When government moved into forestry, we had disastrous results. We have to realize that the economy is very fragile and that it really doesn't need any adverse signals at this time. It's unfortunate that this has come along.

I think there's more to all this than these statistics I've been talking about. First of all, I think we have to understand why government is there. There are social responsibilities, and those are very important. Governments cannot carry out their social responsibilities if the economy is fragile and weak and if the economy can't provide the resources to develop good social programs. When you look at the province and see that we're sitting on a $31 billion debt -- and that we again have a deficit of $1 billion, despite what the budget said -- it casts some doubt that the province has the capacity to effectively develop or maintain the numerous social programs that it should be committed to.

I think it's really important that any government must maintain that economic base. Really, what else is government for but to do good for the people of the province, especially a socialist or social democratic government? I'm not sure which it is. These are the things that they have always prided themselves on. We are talking about social welfare programs, health programs, education programs . . . .

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind the member to keep the debate relevant to the amendment.

R. Masi: Absolutely. Part of the economy and investment process in this province is simply to develop programs that will in fact further the good of the people. You can't really, in this day and age, separate any sort of . . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I will clarify that by again reminding you that general discussion of the government is not relevant to the debate of the bill.

R. Masi: If we have a social welfare program in place that's so tightly regulated because of lack of resources and a shaky economy, we leave ourselves in a position where we have people who are actually suffering. If we had an effective economic base, then our social welfare programs would be much better, and we wouldn't have people having to move in with friends or borrow money, or have to give them bus fare to get from one social services agency to another. It's easy to say -- and it's easy for the Ministry of Human Resources to say, "Well, get a job" -- but it revolves around the economic stance of the province.

If you have 21 percent unemployment for males aged 18 to 24 and you have youth unemployment of 18.9 percent . . . . We're not talking about freeloaders here. We're talking about desperate people -- people who need help but can't get it because of the shaky economic base and the lack of investment in this province. When the government fiddles and tampers with the labour laws, which directly affect the economy, this is when we run into trouble developing resources for the social programs and the social assistance that we in fact need in this province.

This government prides itself on developing programs. One of the positive developments . . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, to the amendment.

R. Masi: When we have economic development and investment in this province, government can go ahead and pursue programs that are valuable and worthwhile to the people. I was going to comment on one of the fine programs developed by this government: Youth Works. Now, Youth Works has a connection with training, the economy and jobs, and all this goes together. You cannot separate training, the economy, investment and jobs today; you just can't do it. I mean, training is one big, big component.

You have a very commendable program like Youth Works. We had, I think, a very positive initiative. But with youth unemployment at 18.9 percent, this is one of the programs that should be up and running, dealing with very positive results. What happens is that because there's a lack of resources and because we have a shaky economic base, we have to make cuts in these programs. There have been cuts in the skills development programs, and the programs now -- the ones that are geared to help young people find jobs . . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the debate is on Bill 26 and the amendment to Bill 26.

R. Masi: I must say that the whole economic base is in place to help people, and this is point that we have to talk about. When we talk about concerns in the health area, in the welfare area or about children and families . . . . Children and Families is a another great idea, with a great report by Gove. But then the implementation policies were rushed and poorly designed. Why? Again, the money and the resources weren't there, because of the shaky economy. What had to happen? We saw a whole program rushed in, developed on the cheap. That's basically what it was all about.

Again, it's resources, resources, resources -- resources that aren't there. So where do you find the resources? You find them in the economy.

I have to ask where the social-conscience people were when this ill-timed bill came forward. It will have a definite effect on the economy of the province. We know the difficulties in this economic climate that we live in and the difficulties that face single parents, who are largely women. We know that single parents have to find work, but when unemployment is between 9 and 10 percent, this is very difficult.

[ Page 9999 ]

Again, we have a very legitimate segment of our economy, the single-parent segment, having difficulty. Because of the weak economy, the lack of resources and the unemployment situation, they are put in a very vulnerable situation.

It's the same for any single moms who have teenage kids who are seeking entry-level jobs or part-time work. This is the reality of the unemployment situation and the shaky economy. I know that in Delta North, there are many such situations, and I know this is also the case throughout Surrey. You wonder where the members are who are worried about this very fragile component in our society. What we need there are jobs for single moms and their kids -- to go on in school, to get training and to lead a good life.

We can go on in these fields, and we can talk about education and about all these programs that must sit on the very solid framework of the economy. If the economy is not solid -- if it's as fragile as it is today -- then all these programs are in jeopardy. That's the sad part of it. The part that really bothers me is that all these things are supposed to be sort of the pennant-waving of the government. I mean, this is the thing we hear about. If there's something they can do right, it's supposed to be in social programs.

Well, you can't have effective social programs without an effective economy, and it just keeps going round and round. You have to have the money to pay for them. It's something that, while going through the rules of debate or something like that, may not quite fit -- I'm not sure. But in reality, it does fit, and we can't close our eyes to it. We acknowledge, then, that the economy has a direct effect on social programs.

[5:00]

I have some concerns about the whole union movement in British Columbia. They may not be the concerns you expect to hear, but I do have concerns. I understand that the traditional construction unions have come under tremendous competition in recent times. I understand that there's non-union competition and that there's also competition from industrial unions and wall-to-wall unions, and we know that the so-called industrial unions are growing to a certain extent.

In my last go-round in this House, I mentioned some of the historical aspects of unionism in British Columbia. The union movement certainly has a long and interesting history in B.C., and I don't believe it's something you can just dismiss with a wave of the hand or a shake of the head. I think it's really important that we remember that the union movement and unions have a vital part to play in the economy. I was berated a bit by the Deputy Speaker for speaking about social programs, but you can't sort of lift out the union movement and say, well, that's over here and the economy's over there. It's all part and parcel of the same thing.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

When we have unions like the IWA, a longtime union, getting into sawmill construction, and then we have various other unions like the Christian Labour Association . . . . You have the Carpenters Union involved in some wall-to-wall projects. We know that the boilermakers and the sheet metal workers do quite a bit of their bargaining outside the bargaining council. We have to think about the concept of unionism and where it's going in the future. I don't claim to be an expert in unionism, but I've been somewhat close to it over my history, with family and various people I've been very close to.

We have to realize that the times we live in now are changing very rapidly and that unions have to adapt to changes that, whether we like it or not, are thrust upon us. We have technological changes. Training methodology has drastically changed. We have computerized drafting, computerized metal fabrication, modern tools and machinery, prefabrication, electronics, satellites, the Internet. All these things have made an impact on the whole world. I don't think unions can say they're not part of this.

In all honesty, I really don't believe that craft unions can insist that the trades have to be divided into 16 separate units in this day and age, and I don't think they can demand that training and apprenticing take years to complete. Despite what a lot of people say -- and I certainly hope the members opposite aren't saying this -- our school graduates are really better educated, more aware and more capable than ever before. What they're not, though, is trained. A lot of people mix that up. They say: "Well, these kids can't do anything. They can't do this; they can't do that." But they can do it, and they are capable.

We graduate more people than we ever have before. You compare your curriculum -- I go too far back, but you people can compare it -- and you'll see that it's much more advanced today than it was before. What we're talking about here is that gap between young people coming out of school and training. I don't really think that today we can say to young people: "Look, you have one job to do. You get trained for one thing -- it's going to take you ten years to do it -- and then you might be a journeyman." I just don't think we can go that way.

I think we have to be much more flexible in terms of how we train people, so that they can become multiskilled. There's job mobility today. We change jobs every five years -- I think that's the average -- so we have to realize that concept and develop our training methods to fit that.

I would also really like to ask some of the members opposite, who have had much more to do with unions than I have, what's really wrong with the concept of the wall-to-wall union or the industrial union. What's wrong per se? If we think back to the Depression of the 1930s, the early days when there were a lot of problems in the world and a lot of unemployment, there was talk then of One Big Union -- I think that's what it was called. The One Big Union said: "We take everybody in."

Well, I really have difficulty in understanding why there can't be a broader-based concept of unionism. It's beyond me. I think what we're still trying to get over are a lot of turf wars that have existed over the years. This is a new age, so we can't just say: "Well, we've done it this way in the past. We've had 16 crafts, and that's it." We have to look beyond this.

The members for Okanagan East and Richmond East spoke extensively about the new technological industries and how they have to operate from a much broader base, and it's true. In order to survive, they can't be under restrictive union organization, so the union has to change. Let's look at the structure of unions. The movie industry is another one. It's more logical not to be restricted, if we're going to have these industries and develop them.

I would also like to examine the idea of training and education, in terms of increased productivity. Why can't you build into the agreements, into contracts, the concept of training and education and provide some motivation for companies and employers to, in fact, carry that through? The government has set up ITAC, the Industrial Trade and Apprenticeship Commission. It's an absolutely excellent concept, and we on this side of the House support it. What's wrong with giving ITAC the authority to credential in multiple trades and services? It has to come.

[ Page 10000 ]

What we're looking at here is a restructuring of the concept of unionism -- not eliminating unionism, not throwing it out. Restructure it; see what you can do with it.

Governments themselves have to adapt to changes. In this province, labour issues are really polarized, and it's unfortunate. We've gone from Bill 19, and the former Socred governments way over to this side, right over to Bill 44. We're flipping back and forth.

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

R. Masi: Let's think for the future, and good luck to a reorganization of unionism.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak to the motion put forward by my colleague from Matsqui: "That this House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 26) . . . for the reason that the Bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy."

When a contentious bill such as this labour bill comes before the Legislature, the opposition does not have too many tools to use in their opposition of it. One of the tools that we have is for each member of the opposition to speak for their allotted time, in second reading and on each of the three amendments. The members opposite also have that opportunity, and they should use it in their own allotted time, not when members on this side are speaking.

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: That is what we have been doing, hon. Speaker. We will continue to fight this bill with every tool we can find. With this amendment that we have put forward, we are giving the members opposite a final opportunity to see the light and give British Columbia a fighting chance of survival.

I read in the Saturday, July 11, Vancouver Sun , on the editorial page, a reminder for the NDP about the word "democratic." I will quote from this short article, because I think it speaks volumes about the attitude of the NDP and their socialistic government:

"[The Finance minister] is letting power go to her head. The sharp-tongued MLA from Vancouver-Hastings has dismissed out of hand those who want an environmental review of the new SkyTrain extension. Her reasoning boiled down to: 'Victoria knows best.' Similarly, this week she ridiculed the Liberal opposition's filibuster to highlight the dangers of provincial Labour Code amendments. Again, in her intemperate remarks, logic was replaced with invective. 'It's irrelevant, it's frivolous, it's repetitive. It's got nothing to do with the public good.' "

Well, we beg to differ. It has everything to do with the public good in a democracy. That is the socialist government's arrogant attitude. When will the NDP get it into their heads that less than half the people of this province elected them, and that the majority of British Columbia would like to see them out of office and wish they would call an election, the sooner the better? When will they realize that we live in a democratic country where we have a free choice?

I'm beginning to think that the members opposite have lived under the dictatorship of big labour for so long that they really don't know what free choice is all about. We are opposed to Bill 26, and we will use all of the tools available to us to try and have this disgraceful piece of legislation thrown out.

In other speeches I have made in this House speaking against Bill 26, I mentioned that every day we seem to read bad-news stories in the newspaper. Well, over the weekend I was reading my community newspaper, Surrey Now , and the bad-news stories continue. There was a letter to the editor from Peter Simpson, the chief operating officer of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. Mr. Simpson wrote the letter in response to a column that had been in a previous paper. I want to read to you most of what this letter has to say, hon.

Speaker, because it makes some excellent points on why Bill 26 should be deep-sixed. The headline of the letter says: "Deep-Six Bill 26 Before It's Too Late." I will quote from the letter for the members opposite, because I think it's very important that the members opposite hear what he has to say:

"First, let me make it clear that we are not anti-union. We have members, friends and family in both union and non-union . . . "

Interjections.

B. McKinnon: When they're ready, hon. Speaker, I'll continue.

" . . . sectors -- each to his or her own. This issue is about choice, and we support an individual deciding if the union route is the appropriate route. Bill 26, the Clark government's proposed amendments to the B.C. Labour Code, undermines flexible and fair collective bargaining, and forces individual employers and employees into a one-size-fits-all sectoral deal that will not let them tailor their collective agreement to the unique characteristics of their workplace. Mr. Thompson writes that the 'modest' changes to the Labour Code do not affect residential construction. Don't believe it. Bill 26 allows unions to organize the residential sector through the back door.

"For example, if a multi-unit residential construction project has a commercial component, it will fall under the sectoral agreement of that commercial sector, resulting in less flexibility for employers and workers and higher costs for consumers. In 1992 Bob Rae's Ontario government amended its labour laws, wreaking havoc on an already staggering economy -- much like B.C.'s current situation. The Ontario law gave sweeping powers to unions. In frustration, companies simply closed their doors and moved to friendlier jurisdictions. When the dust settled and the bodies were counted, more than 70,000 construction sector workers lost their jobs.

"Here's an example from the Ontario debacle. A businessman recounted how an electrical union, with the stroke of a pen, made it impossible for his company to carry on its business. The union sent a letter to a company employee who refused to join the union: 'You will be given until Wednesday to join the union or have your employment terminated.' This came from the union, not the worker's employer.

Soon after, the business failed, and the concluding paragraph from the businessman's protest letter to a local politician was as follows: 'I may no longer have a company or a means of income, but I did not, nor will I, give up my rights or my dignity. I can only hope that my story wakes up government officials and motivates them to action before it is too late for other businesses.'

[5:15]

"In Toronto, residential construction is unionized. During the past ten years, 21 construction strikes have occurred there, for a total of 110 weeks of lost production, all during the summer. Currently, there are five craft union strikes in the residential construction sector, and sadly, there have been many cases of threats, violence and vandalism. In one senseless act of vindictiveness, a partially framed senior citizens home was trashed. The public was outraged.

Because the nine-week-old strikes have delayed closing dates, new-home purchasers are storing their belongings and bunking in with friends and relatives. One of the unions is holding out for a 40 percent wage hike. We're not talking about minimum wage here. The pay rates are already in the high-$20- and low-$30-per-hour range.

"Last week we lowered our housing starts forecast in the greater Vancouver area from 15,400 to 10,500 -- the lowest per-capita starts since 1951. The 5,000-starts shortfall means that 12,500 fewer construction jobs will be created this year. The

[ Page 10001 ]

provincial government's proposed amendments to the Labour Code would only exacerbate this precarious situation. The Premier and [Labour minister] should learn from the Ontario example and deep-six Bill 26 before it kills even more B.C. jobs."

That was part of Mr. Simpson's letter. It gives one a chill up their spine when we think of what's going to happen in British Columbia when the members opposite pass this bill. The more I look for information on the impact Bill 26 will have on our province, the scarier it gets. I am truly frightened for the workers and the businessmen and businesswomen in this province. The NDP would not agree to hoist this bill to do an impact study. The NDP would not send this bill to a select standing committee to decide if this bill would damage our already shaky economy.

What this undemocratic government will do . . . . The NDP will pass this bill on the backs of the taxpayers of this province, to pay back Ken Georgetti and big labour. They won't even blink their eyes, nor have a twinge of regret or concern for what is happening to the people in this province. The NDP do not have any respect for the way the business of this House is carried out. That is shown every day with their arrogant "do as I say" attitude.

When the Social Credit were in government and passed Bill 19, the pendulum was swinging in the opposite direction to what it is doing today. Two wrongs do not make a right. I believe that the Social Credit government went way overboard with Bill 19, just as I believe the NDP are going way overboard with Bill 26. It is interesting what the members opposite said when they were in opposition and the Social Credit government brought in Bill 19.

Our motion not to give second reading to Bill 26 for the reason that the bill, in principle, risks further damaging investor confidence and the provincial economy is a good motion. It gives the members opposite another chance, another opportunity, to make things right in this province of ours.

I'm going to remind the members opposite of some of the things they said with regard to Bill 19 and whether that bill should be hoisted, sent to committee or just stopped. All of these comments apply to Bill 26. The pendulum swinging to the far right or the far left doesn't serve the people of this province fairly; it doesn't serve anyone. What is wrong with fairness and equality?

The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was quite vocal on June 23, 1987, page 1941 in Hansard : " . . . we haven't heard any defence from the other side of this House with respect to this motion. Two speakers from the other side have stood up, but what about the other 45 members of the Social Credit caucus? How come they're not standing up and speaking on this legislation with respect to this motion?" Golly gee, hon. Speaker, I guess we could say the same thing about the NDP. How come they're not standing up and defending Bill 26?

I will answer for them: because it's indefensible, that's why. On June 23, 1987, on page 1945 of Hansard , a former Minister of Labour said: "The motion for hoisting should pass, because this government is drunk with the power of October 22, and this motion would bring about a little bit of sobriety that's much needed in this province -- six months' cooling off." The now Minister for Children and Families, on April 9, 1987, on page 545 of Hansard , said: "Two meetings in three years in the past. The Labour Committee is an important committee. Surely the bill should go there.

Surely this is something that the committee should be looking at. Without them looking at it, what is the point in having that committee? What is the purpose of committees if they're not to deal with bills and things of substance?" Here's another statement from the now Minister for Children and Families, on June 22, 1987, on page 1930 of Hansard : " . . . we've said it over and over, and we don't seem to get any response from members on the other side.

It's very disheartening to put your best into something, to bring up arguments all the time and see the same blank looks on the other side, when you know that they're not paying any attention and they really don't care."

Guess what: this government hasn't learned anything from being in opposition. Their own words -- words that they themselves said in this very Legislature -- are words that can be used against Bill 26 as they were used against Bill 19 in 1987. The NDP did not learn anything in the many years they were in opposition. It's very apparent when you look at the mess that the economy of this province is in today. We on this side of the House are trying to help the members opposite by giving them an opportunity to change their minds and to support our motion that is before this House.

The Minister of Labour made so many comments in 1987, when fighting Bill 19, that he needs to be reminded of his words. His words are the same as what we are saying about Bill 26. I quote from page 509 of Hansard , from April 7, 1987: "I'm surprised that the speakers from the other side have indeed discovered the truth of the old adage about brevity being the soul of wit.

I fear, however, that it is simply because none of them feels confident to go on at great length in speaking against our amendment because perhaps after some sober reflection they recognize they are indeed on the wrong side intellectually, morally and economically." That statement is so true when it comes to Bill 26. The minister should pay attention to his own words.

Again, on the same page and the same day, the now Minister of Labour's own words were: "Another reason for people on our side of the House suggesting that this motion should indeed be hoisted for six months is simply that no evidence whatsoever has been given, either in the minister's opening submission or in any of the comments that have been made thus far in the debate, explaining this haste. Why do we need . . . this now?" I ask the Minister of Labour, using his own words: why do we need this now?

On April 8, 1987, the now Minister of Labour said in Hansard : "What government has done with this particular piece of legislation -- which it is apparently bound and determined to push through, come hell or high water or other such stuff -- has simply confirmed the suspicions of so many." I think the minister's words are coming back to haunt him. If they're not coming back to haunt the minister, then I can only deduce that the minister just likes to hear himself talk and that the words that he said then and the words that he says now are meaningless.

The Minister of Labour said in the July 2 Nanaimo Daily News that he has carefully evaluated the concerns about this bill, but that the opposition to the code has no substance. He went on to say: "If someone can show me what's wrong with the legislation, I'd be prepared to listen, but it hasn't happened." Can you believe it, hon. Speaker? Concerns about this bill have been given to this minister, and he refuses to pay attention to anyone but his arrogant self.

In the same article, Mike Blumel, president of the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce, said the minister hasn't proved it's good for the economy: "I can tell you there has been no economic impact study done. It's imperative that this be done. [The bill] affects the cost of doing business." The reason we are fighting this bill is because it takes away the rights of workers. It takes away the rights of the employer. It will kill investment in British Columbia, and when investment is killed, there are no jobs for the people to go to.

[ Page 10002 ]

Every MLA in this Legislature knows that it's small and medium-sized businesses in this province that are the job creators. Knowing this, you wonder why the NDP continues to make it so hard for them to make ends meet and threatens their very survival. You have to keep asking: why is it that the NDP keeps punishing small businesses? I can't figure it out, but it seems to be that way. Why else would they be so destructive towards them with this legislation?

The Premier himself said, on April 14, 1987, on page 630 of Hansard : "Clearly, I think saner heads should prevail and that we should take some time -- maybe not six months; the motion to hoist was defeated -- to put it to a parliamentary committee, to take it around the province, to debate it, to look at the ramifications."

Being in opposition didn't teach the NDP anything. If it had, they would not be the terrible government they are today. The NDP in opposition would have tried to fix what was wrong with the government. Two wrongs do not make a right, as I've said before. "The provincial government needs to create a framework of accountability that oversees their ethical conduct, legal compliance and operational capacity, says British Columbia's auditor general." That was from the Alaska Highway News , June 26. Mr. Morfitt was speaking to a combined Rotary-Chamber luncheon.

The auditor general at that luncheon outlined various ways in which the government skirts issues of ethics and integrity. Also from that same article, Mr. Morfitt said we should not sit idly by as the NDP government creates a fiscal fantasy land while preaching accountability.

Hon. Speaker, you can understand why the members on this side of the House are very worried about this province, about what this Bill 26 will do -- the message it is going to send around the world that British Columbia is not open for business. Our motion is giving the members opposite an opportunity to wake up and smell the roses. The roses are dying in British Columbia. The downward spiral is quickening, and hope is disappearing with each piece of legislation this government puts through this House. In each piece of legislation this government puts forward, you are sure to find a poison pill that serves only the NDP agenda, not the people of this province.

It was an absolute pleasure to embarrass the NDP, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson adjourned the House and caught two ministers, who should have known better, asleep. They couldn't shrug off the error and use their majority to ram the bill back through the Legislature. They were not paying attention to the debate and got caught with their proverbial pants down, much to their embarrassment. We scored big-time.

The government talks about creating a climate where jobs will actually come back to British Columbia rather than leaving. The NDP are all talk and press releases -- advertisements all over the province, paid for by the taxpayer. All talk and no action -- that's what this socialistic government is. I don't think they know how to do anything else but spin, spin and spin again what a great job they're doing, while British Columbia sinks deeper and deeper into a recession, soon to be a depression.

Saskatchewan has an NDP government; that government does not put roadblocks in the way of business. They know what an asset they are. In Saskatchewan they're looking at an 8.1 percent increase in capital spending; British Columbia is looking at a 1.3 percent growth in capital spending. This government has an opportunity to turn things around for this province, and they could start with the opportunity we on this side of the House are giving them with this motion. It is a small start, but it is a start.

The Minister of Labour says that there isn't anything to worry about. He may not be worried, but we on this side of the House are desperately worried. The Minister of Labour continually says that this bill will not affect small business. When the minister makes such ridiculous statements, you know he doesn't understand anything about this bill.

[5:30]

This bill will affect many of my constituents, because there are many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency. My constituents are right when they tell me that this will be a bad thing for them and their families. Not only will it be bad for them, but it will be bad for neighbourhoods, for communities and for the province.

The NDP have not shown anyone in this province that Bill 26 will perform some benefit for the economy. If it will, where is the proof? We are asking to see the proof that this bill will be beneficial to this province. We don't see any proof, because this socialistic government hasn't got any proof. They haven't done an impact study or made an effort to find out how this will affect our economy. When we ask for the proof that this bill won't further damage our already weak economy, we don't get any answers.

That's what this is all about. This bill is not about doing good or preventing harm; it's only about driving an ideological agenda. We know where that approach has taken us: from the number one economy in Canada to number ten -- last place.

What British Columbia needs right now is fairness in B.C. labour laws, laws that provide a balance in the workplace. Bill 26 will not provide that balance. We need to put a stop to the damage being caused to the B.C. economy. We need to get rid of the red tape, overregulation and high taxation that are killing our province. Bill 26 won't do that. We need to send a message to the business communities around the province and to the international investment community that B.C. is supportive of the people who create jobs -- and that we are open for business. Bill 26 won't give that message. Bill 26 will not get British Columbia's economy moving again.

So I ask: what is its purpose? How can any jobs be created in this province when there is no wealth involved? If there is no wealth, it must be done on the backs of the overburdened taxpayers. We have already seen what happened to Skeena Cellulose, and now a fish plant is getting an $8 million loan from the government to keep it going. That is the only way this government knows how to create jobs: to put our money into losing businesses.

Interjections.

B. McKinnon: The members opposite sit on the other side of the House and heckle, but they haven't got the courage to stand up on their own time and support this bill that they know in their own hearts is wrong for British Columbia. That is why this is a government that does so little good for this province and so much bad.

We have been debating this bill for the last two weeks, because the Premier of the province ignored the advice given to him by the job creators in British Columbia. They told him: "Do not touch the Labour Code. Leave it alone." He said he was listening, but he wasn't. He was playing games with the people's livelihood.

[ Page 10003 ]

Our economy grew when people were moving into the province in droves. It only figures: more people to spend money on new homes, furniture, food, clothing -- the list goes on. Our citizens are now packing and moving out of this province in search of jobs. Our youth have the highest unemployment rate in Canada. They have to leave home for other parts of Canada to find work. When people begin to move out of the province, we are in trouble. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. We are in trouble, and this government had better start treating it as a crisis.

Well-educated people are on welfare, we have a brain drain that is going to the United States, and this government doesn't think we are in trouble at all.

Our health care system is near collapse, and we can't provide the schools to educate our children. The schools in my riding are overflowing and have been for years, but only promises have reached the schools. Why are the NDP so afraid of being fair? What is wrong with treating people with fairness and equality? What is wrong with a secret ballot? This government has its own agenda -- an agenda that is destructive to this province and that has brought British Columbia to its knees.

Last year, when Bill 44 was introduced to the Legislature, the people of this province showed the government that they were listening to what was happening in Victoria. They showed the government an anger that was not anticipated by the NDP.

Let's bring workplace democracy back to this province. The minister said that this legislation, Bill 26, was in the best interest of workers. Workers have rights when they have choice, in my opinion. The Minister of Labour says that this legislation doesn't force trade unionism on anybody, but Bill 26 clearly does just that. Bill 26 is a labour organizer's dream come true. Not only are we going to see trade unionism forced on the worker without a democratic vote, but we are also seeing that their interests are not going to be served, because a master collective agreement from on high is going to be imposed on them . . . .

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: Every member opposite has their turn to get up and speak if they have some problem with what I am saying. So just wait your turn.

In a letter he wrote to a business organization, the minister said that we must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in national and international marketplaces.

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: It may be old, but it's still your letter.

He went on to say that workers' rights to join the union of their choice would be respected. A climate of stability must be created to encourage investment and create jobs. The letter goes on about consulting with key stakeholders before changing laws. He talked about working to bring labour and government together, addressing issues of common and public concern.

These are all the messages that we have been trying to give to the minister. Now we find out that he's saying these things to the business community, but he's not following through. The minister has invited input from the business and labour communities and government. If only the minister would take his own advice, British Columbia would be so much better off.

We have lost all sense of democracy in British Columbia. We have a government that is incompetent, arrogant, and feeds on control and power. That's the NDP in a nutshell. We were elected by the people of this province to do a job, and as opposition we have an obligation to stand up to this socialist government. As I have said many times, this is an opportunity for the government to do something right for British Columbia for a change, to show that they are prepared to make a move to stop our downward spiral. They should at least have the decency to do an impact study, to see what effect this bil