1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 3, Number 14
[ Page 1787 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the gallery is a group of students from Fort Rupert Elementary School in Port Hardy. They're here as part of an annual visit, accompanied by teacher Paul D'Arcangelo. I'd like the House to make them welcome.
L. Krog: I have the pleasure this morning of introducing a student from Ballenas Secondary in Parksville. You will see him accompanying me for the next couple of days. His name is Colin Graham. He's a work experience student, and he's going to learn what it is to be an MLA. We're all going to make a good impression on him, I trust.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 32.
RESOURCE COMPENSATION
INTERIM MEASURES ACT
(continued)
A. Warnke: Once again it is an honour to resume debate on this particular bill, the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act, which I dubbed last day the RCIM Act. Some time has passed, so an extremely short summation is appropriate before moving on to other subjects.
Last day, essentially, I outlined that the particular bill before us must be seen in conjunction with other bills that have been introduced in this Legislature, in this chamber. Indeed, when we see the pattern of bills introduced, we see from our vantage point that the pattern here seems to focus on particular groups in our society in British Columbia, particular groups who have been defined as advantaged in one form or another. So from our vantage point what we see in this particular legislation is perhaps the culmination or the acme of all these other bills.
We do have some problems in terms of what is meant by a temporary freeze, a pause. This was explored last day. We also touched very briefly on the relationship between the state and individual rights to property. We touched on that briefly, and today I think it's worth elaborating on this. But if there is one point where we left off last day, it is that somewhere it is absolutely essential for groups in society to ensure that legal procedures are followed, that everyone gets a fair hearing, that there is something called due process to which everybody is entitled.
Concern is felt, hon. Speaker, by a number of groups as to whether there has been and will be proper compensation -- and indeed, over the weekend we've seen articles and letters to the editor and so forth appear on this particular legislation. We explored last day the fact that no one person and no one individual group can claim an absolute right to what I suppose would be called property or to things on this planet. Nonetheless, if those rights are to be suspended or dealt with by a state, it is absolutely essential that some form of due process for proper compensation is followed. That's the essence of some of the points raised last day.
What I want to first of all elaborate on today, in the philosophical context, is that maybe it is worth our while once again to look at the role of the state -- the government. I believe even some individuals opposite said: "You're a fan of Plato. Is it not true that the essence of Plato's Republic is one which extinguishes private property? Isn't that the ideal state, surely?" Perhaps in some sort of jest. It is interesting when we explore the whole issue of what private property is. Once I was reminded of Plato's Republic, it certainly triggered in my own mind once again that, perhaps unfortunately for Plato, people read only sections of the Republic that they like, for their own purposes, without reading the entire works of Plato. I'm thinking particularly of one book -- Plato's last book -- called the Laws. Indeed, the Laws in many ways is a contradiction of the Republic
I'm not going to give a whole lecture on Plato. One of my colleagues is getting a little worried about this. I am not going to give a whole lecture on the Laws, because it is a rather thick volume. But, for the record, Plato did approach the subjects of property, property rights and the relationship between property rights and the state. Indeed, the mature Plato, in his last work, concluded -- and perhaps it's a conclusion that's contrary to those who believe that private property rights can be suspended -- property rights ought to be suspended in an ideal society, supposedly as espoused in the Republic. Actually, I have some questions about that.
In the Laws Plato made absolutely certain his point of view that the nature of property and property rights have to be intricately linked with the rule of law. It is a common conclusion, I would say, of many writers since antiquity that there is a necessary linkage between property rights and the rule of law. Since I'm not about to give a whole series of lectures right here and now about the history of philosophy, I will jump nearly a couple of thousand years to David Hume. I will very briefly point out that Hume emphasized that when we talk about property rights and the rule of law, this must always be reinforced by justice, and that any idea of property rights must be linked with the concept of justice.
But beyond that, what is meant by property rights? Interestingly enough, Hume said that property must be considered stable, that that is the way to ensure that we have property rights and that there are fixed general rules and laws that reinforce those rights. Without justice and without this concept of property -- Hume and others have made this linkage between the two -- one cannot talk about justice without addressing property rights and so forth. His conclusion is a pessimistic one: society must immediately dissolve.
Therefore property, according to Hume, has three important characteristics: possessions must be stable; they cannot be seen as erratic; more importantly, they cannot be seen as being vulnerable to the whims of an arbitrary action taken by the state. There must be some sort of stability of possession, and it is extremely
[ Page 1788 ]
important that the state -- the government -- reinforce the notion that property is stable.
Secondly, if there is to be a transference of property -- not only the kind of property that is sold by real estate, but any sort of transference of property from the individual to the state -- or the state or the society takes control over it....
[10:15]
That's an interesting way of heckling today. I didn't realize my dry approach this morning would stimulate such a public reaction.
An Hon. Member: It's the woodpeckers.
A. Warnke: Woodpeckers are very concerned about property rights too, perhaps.
The second component of property rights is that if there is to be a transference -- not only between individuals but between the individual and the state or the society -- it be done so by consent. This is extremely important. Just to elaborate on it for a moment here, the emphasis on consent means that a society and a state has some legitimacy and sovereignty. Indeed, in their age the philosopher David Hume and others talked about the need for allegiance, but allegiance by individuals to the state is not automatic. There is a tremendous reciprocity and respect based on the notion of consent, which reinforces this notion of allegiance.
The third aspect of property rights is the performance of promises. This is most appropriate, I suppose, as applied to all modern states. When promises or contracts are made and established, no matter what the impact or implications of the promises are, there is an obligation that these promises should be met and respected. So stability of possession, transference of property by consent and the performance of promises are the essential components of property rights.
In this context, then, when we measure the nature of any bill or legislation, and so forth, we want to ensure that it conforms to something like these principles. In this context we can make such a comparison, and it serves as a warning to all of us that if we want to have the allegiance and respect of the people for our laws and legislation, it is essential to conform to these three basic principles.
There are others. Jeremy Bentham expounded on how property must be seen in the context of expectations, and the range of expectations included something like what Hume espoused: we have to have some predictability and certainty that when we establish a contract, it is going to be honoured over time. Indeed, this may be essential to comprehend in our own age. One way to describe our age -- and it has been done -- is that we live in an age of uncertainty; we live in an age of unpredictability. We're not sure where we're going to be ten years from now. In order for people to have confidence in their economy and in their society and the confidence to invest in their economy and society, there has to be some sort of assurance of stability over the long term -- the long term being, of course, a decade. And in the long term, as one witty economist, John Maynard Keynes, put it, we're all dead. Aside from that, we want to make some sort of calculation. We want to be able to predict that when we invest, or when we apply capital, or when we make a deal, or when we strike a contract, it is going to be honoured and not suspended over a period of time.
Perhaps just one more person from the past is worth mentioning here. Rummaging through the works of Karl Marx -- it is one of my areas in my previous academic life that I suppose I've become quite acquainted with; I have quite a large library on that particular philosopher -- I was interested to see that Marx made a distinction between private and collective property. I think most of us in this chamber are somewhat familiar with the works of Marx. Marx well understood the nature of property in a private context; unlike some vulgar anti-Marxists, he did not negate private property altogether. He suggested that private individual property was sometimes essential, a feature of our society. But he called it "petty industry," and he felt that this petty industry.... If we want to define private property, it's petty industry, the essential condition for the development of social production -- this is obviously some Marxist rhetoric here -- and the free individuality of the labourer.
Marx assumed that this kind of property would be transformed and annihilated in the last analysis and that self-earned private property would be replaced by something he called capitalist private property. That's all well and good. But when we take a look at the flip side of this dialectic and look at collective property, there is still this notion of collective property and society's willingness to suggest that property should be shared and common. I think, at least to some extent, the government side is operating on a bit of that kind of premise. Even when we talk about collective property, it's still based on some concept of justice. There are very distinct components of collective property...why collective property is so essential and is based, from Marx's point of view, on the notion that expropriation is taking place anyway, so it's just a matter of who is doing the expropriation. The flip side of that is surely that if there is something wrong with expropriation, then the protection of individual rights is also extremely important. Indeed, if expropriation is bad, according to this kind of polarized dialectical thinking, then surely any means to protect what Marx called petty industry -- to protect individual self-earned private property and so forth -- is surely a virtue.
One essential fact I picked was in Marx's Capital when he was responding to a prominent British economist of the day. Marx talked about the need to be predictable. Marx, in his criticism of capitalist notions of private property, felt that it was generating an unpredictability in our lives. The flip side of that is that if we want to protect property, then surely we want some predictability. That comes back to the earlier point I made. In responding to this particular economist -- I believe his name was Wakefield -- Marx also pointed out that there should be the notion of not only predictability but constancy, regularity and so forth. As Marx saw it, our capitalist economy was undermining these features of constancy, regularity and predictability. By the way, Marx was trained in the law, so Marx had a very good concept of what contract law was.
[ Page 1789 ]
Marx thought that contracts were being violated in a capitalist society, but the flip side of that is that we should honour contracts that contribute to constancy, regularity, predictability and so forth.
At any rate, those are some points I thought were interesting to raise in this context that whenever a state or government embarks on legislation, it has to respect due process. There is a reason for respecting due process: it adds that important element of certainty and predictability in our society and in our lives. This is the reason why due process is extremely important.
Last day I did not elaborate on one other point that I think is extremely important. Once a state or a government takes those initiatives to suspend property rights.... We often assume that in our society a government will not do that, because it's subject to the electorate in the last analysis; therefore, by respecting the electorate, if it makes any sort of attack like that, it's going to be voted out of office. But in recent years a number of groups have emerged who feel that parliamentary democracy can fail us. It is interesting that some writers or some of those who have reflected on this particular legislation -- Bill 32 -- feel so strongly. Here is but one example, perhaps among many in the future. When there is a tremendous pressure on the resources of the country as a result of growing population and economic pressures and so forth, we are going to be forced to be more competitive among each other -- not necessarily in a positive light, either, but competitive in that we are rugged competitors against each other, and so forth. Some would call it the rat race, the war of the dogs, and on it goes. If we want to avoid that, to a certain extent we need our laws to reaffirm that we are not going to be reduced to such a state of competitiveness. On the other hand, a number of people have pointed out that increasingly what we are going to see is states and governments focusing on property values and property rights and so forth, and suspending them wherever necessary.
In recent years, when we've talked about changing the Canadian constitution and addressing problems with the Canadian constitution, I have actually felt very strongly that our parliamentary system of government, our parliamentary democracy, is sufficient to protect those rights. I have felt that it is not necessary at this particular time to inject a clause on property rights or anything of that sort, because we have a long-standing tradition in British parliamentary practice that property rights are respected. This has been reinforced over the last few hundred years, and no government, no state, would dare make any challenge suspending property rights. However, I must confess, hon. Speaker, that in recent weeks a number of people have put forward the argument that such a bill as this establishes a precedent whereby governments and the state can intervene on private property rights and suspend them. Therefore does this not prove that we need something like a special clause in the constitution protecting property rights?
[10:30]
While I have not been too impressed with this argument in the past, because I really have felt that governments and states would respect the rights of property, nonetheless those arguments -- and I'm not responding to them -- are now being brought to the fore. I would suggest that this particular legislation has actually strengthened the hand of those who want to see property rights protected, strengthened the arguments of these groups who want to see that in the constitution. It's strange, therefore, that sometimes the best of intentions.... Indeed, I respect the government's good intentions in bringing forth this bill from their perspective -- they have good intentions, and I don't question that.
Sometimes what is brought forward in terms of legislation is not only what we manifestly see but the latent implications. The latent implications of this bill may be such that it is triggering a response that may not be altogether desirable. To be quite honest with you, hon. Speaker, as many people in this chamber know, I really want to take whatever steps are necessary to protect parliamentary democracy, and I really do not want to see that system challenged and undermined in any way. I really do not want to see our system changed.
It's interesting, when one explores the implications of such legislation, that it actually may trigger a series of implications that we had not really even thought of when we brought forth what we thought was temporary legislation which was meant to be only a pause, but which in fact sets precedents that we may have some difficulty controlling. Therefore in this particular legislation I strongly emphasize the philosophical side, because there is a perception here that property rights and due process of administering the law, in this case compensating those who are seeking compensation, are being suspended.
It begs the further question that we have to ask: whether there was consultation here. In our conclusion, consultation with a variety of groups was lacking in bringing forth this legislation. Advice was not sought, and there is a way to take a number of steps to ensure that consultation and advice is sought, so as to put forth constructive legislation.
It has the tremendous implications as well that if property rights can be suspended so quickly; if a contract, in a very general sense, can be suspended so quickly; if what was certain and predictable could be suspended so quickly, this tends to undermine the confidence that people have in their society and their economy. More specifically, it would tend to undermine the confidence that investors would have in investing in their economy. Investors want some predictability. They want to know that if they engage in a relationship with other individuals and groups or with the government, if they engage in a relationship, that means that they have certain kinds of rights, and it's calculated accordingly. They anticipated that there was a certain amount of predictability, because of the word of the government and the state, and so forth. The more people have confidence in their government, their state and their society, the more vibrant the economy. But lest that confidence be undermined, lest the impression begins to form that rights could be suspended.... It could have, and usually has, the opposite effect.
We operate, unfortunately too often, on the premise that we are living in a post-industrial age, and that
[ Page 1790 ]
being part of the post-industrial age, we can approach the economy much more differently than we have in the past. I believe this is a fallacy that has gotten us into trouble in the 1970s and the 1980s, and still continues in the 1990s. It's a fallacy about developing and reinforcing a vibrant economy.
The primary sectors of the economy cannot be forgotten. Forestry, mining and agriculture tend to be dismissed in our modern post-industrial economy, because most of us like the challenge of being part of the tertiary or quaternary sector, the service industry, or the more glamorous industries of our society -- entertainment, visual arts, theatre, movie-making and so forth.
An Hon. Member: Politics.
A. Warnke: Politics may be a culmination of some of that.
The premise of post-industrialism is that increasingly more of our population can go into these sectors and we can ignore the primary sectors, because the nature of our economy is different. I happen to think that the primary sectors cannot be forgotten. The more that we forget about the primary sectors and about reinforcing the stability of the primary sectors, the more we are going to get ourselves into trouble.
In some of my remarks I want to take a look at some of the Attorney General's rationale for presenting this legislation. It would be an imprudent strategy, I suspect, to unload all of one's cannons in this Legislature. I think it would be a prudent strategy to wait to see what others have to say, and then do a final critique. That is the nature of how debate is handled. You introduce a subject, you hear the criticisms and then you respond, holding back some of the rationale for later on, in one's final remarks and conclusions. I respect that. That's part of the process of debate. At the same time, as I examined the remarks of the minister who introduced this legislation, the rationale that should have been provided was incomplete. I suspect that the full rationale and argument will be advanced in the Legislature in the final remarks. I have to deal with the rationale of the legislation that the minister introduced and examine that. Let me touch on a little bit of that.
The bill, argues the minister, emanates from the concerns about Strathcona Park. I have some knowledge of Strathcona Park myself. I think the minister knows that I have a good deal of knowledge about the northern part of Vancouver Island. Actually, I understand where the minister is coming from on this particular point. The problems associated with the Carmanah Valley and environmental issues and so forth have been in the news for a couple of years now.
Just to pause and deviate for a moment, in 1988 I heard arguments from different sides of the issue concerning Strathcona Park. I must admit that one of the most difficult decisions I had to make was to declare which argument I thought was a very sound one. To be quite honest with you, I said then that what the environmentalists put forward at that time, during the summer of 1988, was a pretty sound argument, and that if one was forced to choose between the various arguments of the public groups, the argument of the environmentalists had to be respected. I supported it.
On the other hand, let us make no mistake that Bill 32 does not exclusively concern itself with Strathcona Park. Rather, the implications of the bill are far beyond concerns about Strathcona Park. I do not doubt that the minister's concerns emanate from concerns about Strathcona Park, but let us be sure about this: the implications and impact of such a bill are provincewide, and therefore that has to be emphasized. We cannot be misled by suggesting that it deals with that particular issue or similar kinds of issues. It has a fairly wide scope. I suppose one could argue that if this concerned only Strathcona Park, then the logical conclusion is that one should develop a bill that deals specifically with this issue. Obviously this is not the case.
I have to reflect a little further. I discussed it a bit last time, but I would like to elaborate on it now. The minister's rationale for bringing forth this bill is the fact that it is going to cost the taxpayer, and we have to have that uppermost in our minds. It is interesting to reflect on the introduction of this bill in the House by the minister. In different locations in the introduction, reference was made to the cost involved for the taxpayer.
Last time I mentioned very briefly -- and I will not elaborate on it, but it's worth tying it in here -- that wherever justice is involved in social issues of the day, such as the native issue and so forth, costs are secondary. If compensation to the native community, the Japanese-Canadian community or the Chinese-Canadian community, which we discussed here the other day, is seen as just and necessary in order to mete out justice, then surely the cost to the taxpayer is secondary. I suspect that taxpayers, generally, will say that this is just; this is what we pay taxes for. The issue here is that there is an immediate concern and that we have to deal with it as soon as possible, otherwise this will have tremendous implications for the taxpayer.
[10:45]
Let me put it in another context. We've had different legislation brought forth in this House, and the taxpayer certainly was a component of some of the bills introduced. Yet if the taxpayer is that much of a consideration in this particular bill, one would have to ask: why wasn't the taxpayer considered in other bills? Why is it so important to raise the issue of the cost to the taxpayer in this particular legislation? There may well be a very good, sound argument by the minister. I hope -- and for the time being, I'll suspect -- that the minister will elaborate on this in his final remarks.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Nonetheless, the issue of cost is a puzzling one, in that it has been raised at different points in the introduction. Yet the rationale for taking the taxpayer into consideration has not been explored in full. I think it would have been appropriate to have that discussed or described more fully before taking drastic measures. There may be times when the taxpayer should be considered in legislation, and so forth. But when one is
[ Page 1791 ]
taking such dramatic and drastic measures, especially dealing with something as fundamental as property rights.... If there is a legitimate concern here for the taxpayer, this must be explored and described in full. If it is not explored in full, then obviously we on this side have every right to be suspect, because of the incongruency here. The taxpayer is not seriously considered in some money legislation, yet the taxpayer should be uppermost in our minds in this kind of legislation. That kind of incongruency or inconsistency needs to be addressed, especially when there is a concern as to how it affects property rights.
It would be reassuring to all of us in this chamber, if property rights are a fundamental problem in this issue and if it is so essential to address -- it does supply the underlying rationale for this bill -- if some description or explanation of the magnitude of the concern would be addressed, or the magnitude as to what kind of money is involved.
I noted in the minister's remarks his concern, and it may well be a fair one. He may be absolutely right. If he's right and makes a convincing argument, we would pay close attention to that. The minister said that there would be an unfair disparity of awards resulting from that. This was not elaborated on in the introductory remarks, but I think it would be most appropriate if it were elaborated on in the final remarks. What magnitude are we dealing with here, in terms of the unfair disparity of awards? In other words, an elaboration might actually alleviate some concerns and fears that we have on this side of the House. If the Attorney General is correct here -- and we would like to be reassured so -- then that would go a long way to alleviating concerns not only to us in opposition but indeed to the public as a whole.
I submit, hon. Speaker, that until that rationale is fully outlined, we would have to reserve judgment as to the severity of the problem here, and whether that is really the problem here. There is some question about the settlements; how we approach the whole problem of settlements is not clear. There is the argument that tremendous legal costs are involved; this is not clear. The injustice versus the cost argument is important and has to be addressed. The Attorney General in his concluding remarks could perhaps make some further references to the Schwindt report -- for want of a better phrase, I'll dub it the Schwindt report. There seems to be an inconsistency there, as well. I believe I described this a bit last day, but I think it would be worthwhile to see that in the closing remarks.
The other concern that we have on this side is the pattern of bills. I think this is worth elaborating on a little, because we need to send some very clear signals to the business community and the corporate community. If one wants to make a distinction, hon. Speaker, maybe that is a fair one: the corporate community. I won't get into strict definitions, but I did see one definition kicking around that a corporation may be defined as any business with over $1 million in assets, or sales, or something like that. This is rather arbitrary, especially in the age of inflation, but I think it might be fair to make a distinction between the corporate community, the business community and, of course, the small independent business community.
We have to send a very clear signal to the business community that their rights are going to be protected. We have to send a very clear signal to all three types of business communities that whatever they invest in, whatever contracts they forge, when a certain problem or issue evolves, they have access to due process of legal procedure; they have access to due process in the courts. This is the heart of the kind of message that we want to send to those communities.
I mentioned last day that the implications could be, even to private individuals and private owners, that if property rights could be suspended in one sense or in one case, then it is possible that property rights could be suspended in another case or in another sense. Earlier today I mentioned that the fear is legitimate, because certain groups have now come out and said that what we really need is some sort of entrenchment of property rights in the Canadian constitution. Perhaps the whole doggone Canadian constitution -- the way they express it -- isn't worth a whit, until some sort of entrenchment of those rights is in the constitution, and perhaps we should start all over again. Heaven forbid, hon. Speaker, if we have to start all over again as we're approaching the May 31 deadline. But that's another issue.
I think that we all clearly see that there are a number of sectors of society concerned about property rights, as they're being affected in this bill. But in particular the corporate community, the business community and the small business community need an element of stability and predictability in order to continue. For the moment, this is especially so in the mining and forest sectors of our economy. The mining and the forest industries have to be protected. This means that whatever property rights, however we define them -- and justice and due process is part of this -- they have to be protected, and the gesture has to be made constantly by all governments. Regardless of party affiliation, all governments have to be constantly and consistently sending out the signal that we respect property rights and due process -- particularly here in British Columbia. And perhaps that may be applied to some other provinces as well, most notably Alberta and Ontario, the other two provinces that have consistently contributed to being the engine of the modern Canadian economy. Being the engine of the modern Canadian economy.... I would suggest that from time to time the other seven provinces and two territories sometimes do very well on their own, and sometimes they do not. But it seems very consistent that the economies of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are extremely important.
To digress for a moment, I would even go so far as to say, contrary to what many people suggest -- even in this province; maybe especially in this province -- that we have nothing in common with Ontario. It's easy to develop a tremendous rivalry between ourselves and Ontario, or between Vancouverites and Torontonians, but I would argue almost the opposite -- that there needs to be a closer synthesis and integration of the Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta economies. And when that integration is stronger and improves, our economy throughout this country really improves; the
[ Page 1792 ]
economy throughout Canada becomes very dynamic. It's interesting to note, hon. Speaker, that in all three of those provinces we are not just another post-industrial economy. In many ways the economies of those three provinces are quite different from the California economy, the New York economy and the Ohio and Illinois economies, insofar as important features of those economies are mining and forestry. Despite the fact that Ontario trees are nowhere near the size of ours -- sometimes you can't even call them trees, but that's a problem for the people of Ontario -- the mining and forest industries are an extremely important part of the economies of these three provinces, and in turn the economies of these three provinces are so important and profound for the development of the Canadian economy.
[11:00]
To restrict property rights.... To take an approach or to convey an impression to those who invest in these sectors is critically important for the well-being of our province. Consistently, again and again, the leaders of the mining and forestry industries.... Hon. Speaker, I'll be quite candid. From time to time I would almost agree with my friend from Okanagan-Boundary, the Minister of Agriculture, who talked about speculators a few weeks ago. Speculators are the kind of people he dislikes; speculators do not need any special status in our economy. Actually, I think maybe all members of this House happen to agree on the kind of person he was talking about -- not his bill but that particular kind of person, the speculator. There are speculators -- I would go so far as to use the term sharpshooters -- in the investment community, especially in mining and forestry. They've been around. They don't have my sympathy. I'm certainly not out to protect their position. At the same time, we do have to recognize that aside from the speculators and the sharpshooters -- incidentally, they do exist in all three of the provincial economies I talked about -- there is a larger body of people who are genuine investors. They're not just speculators; they really do have an interest in developing the mining industry and the forest industry. As a matter of fact, I've come to know a few very prominent individuals in this industry over the years. Yes, there are some I don't like, but there are some I highly respect in terms of their contribution to the Canadian economy, especially to the economy of the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. I know fewer people in mining and forestry in Alberta, but I know a few of them in Ontario and British Columbia. Many of them I highly respect. These kinds of leaders -- the people I respect; in fact, I think the kind of people we all respect -- have suggested that this particular bill has some very severe implications for them.
It's not just those who are sharpshooters who want to invest in Chile. If people want to go to Chile, they can go to Chile. If they want to go to some other country and exploit peoples of those worlds.... To be quite honest with you, I'm not the kind of person who says: "Oh, we must keep them here in British Columbia or in Alberta and Ontario at all cost." They're the kind of people who will take advantage of anybody and any situation, and they don't have my personal sympathy or the sympathy of all members of this House. They want to go to Chile? Fine. If they want go to some other so-called Third World countries, fine. But there are others of the mining and forests community who are not saying, "Oh, I'm going to run off to Chile," but are saying: "We have some real, legitimate concerns as to the actions of any government, but particularly this one, under this kind of legislation. We have some very serious concerns here." Is it not possible that the kind of strategy and the implications of this bill might drive our investment maybe to other parts of Canada, maybe to the United States, maybe to parts of the Third World?
I think far more profound are those people who say: "We can't invest, period." I think this adds to the age of uncertainty. If people cannot have that sense of predictability, that notion of savings, investment and economic growth that results from investment and return on capital, if they cannot have confidence in that kind of predictability, then what is the incentive for these people to say: "I'm going to invest in my economy, my society, my province, my country"? It's those people I'm really concerned about, because it is those people who have that sense of investing in their country whom we become so dependent upon and whom we must respect.
There are a number of bases I've touched on in terms of the bill. I've tried to deal with it in a bit of an historical and philosophical context. I've tried to relate how certain groups in our province look at this bill. I've tried to put the case fairly. I will obviously wait for the minister's response, but I think we will find in this debate that there are a number of objections from a number of members to this particular bill, and this ought to be respected. It is the concerns that I have expressed.... But it is most important to emphasize again the concern I have about the suspension of rights; possibly with the implications of leading to the expropriation and extinguishment of those rights: the suspension of a fair hearing, which is the basis of developing a system of sound laws; the suspension of property rights; and the suspension of due process. All of these culminate in something in this particular bill that I believe must be vigorously opposed. This is the reason why I recommend that this bill be opposed.
Hon. D. Miller: I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery today from the spectacular Queen Charlotte Islands is a group of grade 6 students accompanied by their teachers and some parents: Jacqueline Taylor, Corrine McGuffie, Barb Banford, Deborah Mantic, Jim Jones, Dave Zimmerman, Sharon Miller -- no relation -- Kandi Husband and Raph Meyerhoff. I would ask the House to make the students and their teachers and parents welcome today.
D. Jarvis: As you can imagine, I'm not enthralled with Bill 32. This party feels that we are now faced in this bill with what appears to be the epitome of this government's agenda. That is to say that they are now going to remove British Columbia into an era of Third
[ Page 1793 ]
World secularism. This would be the Third World of Marxism -- the epitome of Marxism -- which has been rebuffed by every state in the world except a few backward states such as Mozambique and Romania. This bill removes the property rights that have long been entrenched in this province, since they first started mining and exploration in the mid-1880s. Shortly before, I might add, my ancestors came to this province, so I have been just as much involved in this province as anyone else on the other side of the House.
Now this government has set itself up to determine that they are beyond reproach and that they are the saviours of this land, regardless of anyone else's basic rights. This government stands up in this House and extols the province's present credit rating without consideration of what the repercussions will be when New York has heard about the way this province legislates against the people who are prepared to invest in this province. It is regressive legislation coming forth from this government, and when the people in the investment world finally realize what is happening, I shudder to think what our rating will be at this time next year. Investment will not come to this province, if they are unsure of their tenure. Why would you come to this province and invest millions of dollars only to find that an indecisive government is going to change the rules again and again? How can any reasonable business or corporation expect fair play from a government that does not care for the rights of individuals or corporations? The courts have repeatedly confirmed that mineral claims are an interest in land, and therefore this act is wrong for the future of this province. This bill will take away all the initiatives for exploration and development in this province. If this government takes away your rights -- after they have asked you to come in so that they can basically tax you -- without any thought of compensating you on your investment, then this government would be considered a government that expropriates.
So here's the picture, bleak as it is. There are no positive pictures to be shown to exploration companies. No industry with any reasoning whatsoever would even concern itself with a country that has a creeping expropriation policy. As I said before, you would expect this type of legislation to be in one of the Third World countries where there is a complete breakdown of law and order, social violence, disregard for human rights, abuses and low productivity in the workforce. It is even more inconceivable that this province, which has none of the above at this time -- and I hope never does -- would consider policies that would not compensate an investor for the work and investment done when asked in by a friendly government, then suddenly finding that this government has changed its position once again.
I would like to talk about this bill in the direction of energy and mines, and how they would relate to this province. As I said the other day, economists throughout the world are projecting that there will be a continued growth for mineral products, as there is a global demand presenting itself. Why is it, therefore, that Canadians and British Columbians do not feel this way about their own country and are forecasting a decline in British Columbia's mining industry? Last year over a billion dollars of Canadian-based money left this country for jurisdictions throughout the world -- places in the world that were financially acceptable to them or actually had friendly governments, countries that were concerned about their future and felt that mining was one way to benefit the people in those jurisdictions.
During the 1950s and 1960s, and perhaps before then, we were encouraging new mining investment in this province, so that there was always a continuous supply of new mines to replace those that were closing down. As you may be aware, every mine or ore body is eventually depleted due to lack of quality or because they simply run out of ore. At the present time there are approximately 14 mineral mines and six coal mines left in this province, and they are all operating at close to a deficit position. They're all in financial trouble in one way or another. The general consensus is that by the end of this century -- eight years from now -- there possibly will be only four mineral mines left because of the way we are going at this time. Since all of the ore bodies are eventually depleted, we must have a very aggressive policy of exploration. With the regressive legislation that we have and which will come about, the industry in B.C. will effectively be coming to a standstill. With the way the financial situations for most of these mines appear at this time, it could be that eight years from now the number of mines in this province will be cut in half.
If mining is in such dire straits at this time, what would an alternative be in this province? Where does this government go to help fill the coffers -- with close to $400 million in taxes that will no longer be there -- when an industry has died?
We are today faced with the only answer to reviving the mining industry in B.C., and that is to have an aggressive exploration program to identify new mineral deposits throughout the province. This government will say that the market is a cyclical one, and you have heard the minister state that it's on its way back. But we cannot wait for this cyclical movement to happen. The downturn in exploration and development in this province is not due to the world markets, as people have been told. Exploration companies are leaving this country and heading in other directions, but not because of the world markets. They are still investing in other areas regardless of the world markets, but they have no confidence in this province.
An Hon. Member: Give us an example.
D. Jarvis: There are thousands, sir. Fifty-eight million Canadian dollars have left already this year. They are aware of this government's and past governments' indecisiveness and regressive taxation. Investment goes where the companies can get the best bang for their buck. The probability of success in this province and in this industry is not very high. As long as there is an opportunity for the investor to earn an acceptable return on his investment, they will come.
[11:15]
This regressive taxation bill, Bill 32, only sends out negative signals to an already leery industry. There is
[ Page 1794 ]
no question that this country remains one of the more attractive geological environments, but it is due to the very highly political uncertainty of this government and previous governments...that puts this industry into direct competition with other areas throughout the world. Areas in the world where they're intending to invest are the Pacific Rim countries, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America, where they also have world-class minerals but offer investors more exceptional opportunities. The investors who go to these countries know the ground rules beforehand, and that's why they go there.
Mr. Speaker, it's apparent now that British Columbia does not have a monopoly on mineral deposits in this world. There are other areas in the world that perhaps are more attractive than British Columbia, as evidenced by the billions of dollars that are leaving this country to explore elsewhere. This bill again only enhances the venture to other countries. The trend in this province is to increase taxation and to increase the regulations for investments, whereas the trend in other countries is to lower the level of taxation and reduce the impediments to investing.
Some would say that these other countries are being run roughshod over by the mining companies. In fact, there are very credible work and environmental standards in these other countries. Here you have a world of investors who feel that there is considerably more risk in investing in British Columbia -- and in Canada itself, I might say.
The possibility of upheavals in these other, Third World countries where the mining is going is not necessarily great, but there is a possibility. They have low-productivity workforces and a lack of law and order. As I said, this is not necessarily the case, but it's surprising to see that this is where the exploration companies are prepared to put their millions of dollars rather than come to British Columbia. It's a sad state of affairs that a province with such a long history has reached this low level in the eyes of the world.
For example, Mexico now has significantly relaxed foreign ownership. You'll recall that before last year no one could own property in Mexico in excess of 49 percent. Now they are holding seminars in downtown Vancouver saying there's an open-door policy in Mexico: "Come and bring your money here." They're encouraging investment in their country. Not ours. It's about time everyone in this province learned that B.C. does not hold any particular advantage over other countries. The world has changed, but not this government.
Mr. Speaker, how would you feel if you were an exploration company who, having spent millions of dollars conducting legitimate exploration programs in this province, with full compliance with all the regulations, and having made a discovery, suddenly realized that there was no assurance whatsoever that the development -- it could be in excess of two to three years before it's marketable -- would ever be allowed to be mined? You are faced with this exact situation in several instances in this province: Windy Craggy, Crystal Peak and many more. They are waiting for an indecisive government to make up their minds.
For example, Windy Craggy made a pre-application in the mine development assessment program in the late '88-89 period; then they had to make a revised mining plan in 1990. After having spent close to $50 million in this province, they have now suddenly been told that they are going to have to have a special review in the area that Windy Craggy is interested in. The government now takes out an altogether different review and adds an additional one through the Parks department and creates a parks and wilderness review. Windy Craggy is put into another category, category 3. They probably won't even look at it until 1995. Here we have the largest potential mine that this province has seen for many years, which would supply hundreds of millions of dollars in wages and taxes over the next ten to 20 years, and this government is hiding behind a shield of indecisiveness and, in actual fact, is allowing the American environmentalists and imperialists to dictate to us where and when we can put in a mine. Let me tell you that this mine isn't on the shore of the Tatshenshini River, as you have all been told or would have liked to have been told or believed in. It is approximately 30 miles up a tributary of the Tatshenshini River, and then there is another ten miles on top of that where the mine is. It appears that the company has now solved all its environmental problems or close to it.
We can go into specific details on Windy Craggy, but that is not the point with regards to this bill. The point is that this province needs investment, and this bill is what will stop investment from coming to this province. Investment is needed to keep this province going. Early in this century, when the Sullivan mine was in operation for years and years, the production from this mine represented sometimes close to a quarter of the gross domestic product of this province. It cannot be said that a mine is not a valuable asset to this province. Mines are not the enemy of this province, and the miners are not your enemies either. Companies and the employees are just as environmentally friendly as you and I are, and we should do everything to encourage them. However, here we have a bill that says: "No, stay away. If you are coming, we are going to take away all of your rights that you may incur, and we don't believe in tenure. So stay away."
In other countries approval by governments ranges from nil to 12 months -- 12 months in the United States. Here in British Columbia we now have our project approval by a government that has a minimum of 24 months, and then goes up to five or six years.
An Hon. Member: We're working on it.
D. Jarvis: As the gentleman says, they're working on it. Who knows what next year will bring. We'll be up to maybe five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten years.
The mine development review process in B.C. is unique and was started in this province, and many countries wish they could have it themselves but have been unable to develop a similar process. This process was originally conceived to resolve public concern at an early stage in the project. However, that has now become bogged down with indecision and delays resulting from overlapping in the courts, single-issue
[ Page 1795 ]
concerns and the complete lack of a focused economic objective by this government.
There are even thoughts of moving this process out of the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry. This government's agenda appears to be fracturing and emasculating this ministry, which was once a very proud ministry but is being emasculated. However, things will change in four years, believe me. Taxes on mining in British Columbia in comparison to other jurisdictions are abominable. No other country in the world has a higher effective tax rate than British Columbia. British Columbia is not competitive in this global market on the basis of taxation.
In the past, mines in this province owed their success to a tax-friendly government. There were incentives to come to this province. You paid taxes on your profits. You knew that this province would protect your rights, such as the right to compensation if you were wronged by the government. Those were the days when this ministry prospered. Those were the days when the taxpayers and the citizens of this province also prospered.
Now there are no tax incentives or anything to suggest that this is a friendly provincial government. British Columbia is the highest-cost tax jurisdiction in the world. The probability is that changes will occur, but those changes will just mean another increase, rather than a decrease, in the direct taxation process that we have in this province.
We are not suggesting that taxes should not be charged, nor are the mining companies suggesting that they shouldn't have to pay taxes. They only want to see that they are on a level playing-field. The more they produce, the more money they'll make and the more taxes we can charge them. If they survive, we're going to survive -- but not the way this government is progressing. The present government seems prepared to lower our standard of living in order to preserve an agenda, and no one really knows what it's all about.
As I said, we have the best mine assessment program in North America. That is preserving our environmental situation. Now this government is introducing legislation that is not only detrimental to one of our major resource industries but is taking away the rights of the citizens in an insidious way. They are chopping away at an industry that is of paramount importance to this province and to the major cities throughout this province. Thousands of people are dependent on this industry and its offshoots. The economy of this province will suffer as a whole if this bill goes through.
Why does this government take away another incentive, another right, which only serves to show the rest of the world -- except, as I said earlier, Mozambique and Romania -- that we're not open for business and that they should not invest in the future of British Columbia? Why do they tell the rest of the world that we are not open for business unless you're a gambler? You can come in and invest $5 million, and if you are lucky, you may get it back. The government will not guarantee security of tenure, because it reserves the right to be the judge as to whether resource companies have any rights at all.
The rights in this province now rest with the Attorney General and not with the courts. It's hard to believe that the Attorney General -- who I'm sorry is not here to hear this -- would bring this legislation forward. If he was a lawyer, he'd probably be up before the bar. However, with this type of legislation, who in this province will ever need a lawyer anymore?
Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that this bill may lead to the end of this province's great mining industry, which was once the second-largest resource industry in this province. It was once the second-highest tax resource industry in this province. This emasculation of an industry, and the rights of those who invest in this industry, is deplorable.
It reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently. Two hoboes were sitting over a fire beside the railway tracks discussing their plight. One said to the other: "So, my friend, why not invest in the mining business in British Columbia?" For those of you who do not get the humour in that story, I'd like to say that there is no humour to it. There's no humour to this bill as well. It's a sad reflection of what is happening in this province, a reflection of things that may come to pass.
The precedent in this bill is that the government is taking away basic rights. It should be protecting the rights of individuals, not taking them away. It's a misnomer to say that this is an "interim measures act," because we know that there will be a change -- taking away rights -- and that this will not be an interim measure. If this was the case, we should expect a specific date, and there is none. Or is the purpose of this bill to avoid compensation to the likes of Casamir Resources, Windy Craggy, Crystal Peak and a few other mines? This government knows that they are in the right, and this will be supported by the courts as well.
What faith will the rest of the world have in a government that takes this sort of attitude towards property rights? What is this government's agenda? Who knows? We don't know. It's a frightening thought that the government has an agenda, or a pattern, that will slowly lead to taking away more rights. What will be next, and who will be next?
[11:30]
Mr. Speaker, the bill proposes fearful things to come. Will they destroy this province again, as they did in the 1,200-day war of '72-75? I urge members in the back benches of the government side to vote against this bill. I urge you to consider what you will have to say to your constituents in the small towns you represent, which are dependent upon the resource industry, when suddenly they realize that this bill will destroy the confidence for investment in this province, and their jobs and their families will also all be in jeopardy. I would ask the members across the House there in the back benches not to be considered as puppets. Don't go with the thought that when you go home your noses will have to grow longer, telling them what this government has done. You'll go home, and you'll have to tell your constituents that you supported every tax increase in this session, and that all you have done is support the government's friends and insiders, and that now you have to support an act that will possibly erode their rights in the future, an act that will erode
[ Page 1796 ]
investors' rights and discourage them from ever coming back to British Columbia.
I have said before and I'll keep on saying it because it's true: there's nothing wrong with socialism; it just doesn't work. The other day someone -- I believe it was the member from Coquitlam -- said that I was afraid to say the "s" word, which is socialism. And I'm sorry to say that this "s" word, which is socialism, is not a good word. The "s" words that come to mind are: sorry, sad, sick, socialism again, sardonic, shoddy, schlocky, second-rate, scoundrel, you're sanctimonious, you screw up, and I hope that this bill is really just a satire. Now you will all rush out to try to find some "s" words to combat me, but there will only be words like senile and servile, for that's what they are doing in this session.
I will conclude by saying that this bill takes away due process, that it takes away rights, and that it creates uncertainty that could only be resolved on the political level. This government has failed to see just how dangerous it is, and it leaves the province at a serious disadvantage to other countries throughout the world.
I can't go on forever, unfortunately, so I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
L. Stephens: It is my pleasure to rise today in debate on second reading of Bill 32, the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act. On the face of it, this bill temporarily puts on hold any proceedings for compensation where the government cancels the rights of companies and individuals to log or mine on public lands in British Columbia.
This bill is yet another example of this government's attack on property rights. It is a clear attack on the democratic process and a cowardly attack on due process and the fundamental right to your day in court. Not only are individuals or companies barred from court action, they are also prohibited from seeking arbitration by the Expropriation Compensation Board or any other tribunal. I believe this government is trying to expropriate privately held mineral and forestry interests on Crown land and get away without paying anything for them. This bill denies resource companies the security of tenure they need to invest in exploration and expansion. The government is saying that it will be the judge of whether or not a resource company has rights. If this government continues to act in such an arbitrary manner, what confidence will companies and individuals have in investing in this province?
Bill 32 adds to the uncertainty of tenure that already exists in British Columbia over land claims and park expansions. The only good thing about this bill is that it would be automatically repealed on June 15, 1993. The resource compensation commission report, expected on or before June 30, 1992, will be closely monitored and scrutinized by opposition members. I urge all members to vote against this truly offensive piece of legislation that suspends the very foundation of democratic rights of individuals and the right of due process.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, I rise to address Bill 32, the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act. I'm afraid I have to be against it.
Again this is an indication of how this government is abusing the rights of the individuals of this province and the corporations that operate within our borders. This bill is another indication of the arbitrary operating manner of this government. Expropriations are supposed to be fair, sound and reasonably necessary; but when it is the expropriator determining the fairness, it makes one question whether it is unbiased and unfair to the other parties. The government's interests appear to be the only interests which are protected.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
This bill takes away mineral rights from those who are entitled to them. These rights have been substantiated by the courts. The mineral claims are an interest in the land, for which the Expropriation Act applies. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that compensation should be determined by an arbitration tribunal, which should be established by the statutory law of British Columbia, and that mineral rights are part of the total value of the land.
The mining industry is leaving British Columbia, and why? Because of mixed signals sent by this government. For example, the mineral rights bid on and won are now lost due to Bill 32. There will be no compensation, and the government cannot be taken to court. This is very dangerous ground: taking away inalienable rights. This is preposterous. This bill takes away individual rights without compensation. This will not instil confidence in the government. It is running roughshod over its private and corporate citizens.
Due to this, the government has our third-largest industry in disarray, leaving this province and this country for areas which have greener pastures. The government is stating this freeze will be lifted after the government rewrites the rules to restrict the amount of compensation that can be claimed. Unfortunately, with this government's track record, no one in the province believes this legislation will be lifted. Ask the doctors, the teachers and the HEU how they feel. You have to wonder why this government is so insecure that they are afraid to talk to the people involved, namely the industries that have these mineral rights. This is not the way to build trust.
It is obvious that the NDP are not committed to the open government which they claimed during the election. I quote the hon. Premier: "I will lead a government that is open and balanced...that will work with all British Columbians to encourage initiative and share the opportunities and rewards that I am confident lie ahead." He said "share the opportunities and rewards." Well, this is not sharing that they're doing right now.
In the 48 points, there are two points I should talk about. One was point No. 4:
"We will make sure that large profitable corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share of income and property taxes.
"A New Democrat government will work with the business community to develop new markets and new products that diversify our traditional resource base. We will promote B.C.'s position as Canada's gateway...."
[ Page 1797 ]
I wonder if those words ring true now.
Another one was promise No. 3. It was promised that "British Columbians should not have to fear that the deck is stacked against them because of political interference...." I wonder if this could not be construed as political interference. Those are just a few quotes from the 48 promises.
I going to make another quote, and this is from a newspaper report of what was said by the reporters in this province.
"This bill handcuffs resource companies who are seeking compensation for losing their mining and logging rights because of parkland designations and native land claim negotiations. It effectively cuts the process of expropriation compensation off at the knees. It denies resource companies the security of tenure they need to invest in exploration and expansion...."
The government is saying that it will be the judge of whether or not a resource company has rights. Surely this government could have found a way of negotiating a solution.
Finally, I will quote from another minister of this government, the Minister of Labour, the Hon. Moe Sihota. He said:
"If cabinet were to take that action and dispense with an inquiry for expropriation purposes, there ought to be a full report to the House at its next sitting so that the report and the decision of cabinet could be debated in the open confines of the Legislature. Therefore, keeping in harmony with the Premier's commitment to open government."
A second quote from the same individual states:
"...there should be some business loss provision provided in the advance payment to allow people to enjoy some income from the property or to recognize the fact that people enjoyed some income from the property before it was expropriated."
In the last quote I will go on with, he states:
"...people often do not know that they have a choice. They think that when the expropriating authority shows up, they've got no choice. Hence, they just begin to deal with the matter of compensation. They should be told that they've got a choice, that under the inquiry provisions of the act, one of the things that can be done is a determination to see whether or not that property is the appropriate property to be expropriated...."
This is exactly the same thing for companies. They've had their rights taken away too -- and individuals -- with this bill. This bill goes against democracy. It's time this government took it back, had another look at it and debated with all parties in this Legislature.
Surely this government will soon send a clear message to the forest and mining industries, asking them to the table to negotiate the better deal they have been advertising; or are we going to see these industries fold up and leave en masse, instead of at the disastrous rate we are now experiencing?
That ends what I have to say. Due to the hour I propose that we adjourn until a further sitting.
The Speaker: Hon. members, it appears that it is the will of the House that we continue debate, and therefore I would recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano.
J. Dalton: Every speaker this morning has certainly pointed out the shortcomings of this pending legislation, and I want to point out two or three things that I think must be stated and put on the record.
Years ago, in fact for many years, this province suffered through some terribly outdated and woefully inadequate expropriation laws: a myriad of confusing bills, expropriation authorities for many jurisdictions -- provincial, local, down to municipal and school board levels. This province, for whatever reasons, delayed for many, many years the process of getting on with amending the expropriating laws of this province.
Happily, a few years ago the province did come to its senses, and put in place a very excellent Expropriation Act. The act has been in place now for a few years. I think that most people who have had any experience with it recognize the sense and the fairness of the act. Now we have one reference point to look to, and not 50 or 100 or whatever was in place prior to the Expropriation Act of British Columbia.
[11:45]
Now I think we're taking a step backwards. The excellent Expropriation Act that I just referred to seems to be thrown aside, ignored; and what do we see before us? A suggestion from Bill 32 that we're going to deny the due process of expropriation. We're going to deny the legal rights that all British Columbians have expected to enjoy, and certainly did enjoy under the Expropriation Act and the process set forward in that piece of legislation.
What do we see now? We see a bill that is going to put things on hold, is going to deny proper compensation for two very important industries: mining and forestry. Certainly in this day and age, the last thing we need is to discourage those two industries from some economic opportunities. This legislation is going to set us back many years if it is allowed to be introduced and passed.
The legislation is certainly denying the rights of people to have adequate recourse to a claim for compensation. I see no reason why the Expropriation Act of British Columbia should not be the judging authority for all expropriation matters. If you think back a few years ago when this province was in a state of chaos in expropriation.... I'm suggesting that we're going to go back to a state of chaos and economic uncertainty if we allow this legislation to go forward without challenge.
There is no justification for denying British Columbians due process. I don't care what the economic circumstances are. I don't care what the environmental concerns are. Anyone should have the right to recourse to the courts or the Expropriation Compensation Board, as the case may be. I cannot think of any justification for Bill 32 to go forward. If this province is not concerned about due process, if this province is not concerned about the enforcement of the law so that everyone has the same opportunity of access to the courts and to compensation boards, then I think we are at a very sorry state.
[ Page 1798 ]
Bill 32 is flawed. Bill 32 is just another example of a denial of rights, of a denial of due process -- and we've had various pieces of legislation already presented, and probably we will be unhappily looking forward to more. As I've said, I think it's also an unfortunate step backwards into the dark ages when expropriation laws in this province were in a very sorry state. If this government has the intention of taking us back to those sorry days, then I think all British Columbians should voice very strong concerns. Certainly we in the opposition do.
I urge all members to seriously consider the implications of Bill 32: the denial of due process and of proper access to expropriation authorities. I would urge all members to vote against Bill 32.
V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I rise also to question the timing and validity of this bill and to urge some reconsideration of it. One of my concerns is that it continues to signal the uncertainty that businesses are facing in our province, because of a variety of legislation coming forward that puts their planning on hold. Six months' or a year's planning that's put on hold at this time means that years of planning are in effect put back, and our province will suffer over a long period of time because of that.
I'm also concerned about the unilateral suspension of these contracts and agreements that businesses have made with government in confidence that government, of all people, would hold to contracts they had made. When these contracts are being so quickly disregarded without consultation or planning with those who are affected by it, I am concerned not only for the companies, their shareholders and the people who are a part of them, but particularly for the impact that it has upon the employees of these companies. This kind of impact is being felt by many of our economic employees at the moment. It's being felt in education and in health because of contracts that have been cancelled by this government. It's being felt in the mineral industry and the forest industry because of contracts being cancelled by this government, and it's felt in another way through the increase in taxes of business after business. Where is it going to end, hon. Speaker?
Our people are becoming concerned and, indeed, beginning to be frightened by unemployment and the pressure that is being put on them by government action. For many years in this province, we've had a committee called "End Legislated Poverty" urging the government to bring in legislation that would not legislate people into poverty, but would enable them to get out of poverty. Much of the present legislation coming before this House is increasing the number of people being legislated into poverty. I'm concerned not only by what is being done, but also by how it's being done -- without the consultation and planning that is necessary.
On one hand the government is supporting the healthy community concept, which is encouraging governments and people to come together in the community and consult. As I attended a Saturday round-table discussion encouraging the government and people to come together and consult.... On one hand they're doing this; on the other hand, without any consultation, they're bringing in measures which put these very people who meet to consult under the axe of economic difficulty in the communities where they live. The contradiction of these two approaches means that people begin to lose trust, even in the positive things that are being undertaken.
I'm concerned also that we will lose track of the fact that these businesses within our province are trying to have confidence in the future. It's not just the large businesses that are losing confidence in the government, but also the small businesses. Those are the ones which employ our people. If people do not have confidence -- particularly as small businesses which are trying to begin a new process -- they are not going to venture if they cannot be supported in that venture. So there is no process that these people can be confident in as they move ahead.
One of the concerns that I have is the pattern of the bills that keep building one upon the other. When we see them one at a time, we're concerned. When we see them in the totality of the bills that have already come forward and are still coming forward, we become even more concerned and frightened. We also become concerned, as we look at the bill, that the transfer of power in bill after bill, which normally is the power of the Legislature, is quietly being transferred to the cabinet. In almost each of these bills brought forward, there is a clause -- and there is one in this bill -- that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in effect the cabinet, can alter the very bill brought forward. They can make changes to it. They can adjust it. They can overrule it. In effect, bill after bill is taking the power of the Legislature. A simple clause hidden in the middle of each bill is transferring that power to the cabinet. If these bills continue to function, the Legislature will not need to meet, because the cabinet has by default, or by oversight on our part, taken over the control of the legislative functions.
Part of that is also in the clarity of language. I challenge this present government -- and in committee stage it will bring up the clauses -- that as you read this through and actually look at section 3... It refers you to section (b), where there is a change. But which of the many sections (b) does it refer to? As you read through those sections, it's almost impossible -- in fact, I have found it impossible so far -- to find out where it is referring to and what relationship it is trying to draw between one part of the bill and the other. I would urge that there be a review of that, because I think it has very great implications for confusion and inadequacy. I know that so often in my own material -- I fully understand how this happens -- when you write something, you know what it means; but the person who reads it without that understanding, as a neutral, objective, uninformed reader, cannot follow through the implications of what you have said. In this bill, as in others, that clarity, which is an understanding by the writer, is not conveyed to the person who would read it. So I would hope that the clarity of the language and of the connections within the bill itself will be re-examined, so that in committee stage those corrections could be made.
[ Page 1799 ]
Hon. Speaker, this is a bill that must be changed and re-examined. It must be made clearer in its relationship to the overall confidence that the people of the province may have in how we write our legislation in a language they can understand. This government has tried to say they will be clear in language, so that people can follow it.
The hon. minister is shaking his head at me, but I will be glad to go over it with him and show him that if I'm dense, I'm glad to be seen that way, but I'm sure I'm no more dense than many of the people who will be trying to read the bill. One of the validities I've found in being dense is that it helps me to understand what other people read and misunderstand. So from that point of view, in representing them, I prefer to be dense rather than to understand it or to take an understanding for granted.
Hon. Speaker, I hope they will reconsider and clarify the bill in its meaning, its writing and its implications.
I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada