Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1992

Volume 6, Number 19

[ Page 4175 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Prayers.

A. Cowie: I'd like to introduce Jean Porteous, a commissioner of the Vancouver Park Board, and her friend Casey Forrest. They're in the Legislature today visiting and they've been playing golf at Royal Colwood. I'd like to ask the members to make them welcome.

Hon. T. Perry: There are a large number of students from the Langara campus of the Vancouver Community College who have come over today to meet members of the Legislature and observe the proceedings. I would like, on behalf of all hon. members, to make them welcome and let members know I'll be meeting with them at 2:30. If any members care to join us, they would be most welcome in the Birch Room.

Hon. E. Cull: I have in the gallery today one of my constituents, Muriel Overgaard, and two guests from Denmark, Bjarke Overgaard and Thomas Michaelson. Would the members please make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: I too would like to note that we have in the precincts with us almost 100 students from the Langara campus of Vancouver Community College. I met with them earlier today, and the Minister of Advanced Education, thankfully, has indicated that he is going to be meeting with them. The reason they're over here, Mr. Speaker, is to find out why they're not in classes, and I hope they find an answer to that question today. Would you please welcome them to the House today.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to introduce Paul Rowland, who is a special assistant to Mike Breaugh, the MP for Oshawa. Would all members of the House please make him welcome.

V. Anderson: As the member for Vancouver-Langara, and since Langara College is in my riding, I'd like to affirm particularly the students who are here who have given such a reasonable response to their situation. I hope we will encourage them.

H. De Jong: From the great constituency of Surrey-Green Timbers, for which I am the buddy MLA for the Social Credit Party, present in the House today are Mr. and Mrs. Larry Martin and their grandchild, Karen Toth. Would the House please give them a hearty welcome.

J. Dalton: Also in the gallery today are some of my colleagues from Langara. They are here today when normally, of course, they would be at work. I've been told that on Thursday many, many others from that faculty will be here. I hope that I will not be welcoming them on that day.

Oral Questions

LANGARA COLLEGE DISPUTE

J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. We have seen this government put its priorities into fair wages, a 5.4 percent increase in public sector wages and now the labour bill. My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is: given the incredible expectations that you've raised with the public about this government's ability to open the purse-strings every time someone asks, how are you going to deal with the instructors at Langara College, given the unprecedented irresponsibility of the government with taxpayers' dollars and their lack of ability to deal with the problems in post-secondary education?

Hon. T. Perry: I wasn't sure if there was a question there. The hon. member ought to know that how I'm going to deal with it is a matter that relates to future policy. But if she wishes to know how I've dealt with the issue so far, I think I've been perfectly forthright and indicated not only to the faculty but to the students, the college board and the general public that the province has a very serious financial situation, that there is no magical way out of that situation and that the province remains interested in achieving a settlement that both the faculty and the province can live with. But there will be no magic manna from heaven. [Interruption.]

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Just a moment, hon. member. The question period will be extended appropriately due to the interruption. I would caution members in the gallery, however, that in the event of a repeat of the events that we have just experienced, it will be necessary to adjourn the chamber.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I think what we witnessed today is an incredibly high level of frustration, because of the broken promises of this government and the very poor spending priorities they have.

Deputy Speaker: Your question, please.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, my question is again to the Minister of Advanced Education. Due to the fair wage policy, which this government could pull back on to have the money to settle this dispute, and since we've had things like that implemented and the cupboards are now bare, when will the Minister of Advanced Education offer some hope to 6,000 students that they can get back to school?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I indicated a few moments ago that I will be meeting with the students at 2:30 in the Birch Room. I invited other hon. members, including the Opposition House Leader, to attend that meeting if they wish to. I have already met twice with students, including some who remain in the gallery and a few of those who have left. I will assure them again this afternoon, as I have all along, that the government 

[ Page 4176 ]

is working night and day, weekday and weekend, taking every possible measure it can to resolve this dispute in a way that is consistent with the interests of all British Columbians -- not only those who are on strike or who are suffering because of the strike at Vancouver Community College, but also students who would like to have access to the system but who are not able to now because of the shortage of space, those people who are losing their employment around the province and those people who face other problems, including people in small businesses who are susceptible to the effects of tax increases. We will continue to govern in the interests of all the people of this province.

JOB CREATION IN B.C.

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. Last week the Premier boasted in the House that 16,000 new jobs were created in B.C. during October, and the opposition was surprised to note that according to Ministry of Finance statistics, 11,000 of those jobs were in public administration. Can the Premier advise the House how many of those 11,000 jobs belong to the bloated provincial civil service alone?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm pleased that the opposition recognizes that B.C. is creating more jobs than any other province. I'm pleased that they also understand, though, that a lot of British Columbians are in difficult economic circumstances. When they come here and ask us to spend more money, as they do on alternate days, I'm pleased that they appreciate that we're trying to create wealth in this province. We're trying to create it through the business community and through workers working more cooperatively. That is the focus of this government, and that's the focus we're going to keep.

W. Hurd: The opposition assumes that the government is basing its economic growth projections on 11,000 civil service jobs and 4,000 service industry jobs, and in October alone this province lost 4,000 manufacturing jobs. Does the Premier believe that low-end service jobs and civil service jobs are a substitute for manufacturing jobs in an export economy?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This province is export-driven, and I think the hon. member of the opposition should understand that our industries are indeed facing falling world prices, that that is impacting on the revenues of this government. This government is doing well containing expenditures. We're within the expenditure targets that we set in the budget. We are aware of the fact that we have to increase our exports. I have chosen to have the B.C. Trade Development Corporation under my jurisdiction so we can get more British Columbians back to work.

UBC BOARD OF GOVERNORS RESIGNATIONS

H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Late last week Asa Johal and Richard Nelson were dumped from the UBC board of governors, well before their terms were up. Can the minister explain today why he fired these two honourable gentlemen, and can he also explain to the House why his press release deliberately attempted to mislead the people into believing that these firings were voluntary departures?

Hon. T. Perry: I thank the hon. member for his question. Mr. Johal and Mr. Nelson resigned from the board of the University of British Columbia, and I accepted their resignations.

H. De Jong: Is the minister aware of the great service that Mr. Johal and Mr. Nelson have performed for the university? Is he also aware of the significant contributions these individuals made to the university in time, money and expertise? What possible reason other than crass politics did the minister have for turfing these men off the board before their terms expired?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm well aware of the contributions that both gentlemen have made to the University of British Columbia. I hope they will continue making those contributions in a voluntary capacity, in the same way they gave excellent service while they were members of the board.

JUDGMENT OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier, and it concerns the Minister of Labour. Can he confirm that despite questions about the Minister of Labour's judgment and competency, he remains in charge of Bill 84?

Deputy Speaker: The member has a further question?

AMENDMENTS TO BILL 84

G. Farrell-Collins: Once again there's no answer, as we've been seeing for the past two weeks in this House. If the question is in doubt, I don't know who to put the question to, the Minister of Labour or the Premier. We've heard the Minister of Labour say numerous times in this House that there will be no amendments to Bill 84, yet yesterday we had the Premier saying to the press that there will be amendments. I'd like a clarification as to which is the standard that this government is following.

Hon. M. Sihota: I take it the question was to myself.

[ Page 4177 ]

This government and the Premier have said consistently, as far back as the time of our own provincial convention, that we would be open to any consideration with regard to technical issues. In addition to that, we've always said that if there is a compelling, rational, logical case to be made with regard to an amendment, we would accept it. To date the opposition has failed miserably to put any amendments that are logical and rational before this House. Accordingly, we have not accepted any amendments that the opposition has put forward, but we have encouraged business and labour to work together in order to put forward suggestions that are acceptable to this government.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member on a further question. I would caution the member that matters before the Legislature in the form of legislation are not appropriate for question period.

G. Farrell-Collins: We're not dealing with the bill, but rather the process.

It has been very clear that the Liberal opposition has put forth numerous reasonable amendments to Bill 84, and just because they don't apply to NDP dogma doesn't mean they should be rejected outright. My question is to the Premier. My question is very clear. Has there been or is there not a backroom deal going on in British Columbia this last week?

VICTORIA SEWAGE TREATMENT

A. Cowie: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The citizens of Victoria have turned down a proposal to treat their sewage. Does the minister agree with the opposition that the reason for the defeat of this proposal is the massive increase of property tax that would have accompanied the facility, and that this increase would have been on top of already increased taxes due to the removal of the supplementary homeowner's grant?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That is really a question the Minister of Environment should take, but I will add some comments for the member.

Yes, the citizens did vote; yes, the citizens did say no. I think there is a question of a process and of a long-term need. The citizens will determine if there will be a requirement for sewage treatment. The issue now is timing -- when do we get on with it? The citizens were confused to some degree. I think it's incumbent on all of us to resolve this issue in terms of the need for environmental sewage treatment in greater Victoria.

MATCHING GRANTS

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Is the minister aware that the matching grants program was instituted by the former government in 1988, and that many millions of dollars have been paid out by the province in matching grants to the University of Victoria, BCIT, UBC and Simon Fraser?

Perhaps the minister could explain why he is quoted in the Saturday issue of the Vancouver Sun as saying that the program was phony, when evidence clearly demonstrates that the program was very important to advanced education and to the universities in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. T. Perry: That's a good question, and I welcome it. The program was not phony. The program is generally an excellent program. The commitment of $20 million -- not ad infinitum, but for four or five years after the last provincial election -- was phony in the sense that there was no money in the provincial accounts to pay for it.

It was one of many such commitments made by the former government -- completely regardless of the true financial picture of the government -- which made me wonder, as minister now, whether many of the ministers of the former Social Credit cabinet were aware of the true state of the budget when they were making such commitments.

C. Serwa: To the Minister of Advanced Education, a final supplementary. In the budget, according to Public Accounts 1990-91, $20 million was allocated to match the matching grants. In your budget of 1992-93 it has been reduced to $10 million, and now you're abdicating that. Is your government committed to advanced education or is it not?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm not abdicating that responsibility. I would have liked to have seen the matching fund continued at the same level, or even expanded. The fiscal reality remains that the province faces a very large deficit. The kind of question that this raises for government is whether to allocate money to a fund like that, which is a very good use of public money -- one which I fully support -- or whether to allocate it to, for example, the resolution of a strike that is ongoing and disturbs the students with us in the gallery. Those are very complicated decisions that an elected government must undertake. That's why we have a proud tradition in Canada of a responsible government, and the responsibility rests where it should. I'm glad to shoulder it.

SAFETY OF B.C. FERRIES

D. Symons: My question is to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The recently released Yanow report paints a frightening picture of the inland ferry system. In a man-overboard drill on the Albion ferry, the ship first dropped the lifebuoy overboard, then promptly chewed it up in its own propeller. Despite reports that the lifebuoy bore a strong resemblance to the minister responsible for ferries, we are still amazed that the system could be allowed to decay to this level.

The minister's November 18 press release stated that he has been concerned about these safety issues since being appointed minister. My question, then, is: why did it take him until July 27 to begin a review of this critical situation?

[ Page 4178 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: When you return home, hon. member, and the dog has made a mess on the carpet, it takes time to clean it all up. We have, from the previous administration, a whole raft of problems, which we are attempting to correct. I established this committee and gave them full rein to do whatever they had to do to discover whatever problems there were anywhere in the ferry system and to report them. We then promptly took action to start to correct those matters. Many of them have been corrected already, and the ones that remain to be corrected will be in the near future.

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, last.... [Interruption.]

Deputy Speaker: The Attorney General continues.

RELEASE OF PHOTOGRAPHS
OF CONVICTED PEDOPHILES

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Last Thursday I took on notice the following supplemental question by the Leader of the Opposition:

"Can the Attorney General tell us what rationale there may be in a specific case, file number 914329, out of Williams Lake, for a Canada-wide warrant for the apprehension of a twice-convicted felon, which is essentially not being assisted by the release of photographs of this individual to community-based organizations across Canada that may assist in the apprehension of this individual? How can we capture somebody if we don't know what the individual looks like?"

[2:30]

The answer to the question is as follows. I'm advised that the Williams Lake detachment of the RCMP made available to local media a photograph of the individual in question approximately five weeks ago, on October 20. The photograph had not been published by last Thursday, when the Leader of the Opposition asked the question. I am further advised that it is the policy of the RCMP to make such photographs available to the media, because it is possible to ensure their retrieval or cancellation when an arrest is made. I am advised that they do not normally release such photos to community interest groups, because it is not possible to control what use is made of such photos or to ensure retrieval or cancellation when they are no longer applicable.

FUNDING FOR HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. E. Cull: Last week I took a question on notice from the member for Richmond East with regard to the Everywoman's Health Centre Society. Since then I've had a chance to check into the matter, and I have been advised by the registrar of societies that the Everywoman's Health Centre Society is in good standing and has provided the registrar with all the documentation required under the act.

Further, I just want to make it clear that the funding decisions that we make are not based on the previous year's expenditures by the clinic but on our analysis -- as is the case with all contracted services -- of what the cost of the service should be, what the cost is in other health facilities providing the same services and such kinds of analyses.

Orders of the Day

Motion on Notice

NORTH AMERICAN
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call adjourned debate on the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. The motion was: "Be it resolved that this Legislature call upon the government of Canada to not ratify the North American free trade agreement as initialled on October 7, 1992." The member for Peace River adjourned the debate.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is not in his place. I recognize the hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

C. Evans: In the absence of the hon. member who adjourned debate, it's my pleasure to engage in debate on this motion, which I'll read to you, because I want all members of the opposition to understand what we're here to decide today. "Be it resolved that this Legislature call upon the government of Canada to not ratify the North American free trade agreement as initialled on October 7, 1992."

Hon. Speaker, the last time we discussed this motion in this House, the official opposition took the position that there was no rush to debate this motion; they took the position that there was no legal text; they took the position that really it was a hypothetical discussion that could be put off for another day.

I want to quote a little bit from the comments of various opposition members at the time. The hon. member for Okanagan East said: "There isn't even a legal text. Exactly what are we talking about? It seems contemptuous in the extreme." The hon. member went on: "One of the biggest problems that the opposition has with the entire concept of NAFTA is that there is no legal text, and this is only a concept." The Leader of the Opposition went on to say: "We do not have a legal text." The member for Langley said: "Some important questions will only be answered when a legal text is available."

The members of the opposition went on to claim that the NAFTA was still somehow negotiable. The member for Okanagan East seemed to perceive that the American election would change the situation. She said that with a new mandate the American government will go in a different direction than it has in the past, and that as the NAFTA evolves, the changes in direction of the government will be taken into consideration. The suggestion is that we, the people of the sovereign country of Canada, should wait for the people in the south to decide what direction they want NAFTA to go.

[ Page 4179 ]

The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, Leader of the Opposition, said: "There's a very real opportunity for us to get down to the details of negotiation with Mexico and our trading partners in the United States and put into place a very positive and constructive agreement that will advance the economies of Canada and British Columbia." The member for Delta South said: "You have to get a government in Ottawa negotiating on our behalf to negotiate out of the areas we see to be problems and negotiate into the things that we need to allow the British Columbia economy to grow."

Hon. Speaker, it's the belief of the opposition that they need a new government in Ottawa before they will talk about the deal. They need direction from the government to the south before they will talk about the deal, and they wish to have the legal text before we can even understand the deal. On October 27 the Leader of the Opposition went so far as to say: "...there needs to be a renewed mandate in Ottawa prior to any government, no matter what political stripe, negotiating such an important document on behalf of Canadians."

The reason that we bring this motion before the House today is because almost all of the opposition's objections to debating the NAFTA at this time have now been proven to be false. They were wrong on the legal text, wrong on the direction of the government of the United States and wrong about the intentions of the government in Ottawa. Just this week the Prime Minister said that we're going to have the Conservative government in Ottawa until next fall. Mr. Wilson, the minister responsible for the agreement, informs us that it is his intention to have the NAFTA signed within a month and to have enabling legislation tabled in Ottawa in the spring. So there will be no opportunity for members opposite to hope that there is a different government in Ottawa before we have this debate.

We can't adjourn to go home for Christmas and come back in the spring to have this debate, because the NAFTA will be a reality.

A. Warnke: What are you doing wasting the time of the House now?

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, for the benefit of the folks at home, the members opposite are heckling us. What are we doing wasting the House's time now on debating this useless, unimportant matter? Hon. Speaker, in my opinion and in the opinion of thousands of people in British Columbia and hundreds of thousands of Canadians, there is no more important issue to be discussed in this House on this day. Now is the time to have this conversation, and now is the time for every political party represented in this room to stand up and be counted on where they stand on the issue of the NAFTA.

I think everybody knows what the position of our political party is. We are the folks who introduced the motion calling on the government of Canada to withdraw from the NAFTA. I think everybody knows where the third party stands; they stand wherever Michael Walker stands. Although the positions of the government and of the third party are pretty clear, today is the day that we're going to find out the position of the hon. opposition on the NAFTA.

I honestly think that politically it would be best for the government if the opposition decided to support the NAFTA. That would make it easy, in a few years, to explain to the electorate who is on what side. The NAFTA is the biggest issue we will face in the term of this government. If the opposition decides to support the NAFTA, it will be clear to the electorate where they stand. But in my heart I don't really have the same objective that might be best politically for my government, because I don't want to live under the North American free trade agreement.

We are only one province in a country with a federal government that is in favour of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and I think we need all the help we can get. The gist of my comments today is to beg the opposition to come into the tent of the Canadians who are opposed to the NAFTA, stand up with us today, vote to ask the federal government to get rid of this heinous deal and show British Columbians that, in spite of the political ambitions of any of the three parties in this room, you still can think independently in favour of your country.

I remember that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was running in the election, said that it was time British Columbians became less polarized. He said that we've had it with 40 years of the left and the right, and nobody to articulate the commonsense middle. It's understandable -- it had to be -- that when that gentleman was elected to the House and led the opposition, he had to oppose the budget. That's the job of the opposition.

When that independent-minded, careful, thoughtful gentleman came into the House to lead the opposition, it's pretty logical and understandable that he would have to oppose the legislation brought in by the government, because that too is the job of the opposition.

But now we come to a day, about a year after the election, when we get to test the Leader of the Opposition and his party's commitment to rational middle ground in this province. It's not a government bill or the government's budget; it's a question of the future of this country. I invite the Leader of the Opposition and his party to take this opportunity to prove to the people of B.C. the position that they took in the election.

I want opposition members to imagine: what if your dream came true? Close your eyes and imagine. Some of you might find this difficult to imagine, but imagine what would happen if you someday became government under the NAFTA. It's okay; fairy tales are allowed. There's no rule here against imagining. Think about it. Hon. Speaker, help them to calm down and think about it.

I remember the Environment critic speaking in this House at the time of the gypsy moth on behalf of asthmatics, on behalf of people with allergies and on behalf of the part of society that doesn't want any pesticides in their world -- a pesticide-free zone. Now 

[ Page 4180 ]

imagine, in North America under NAFTA, how that member would resolve environmental questions. How would that member deal with the pesticide issue when we're wired into the bottom line that whatever passes for health in Mexico passes in British Columbia on the food that we eat and in the air that we breathe?

What about effluent laws? What about the toxins that the Environment critic correctly wants us to eliminate from industry in British Columbia? How is she going to do it in that fantasy world where she might be government if we're wired into a price structure where the toxins in Mexico set the price for goods in British Columbia?

How about the Labour critic? Fantasize about the Labour critic becoming the minister and having to protect workers and occupational health and safety as part of his job. What if the Labour critic, who has been badmouthing the rights of workers to organize, someday had to defend workers in British Columbia against poisons, danger and shoddy practices. Imagine that it's the post-NAFTA world, and the price of goods is set in the maquiladora and not in Vancouver.

[2:45]

What about the Health critic? We heard the Health critic stand up and berate the government -- correctly and with honour -- when we found it necessary to cut a hospital bed somewhere. She stood up and defended the rights of people to universal and portable medical care. That was right, and it's her job. But imagine her trying to deliver that care when the industrial base in this country collapses after NAFTA and we can't raise the taxes to afford the health system that she is so valiantly defending. Imagine it!

I was across the street this weekend at a meeting of anti-poverty groups held, parenthetically enough, in the Empress Hotel. The Social Services critic from the opposition was at that meeting. I see the gentleman at such meetings all the time. There were all kinds of people there talking about turning British Columbia into a poverty-free zone -- with the support of the hon. member opposite, and rightly so. Now that's a good idea, and that's a really fine thing to work towards. But imagine that member somehow, someday, having to stand up and speak in a portfolio that represents the interests of the poor in a world run by NAFTA, in a North America where instead of being able to work as a sovereign country or a province to change the conditions of poverty in this country.... Imagine that the hon. member had to work in that portfolio to jack the province down to the level of Mexico instead of raising the incomes and standards of the poor in British Columbia. You can't have it both ways.

Today is the day when every critic on the other side gets to look underneath the rock that they've been standing on for the last year, talk about where the rot is and stand with the government on the issue of the North American free trade agreement.

What is NAFTA really about? It isn't about guys like me standing up and hollering.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

C. Evans: You're right, it isn't. It isn't about the ongoing debate that the hon. member opposite and I have or that the third party and the government have. It's about people's lives.

It seems to me that it's about an American corporate view of how to deal with the demilitarization era and the ending of the era of steel, when they could run the world's economy. It seems to me that what they've decided to do to face the future is to tie the rot that is the American debt-economy to cheap resources in the north and cheap labour in the south under the control of the world's most militarized capital in the middle -- the United States of America.

It isn't just about something that's going to happen somewhere else. It's about a Victoria and a Vancouver and a Montreal and an Ottawa and a Toronto some years from now where the rich are a whole bunch richer because they're capitalists free to float to wherever they get the highest return; that's what capitalism is about. That's what we all do with our RRSPs: every single hon. member in this room, if they get a spare dollar, goes out and looks for the best return. When they can get the best return freely, anywhere, regardless of the labour conditions, regardless of the pollution, regardless of any kind of ethical considerations, when that day comes, the rich are going to get a whole lot richer.

In this country I acknowledge that this is a great deal for the Bronfmans and their ilk. But, hon. Speaker, some of us, some of the people out there, are going to get a whole lot poorer because it's going to be real hard for them to organize and demand a fair value for their labour when they are in competition with the people in maquiladoras. Imagine cities where maybe the mean income in Canada ten years from now is exactly what it is today, because the middle as an arithmetic position stays but the rich are up here and the poor are down there. It will get a whole lot easier to get somebody to mow your lawn cheap or to work in your factory cheap or to make your bed while you're out making money, but it's not the kind of society Canadians want. It's not our idea of a life. It will be mirrored all over this continent. For sure the rich will get richer in Mexico City, and for sure in Detroit and San Francisco, and for sure we're going to ratchet the poor right down to the lowest common denominator.

NAFTA is free trade, they say. Yes, that's true. NAFTA is free trade but not for everything. NAFTA -- North American free trade -- is free trade in capital and in goods. You can take money and move it down to Mexico and build goods and move them back north. That will be free. But is it going to be free trade in labour? Are we going to say to a person in a country to the south of us where we send our money that it's only fair that, if we can send our money to your country, then you can come up and work in our country? Are we going to say that to that worker in Mexico? I doubt it, hon. Speaker.

Is it going to be free trade in environmental controls? Are we going to say that we'll trade your tomato for ours, so we'll trade our tomato legislation for yours? No, hon. Speaker, we're not. We're not going to say that all the jurisdictions have to have the same environmental laws. Most important, is there going to be free trade 

[ Page 4181 ]

in human rights? Can you believe that people die for the right to have democracy and we're sitting in this room debating going into a trade agreement all the way across the social and economic spectrum with a country that doesn't have free elections? What does that mean to our trade unionists, who want to organize and find out that they're in competition with a country where it's against the law? What does it mean to political parties in this country? Of what value is this debate? What are we? Were we hired to come here and talk...?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

C. Evans: It's okay, hon. Speaker; they can't get loud enough.

What does it mean to those folks opposite? What does it mean to their beliefs when they're put up against some other folks -- men and women in a room like this in a country where you don't even have to get elected?

Hon. Speaker, the free-traders are right about one thing, and I think members opposite are right about one thing too. They're right about the idea that we can't go backwards. We are not Luddites in this House -- any of the parties. We don't think we can turn back time to the 1950s. We understand. People have sent up rocket ships and satellites and taken a picture of the earth, and we've come to the understanding that it's finite. We're in the era of television, where when there's a prize fight in North America it's watched all around the world. Opponents of the NAFTA are not suggesting that we go back to the protectionist era. It is not okay with me, socially or politically as well as economically, that we should have more than people in other countries.

The solution to the changes in the shape of the economy and technology around the world is not to put the world under the control of the corporate class. It is not okay for us to export the most unpleasant part of our society to the Third World, that part of our society that desires to use other people's bodies and their land for a profit. It is necessary for women's groups in North America to assist and organize and stand up with women around the world. It is necessary for trade unions in this country to reverse the process of which we were the benefactors earlier in this century, and organize workers around the world.

We cannot, we all know, save the Stein and the Carmanah and the various pieces of land we have come to know as symbols in this province if it means the degradation of other chunks of the earth. It is time for the environmental movement in this province to organize and to assist around the world. It is time for us to understand that we cannot have the monolithic buildings and that power structure to defend workers, the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, if we are going to produce products that poison people in their production in the barrios of Chicago or Mexico City.

Hon. Speaker, it is time to face a new paradigm for sure. Members opposite have got that right. Even the Prime Minister of this country has got that right. It's time to invent an idea of free trade that isn't written by Michael Walker or the Bronfmans or the Conservative government or the corporatists, the one-real-world government that functions today. It's time for people of goodwill to understand some kind of concept of free trade that recognizes that we can't have a poverty-free zone, a pollution-free zone, a pesticide-free zone or even a sweatshop-free zone here in British Columbia if we can't see to it that the rest of the world -- certainly at the bare minimum we can aim for the rest of this continent -- has the same rights that our parents and our grandparents gained for us. I would like to encourage the official opposition to join the government today in opposing the NAFTA and to work out something that people of goodwill, the critics who aspire to have portfolios some day and people everywhere can live with.

You know, hon. Speaker, the shirt I'm wearing cost me only 25 bucks, and I'm pretty sure that the same is true for the other hon. members in this room. We are wearing clothes that somebody makes at 7 cents an hour while we're having this debate. There is a whole lot about the way this debate has happened around this country that makes me sick. One of the things is that, even as we're talking, the economy we have today is based on the exploitation of people of colour and unorganized people all over the world. I think it's time that we -- as people, as political parties and as a Legislature -- work to limit the role of capital in controlling workers and environments around this world in order to exploit them for the benefit of a few.

The majority of people in this room are Caucasian males and are middle-aged. I suggest that we have gained the most by the exploitation that we have seen around the world in the last 100 years. It behooves us, hon. Speaker -- I'll sit down in a minute because I'd like to hear what the opposition has to say, even members who find this debate laughable -- to figure out where we stand. Do we want to go on with the exploitation that built the wealth to buy the education that allowed us to work here? Or do we wish to set down a road toward free trade in human values and the right to organize and other basic rights of a democracy? I challenge members opposite to respond during the rest of this day and tonight so we can see if they have the gumption to do as their leader said when he ran for office: vote with your common sense and not your parochial understanding.

[3:00]

J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to get up and speak in favour of this motion to have our government not ratify the North American free trade agreement.

It's an issue that I have been studying for years since the beginning of the free trade agreement with the United States. It's very easy on a day-to-day basis to lose sight of how important our trading issues are in British Columbia. We get caught up in looking after our families and making sure that the system runs properly. But I would say that this is the most important issue that will face us as British Columbians until the conclusion of this century. It's very important that we not wait and that we not do as the opposition would 

[ Page 4182 ]

have us do and sit this one out. I know that it would be very comfortable for us to sit back and say: "Oh, let Ottawa take care of that. Let everyone else take care of that. Let Congress in the United States take care of that; let the Mexican government take care of that." But if we do that, as British Columbians we will be shirking our responsibility to not only ourselves but also the people who need jobs in our communities.

I was listening to the members opposite debate this issue when we approached the topic a few weeks ago, and one of them, who is present in this room today, asked why we didn't do something like debate the fair wage policy. I'll tell you somehting: this debate is about fair wages. The members opposite should see that it's an issue of fair wages not only for British Columbians but for everyone in North America. We are no longer afforded the luxury of only being concerned about our own little community. We have to be concerned about the competition that exists among all of us within the global economy. I must tell you that the impact of this agreement on wages will be nothing but a downward spiral. I want to talk -- following my colleague for the Kootenays -- in more detail about the impact this agreement, if allowed to proceed, will have on the wages of the people who live in our communities. I also want to explore, in detail, the technicalities of how the environment will do nothing but suffer irreparable harm if this agreement goes forward.

It is clear that the document, as it stands now.... I know that perhaps the members opposite haven't had time to even seek out the legal text, but I must reassure them that it does exist. It is very detailed. If they have the time to read it, they will see that it clearly fails to address any concern that would be substantial for us in the area of fair wages, fair working conditions and environmental protection.

In fact, this NAFTA -- the North American free trade agreement -- could have been the launching pad for placing labour and environmental issues at the forefront. Those two issues were lost in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. We had the opportunity to correct that, but we didn't. In fact, the opportunity to build upon these issues was deliberately rejected by our negotiators in Washington. The matter of the environment was only given parallel status: there was a lot of talk and absolutely no action, and certainly no commitment in the legal text. The representatives of working people -- of those of us who actually work for a living -- were not even allowed at the table. They were given no official place in the discussions. As a result, the North American free trade agreement deals inadequately at best, and probably not at all, with either of these matters.

In the absence of protection within the North American free trade agreement, we still have the issue of those two standards -- environmental and labour standards -- confronting us directly and squarely in the eye. They exist at a very inadequate, substandard level within the country of Mexico. There has been a lot of talk about world-class environmental and labour standards that Mexico has on its books. I'm here to tell you, after studying this in detail, that none of these standards are enforced at all. If anything, those standards are violated with official government sanction. They have no mechanism for enforcing these standards. There are no officials who are dedicated solely to enforcing these standards. In fact, if an offender becomes blatantly obvious within the political context of Mexico, they are only given warnings or, at best, minimal fines. There's nothing within the North American free trade agreement to remedy this pathetic situation.

I say to you that British Columbians wish to expand trade, but we want to expand trade with other countries that don't participate in a trade agreement that is inherently unfair to workers and promotes pollution havens. I say to you that that's exactly what the North American free trade agrement does.

Some of you may take the opportunity to read the agreement, but I suspect you won't, because that would actually influence your debate. You will see that there are preamble provisions within the NAFTA that deal with the environment that are absolutely meaningless. The provisions are largely illusory, and there is absolutely no firm legal requirement for the parties to the NAFTA to do anything about protecting environmental and labour standards. They're not enforceable in any manner and, in fact, they are really quite meaningless. But just for the record, so that the members opposite do have the information before them and so that they don't have to wade through the legal text, let me go through with you some of these provisions that are, I tell you, totally illusory.

Under the NAFTA, there are treaty obligations regarding endangered species, ozone-depleting substances and hazardous wastes, but they are subject to the requirement that there be only minimal inconsistencies within the agreement. So what does that mean? If one country has a standard that is down here, while another country has a standard that is up here -- perhaps we could actually say that this will be the Mexican standard, and the Canadian standard will be up here -- it is required that those standards come together so that there is minimal inconsistency. What I say to you is that that can only mean a lowering of the standards that exist within Canada. It cannot go any other way.

Each country will be required to choose the level of protection of human, animal or plant life and health and environment that it considers appropriate. Well, when there are profits at stake, what level or standard do you think a country such as Mexico -- or, for that matter, the United States, which lives and dies by the profit margin -- will choose that will be appropriate? Oh yes, there is a committee of the three countries set up to jointly work on environmental problems and issues -- a committee without funds and without a mandate. I suggest that that will be absolutely meaningless for those of us who are concerned about paying fair wages and concerned about the environment.

The other thing in this whole issue of what's fair and just is that the country that brings forward a complaint in either of these areas is the country that will actually have to prove the case. It's a very unbalanced test of what is fair and just, and yet that is the test that exists within the North American free trade agreement today.

[ Page 4183 ]

I must also say, from an investment point of view, that all the NAFTA does is serve as an incentive for established industries within Canada to relocate and develop south of the U.S.-Mexico border because of the low wages and the lack of enforcement of any sort of labour standards. Many British Columbians have gone down to Mexico to investigate these circumstances. Many of us on this side have taken the opportunity to discuss the missions with those people, and it has become clear to us that there is absolutely nothing good in this agreement for British Columbians.

C. Serwa: Absolutely nothing.

J. MacPhail: Absolutely nothing, as the member opposite agrees with us.

I must tell you that the maquiladora wages.... There is a range of industries along the border called the maquiladora. Do you know what has happened to the wages since foreign investment has increased exponentially within the maquiladora? They have been halved, to a level now that is beyond our belief of substandard poverty levels. I say to you that this is totally unacceptable, not only for British Columbians but for the Mexican workers who must live and be employed there.

I must also tell you that we cannot rely on our business community to stand up to the test of loyalty for the enhancement of working people within British Columbia or for the enhancement of the environment, because it has been shown that when business is given an opportunity to flee to the area where their costs are the lowest and their profit margins the highest, regardless of the damage they may do, they do relocate. And it is clear that they will benefit greatly by relocating south of the U.S.-Mexican border.

Already, as a result of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which we have had the misfortune of being under for almost three years now, Canadian investors have decided to invest in the United States instead of Canada. In fact, under the free trade agreement Canadian companies have been investing in the U.S. at twice the rate that U.S. companies have decided to invest in Canada. From '89 to '91 the U.S. foreign direct net investment to Canada was $4.9 billion. You might say that that's a substantial figure, hon. Speaker. But Canadian investment, the outflow of Canadian dollars into the United States, was double that: $8.6 billion of our Canadian money went south of our border into the United States because their profit margins are higher, and they don't have to commit themselves to the excellent labour and environmental standards that exist in most jurisdictions in Canada today.

What is in this North American free trade agreement for the trading partners? Why does the United States want this so greatly? I must tell you, hon. Speaker, that I am healthily suspicious about why the United States is fighting so hard for this North American free trade agreement. I would submit to you that it is because the United States wishes to be in direct and unfettered control of the entire North American continent. It is as simple as that. They want to have access to cheap labour on their southern side, and on the northern side they want to have access to our excellent natural resources, which they can get relatively inexpensively. It's a wonderful combination for the United States. They sit in the middle, and they control it. Who benefits out of that? The United States benefits. Who loses? It's the working people of Canada and Mexico who lose substantially. There is no other reason for this North American free trade agreement.

[3:15]

I must tell you that we are at a crossroads in terms of what we must do with this agreement. Job losses are sure to continue if British Columbians are forced to compete with low Mexican wages and their feeble enforcement of standards. The continuation of this will be the continuation of unfair trade. There is nothing free about it; there is nothing fair about it. Also, there is no guarantee if jobs are lost that we will do anything to retrain those working people.

Brian Mulroney said that there would be "jobs, jobs, jobs" out of the free trade agreement with the United States. He was dead wrong, wrong, wrong. There's no question about that. He also left an unbelievable number of good, solid, dedicated working people without jobs or the ability to be retrained. The training and adjustment assistance funded out of federal revenues declined from $2.4 billion to $1.4 billion since the Tories came into power in 1984. That is $1 billion of training money that no longer exists for Canadian people, yet there are hundreds of thousands more Canadian people out of jobs. And do you know what? The Mulroney government has flatly stated that they will provide no assistance. Let me make it clear: they will provide no assistance for people in Canada who lose their jobs as a result of the North American free trade agreement.

It is in the interests of all Canadians to have their environmental and labour standards protected, and the North American free trade agreement does not do that. There is an incredible lack of provisions in both these areas. Because of those two reasons -- the lack of enforcement on labour standards and the lack of enforcement on environmental standards -- we should support this motion and not ratify the North American free trade agreement.

But it's not just a matter of us on the government side standing up and saying: "Don't do it, Brian Mulroney." We have viable alternatives. We, as a government, in only one year in office, have provided excellent viable alternatives in the area of expanding our trade with other countries and in the area of encouraging a strong internal domestic economy within British Columbia. I will just list some of those.

We worked together as a regional group in the northwest, and the Georgia basin strategy will bring about a much stronger economy for people on both sides of the border. We have instituted our Working Opportunity Fund, which encourages local domestic investment by British Columbians within British Columbia. We have established an economic summit for the very first time in this province; business leaders and government leaders and labour leaders got together and worked on a strong economic strategy for this province. I might even say to you that the new Labour 

[ Page 4184 ]

Relations Code is the beginning of new, meaningful partnerships within this province to encourage a strong economy.

We have lots of potential for solutions that don't require us to beat down people in other parts of this world. Our government is working on building up the interests and the strengths of people throughout this world, not plowing them down into the ground just because the government south of the border -- the United States -- has told us to do this. I hope that the members opposite will join with each and every one of us on the government side of the House in voting in favour of this resolution to encourage a halt to the North American free trade agreement. When that halt occurs, we will then be able to develop some real, meaningful global economic strategies.

R. Chisholm: Liberals are free-traders at heart, but we do not support the NAFTA deal blindly. The North American free trade agreement covers many aspects of our Canadian life and it creates many questions such as: how will our education system be affected? How will it affect British Columbia's immigration and emigration of people? Will we lose or gain businesses? How will it affect our medicare and health system? How will we adjust taxes to compete? Will it create or destroy jobs in British Columbia? These are but a few of the many questions that must be addressed due to the broad scope of NAFTA.

My caucus colleagues will detail the effects of NAFTA on their critic areas. I will concentrate on how the NAFTA affects my critic area of agriculture, foods, fisheries and the jobs that go with it.

First, let me point out that unlike the U.S.-Canada free trade deal, where the people had a voice in the form of an election, Canadians had no voice in this NAFTA. Michael Wilson went behind closed doors in the U.S., signed an agreement and then told Canadians what our part was in NAFTA, whether we liked it or not. We had no choice. The world was supposed to be wonderful after the free trade agreement, but what did we get? A devastated Canadian economy where many of our large industries moved to the U.S. and closed Canadian plants, causing high unemployment. U.S. farmers were dumping produce into Canada below their production costs during our growing season, killing our farming industry. Remember the lettuce fiasco this spring? The U.S. lettuce growers were dumping lettuce below British Columbia production costs, so our farms had no market. This also happened to the raspberry growers. The result of free trade on the Okanagan grape growers and apple orchards was deplorable. This is the result of free trade with a country in which labour costs and standards of living are not nearly as low as in Mexico. So what is going to happen to British Columbia farmers now that they have even greater competition? I feel that unless the British Columbia government takes action to protect our farmers, fishermen and other jobs, they will be greatly harmed.

Here is why. On the issue of agriculture, the free trade agreement continues to govern agricultural trade between Canada and the U.S. For trade between Canada and Mexico, the NAFTA provides a ten-year phase-out of tariffs and the elimination of Mexican import licences. Canada's system of import quotas on supply-managed products such as eggs, poultry and dairy products remains unaffected by the agreement. Mexico will also exclude these sectors. The NAFTA provides for a tariff-rate quota mechanism, where the tariff applied to certain Mexican fresh, frozen and prepared fruits and vegetables and cut flowers will revert to the pre-NAFTA rates once a certain volume of the product has been imported in a specific season.

This mechanism is designed to prevent sudden surges of imports, and it will be in place only for the first ten years of the agreement. The free trade agreement remains as the basis for Canada-U.S. agricultural trade. The implications for British Columbia are that mandating the removal of Mexico's import permit requirement may provide new opportunities for British Columbia grains and oil seeds. The removal of Canadian tariffs on Mexican horticultural products -- fruits and vegetables are what I'm talking about -- may result in some losses, especially in the processing of vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts -- and the strawberry sector. The federal government has not proposed any adjustment measures that would respond to these losses.

Although the NAFTA will give Mexican sugar increasing access to the U.S., similar treatment for sugar from British Columbia will not be granted. The NAFTA provides for national treatment between Mexico and the U.S. on marketing standards, which will allow for bulk importation between the two countries by processors of horticultural products. However, the NAFTA provides no similar arrangement between Canada and the U.S. As a result, British Columbia processors may become less competitive, because they will continue to be constrained in their ability to import bulk, while at the same time facing increasing competition from imports of processed horticultural products. Maybe these are some of the reasons we're having problems with Royal City Foods and B.C. Packers.

On the issue of labour, the NAFTA includes language in the preamble that indicates NAFTA countries resolve to improve labour and working conditions and to preserve and enhance workers' rights and maintain and strengthen their enforcement. This language is not enforceable in any way, as there are no specific provisions in the agreement that deal with these issues. Neither does the NAFTA address structural adjustments to job losses. There is no language in the free trade agreement on labour standards or workers' rights. The implication for British Columbia in this area is that the treaty does virtually nothing to improve the elementary rights of workers in Mexico to join unions of their own choosing and to bargain collectively, while estimates of job losses and gains are all over the map.

It is likely that over time Mexico will attract more of our labour-intensive industries. Obviously Canada would need to replace its losses in such industries with more high-tech, high-value-added jobs such as telecom and urban transit. The problem is to help those thrown out of work in Canada because of freer trade to switch 

[ Page 4185 ]

to comparable positions. The federal government has failed to do this in the past.

In the area of investments, Mexico will reduce investment restrictions on dozens of sectors, including autos, mining, agriculture and fishing, transportation and most manufacturing. NAFTA limits Mexico's restrictions on investment in the energy sector but preserves its restraints on private ownership.

Investor-state arbitration has been included in the NAFTA, so that disputes between investors from a NAFTA country and a NAFTA government may, at the investor's request, be settled through international arbitration. Canada retains the right to review foreign takeovers in Canada, consistent with current policy. Mexico will also have a foreign investment review process virtually identical to ours. Unlike the free trade agreement, the NAFTA provides protection for all types of investment, including minority as well as majority or controlling interests in business investments in stocks, bonds or real estate. The investor-state dispute resolution process is new in the NAFTA. The three countries will provide for the enforcement of arbitrable agreements and awards. The investment review process, important to Canada, remains intact except for the elimination of Canada's two remaining performance requirements.

Increased access to the Mexican market may present new opportunities for British Columbia investors. The investor-state dispute settlement process affords a greater degree of protection to British Columbia investors purchasing assets in Mexico. Now we may be forced -- with our food processors and other industries moving to Mexico, where labour and land is cheaper, causing Canada a loss of investment and employment....

Foreign investors wishing to serve the U.S. market and considering British Columbia might reconsider in the light of new opportunities available to them in Mexico and divert investment money away from the province. Investors in Europe and Japan have difficulty seeing economic advantages for themselves under NAFTA. Also, they are concerned that the language in NAFTA is not strong enough to offset U.S. bullying trade tactics.

The NAFTA establishes rules and procedures under which a NAFTA country may take safeguard and emergency actions to provide temporary relief to industries adversely affected by surges in imports. The agreement allows one NAFTA country to temporarily raise tariffs to the pre-NAFTA level if increases in imports from another NAFTA country are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to a domestic industry. The increase in imports must result from the reduction of tariffs under NAFTA. Such bilateral safeguard action may only be taken once, for a maximum period of three years, except in the case of extremely sensitive goods, where the action can be extended for another year. After a safeguard action expires, NAFTA will also allow parties to recalculate the pace of tariff reductions to reflect the special needs of the industry.

[3:30]

Further, where a NAFTA partner undertakes a multilateral safeguard action under GATT, which permits both tariff measures and quota-based import restrictions, each NAFTA partner must be excluded from the action unless its exports account for a substantial share of total imports and contribute significantly to serious injury. Accordingly, Canadian and U.S. companies with minimal exports to each other's country can avoid being sideswiped by each other's global actions. The NAFTA text is essentially an extension of the free trade agreement provisions on safeguard measures. However, the NAFTA's sideswipe provision is different from that in the free trade agreement, in that it broadens the scope for exclusion from multilateral safeguard actions.

The implications for British Columbia, which has not been a major user of safeguard actions.... However, it is important that the proposed NAFTA allows selective safeguard action against Mexico and the U.S. Under the NAFTA, British Columbia industries are more likely to be excluded from U.S. multilateral safeguard actions.

In the area of water, water exports or diversions are not items that have been discussed in the North American free trade negotiations, nor are they specifically included, discussed or defined in the draft text. The federal government has indicated that it will include in NAFTA implementing legislation with similar provisions to those found in the free trade agreement implementation legislation. The Canadian free trade implementation act states that water is a good when packed in a bottle or placed in a tank, but naturally serviced and ground water in liquid, gaseous or solid states is not covered by the free trade agreement. This act is binding only on Canada, and this definition is not in the NAFTA.

Water is deemed a good or a product subject to GATT and free trade agreement rules when it is packaged or contained. Therefore water in bottles, rail cars, tanker trucks, marine tankers, man-made canals and pipelines would likely be deemed a product or a good, and its export cannot be prohibited or restricted. Water diversions are not specifically covered by GATT, the free trade agreement or the draft NAFTA documents, like I said.

The implications for British Columbia in the draft NAFTA text provided to the provincial government do not clarify or remove any of the questions and concerns over the trade in water. British Columbia had requested the exclusion from coverage in the NAFTA of water in and/or transported by canals, pipelines, streams, rivers or other natural or man-made methods of transportation. Simply including an exclusion in a non-binding domestic implementation act is not sufficient to alleviate the concerns of British Columbians. An exclusion for water should have been included in NAFTA.

I'm going to quote from B.C. Agriculture magazine as to some of the problems our industries have with the NAFTA:

"B.C. farmers are also wondering why Canada gets ten years to ratchet down its tariffs, while the U.S. gets 15 years.

In particular, the U.S. will get 15 years to decrease duties on its ultrasensitive commodities, namely orange juice and sugar. Mexico will get 15 years to reduce duties on corn and dry beans. In short, U.S. farmers will have more time to adjust to free trade under NAFTA.

[ Page 4186 ]

"The rationale for giving the U.S. a longer transition period...is that it's 'much more sensitive' to imports than Canada. Cynics, however, simply observe that elephants, owing to their size, have a way of getting their way."

Another article in B.C. Agriculture stated:

"The biggest challenge for Canadian producers, says the report, is the dramatic difference in production costs. Mexico has a well-established fruit and vegetable processing industry, largely because of its favourable growing conditions and low wages, which result in low raw product costs. Mexican growing costs for broccoli are only 41 percent of British Columbia costs. Similarly, the Mexican industry can grow and process cauliflower for about one-half the cost to the B.C. industry.

"Processing strawberries is also a concern because Mexican costs are...38 percent of B.C. costs."

Another concern to the agriculture sector is that Mexican yields are more than twice British Columbia's yields, due to their growing season.

Another article was in the Financial Post, from Washington:

"The North American free trade agreement will set off a bitter battle between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico for jobs and investment, according to a new study. 'The result of this agreement will be to throw U.S., Mexican and Canadian workers into competition with each other to attract investment by offering the lowest wages and the least restrictive regulations,' said the study by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based think-tank supported by organized labour.

"Based on wage comparisons, Canada is a high-cost country, with production workers in manufacturing paid the equivalent of US$15.94 hourly, while U.S. workers receive US$14.83 and Mexican employees receive US$1.85" -- hourly. "'The threat of moving production abroad is already a weapon many businesses use to oppose wage demands, environmental restrictions, higher corporate taxes or stricter health and safety regulations,' said the study, written by Jeff Faux and Thea Lee.

"'A relatively small wage differential -- about 1.17 to 1 as of early 1991 -- was sufficient to induce hundreds of firms, both American subsidiaries and Canadian companies, to relocate production from Canada to the U.S.,' the study said."

And that was under free trade.

The study cited Statistics Canada figures showing that due to free trade we lost 461,000 manufacturing jobs. They were lost in Canada between June 1989 and October 1991 -- almost one-quarter of the country's manufacturing workforce. Food for thought, hon. Speaker.

We are here today debating the proposed NAFTA agreement. This action is simply to further the political agenda of the national NDP, which is at 14 percent in the polls -- incredibly, lower than the Tory government, the most despised government in history.

This House should be debating Bill 84, a labour bill that is vital to British Columbia's economy. So I move adjournment of this debate -- and on to Bill 84.

[3:45]

Motion negatived on the following division:

J. Pement: I rise to speak in favour of the motion not to ratify the North American free trade agreement. I do not support this trade initiative negotiated by the Mulroney government. It's a document that is flawed. While we must look toward trade agreements that allow us greater market access, we also must be vigilant and take the time to scrutinize the potential for wholesale exports of our resources.

This is the flaw in the whole document: the wholesale export of resources, the economic base of this province. It amazes me that the opposition wants to adjourn this most important debate, so that they can mumble along. If for nothing else, they should stand up and say: "Yes, we have to stop this agreement now." The hon. members opposite mumble and carry on about portable quotes and food for thought, and never think about the resources of this country and this province, particularly in my constituency, of which these members aren't even aware. The members opposite, with their Willie Wonka approach to trade initiatives, must be brought to task. Where is the clear message that we want to send to the Mulroney government that NAFTA is not an agreement that we want for our province or our country?

I have a concern that not only the free trade agreement but NAFTA does not provide us with clear language for the protection of our most basic resource: water. I cannot understand why the members opposite can't take a substantially more in-depth look at the concern for the language that can and will take our water resource away from us through NAFTA. Water is vital to British Columbia's future, and the members opposite should be aware of that.

British Columbia has a competitive advantage in both water-intensive and energy-intensive industries. Again, the members opposite have tried to brush aside the fact that water is our most precious resource. How 

[ Page 4187 ]

has this been recognized in NAFTA? The federal government failed to negotiate a specific exemption for water exports, and that is a real concern that we must send to Mulroney's government right now. British Columbia's ability to prevent the export of its water is not guaranteed. We are susceptible to legal manoeuvring that could force us to export our water. That's not for us in British Columbia. New Democrats are opposed to wholesale export of water through bulk sales and/or the diversion of our inland water resources.

Historically, water has been a vital element in British Columbia's development and is equally vital to our future and the future of our children. Water once determined the pattern of exploration and settlement in British Columbia. Currently the availability of an adequate and usable supply of water underpins our entire economy. Water is used for transportation, power generation, recreation, spiritual needs, agriculture and fisheries and is essential in both the manufacturing and service sectors.

Canada has about 9 percent of the world's renewable fresh water supply compared to 8 percent in the United States, which has ten times the population. This has permitted British Columbia to establish a competitive advantage in both water industries and energy-intensive industries. Water is perhaps the last natural resource of which the harvesting or extraction is not controlled or strongly influenced by large multinational corporations. These facts illustrate the importance of water to all British Columbians.

According to the federal government, water exports or water diversion projects are not even an item that was discussed in the North American free trade negotiations; yet during the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement negotiations it had become apparent that the issue of water exports was so important to British Columbians and other Canadians that the federal government included provisions in domestic implementation legislation to try and correct the failure to ensure that the FTA provided for adequate protection of water. The Canadian free trade implementation act, which was adopted on December 23, 1988, states that natural surface and ground water in liquid, gaseous or solid states is not covered by the FTA. This act is only binding in Canada and not in the U.S. No similar provisions exist in the agreement or in the U.S. implementing legislation.

Almost four years later we find that the federal government has negotiated NAFTA without a specific exemption for water exports. These conditions are just not acceptable to us in British Columbia or in Canada. We can't carry on assuming that those protections are there for our most precious resource: water. I think it's time we sent a clear message to the federal government to say: "Let's negotiate a fair treaty and agreement on trade. Let's look at what's important to us as Canadians and British Columbians."

Instead, as with the FTA, the federal government plans to include water in non-binding domestic NAFTA implementation legislation. This is just not sufficient to alleviate the concerns of British Columbians. We can negotiate better conditions, and we must negotiate better conditions. It is our future that we're talking about. It is not acceptable to sign an agreement and say that we're going to fix it later. There are far too many unanswered legal issues and too much uncertainty to allow a new trade agreement to be signed that fails to address the concerns of Canadians about our water resource. Failure to address and clarify the water exports issue in NAFTA means that water diversions or export projects involving pipelines or other man-made transportation systems could be covered by NAFTA.

British Columbia cannot afford to lose its competitive industries or its resources because of negotiating mistakes made by the federal government. We cannot permit any large-scale, uncontrolled export of what is perhaps our most vital resource.

Under the FTA, Canadians were afforded no protection from the countervailing duties on softwood lumber, no protection for Canadian jobs and industries, and now, with the North American free trade agreement, no protection of our basic resource.

Do you not think that it's time we saw the handwriting on the wall, that it's time we made the message clear that this agreement is not acceptable, and that it's time for the Legislature as a whole to send that message to the federal government? The situation is not acceptable, and NAFTA is not acceptable while these negotiated conditions exist in this document. We need time for debate of this agreement. We need time for people to understand what the agreement undertakes. We need time to look at the impact from this agreement, and we need time for Canadians to know that there are other options and other ways that we can have fair trade among our neighbours and with other countries.

Not long ago there was a rally at the border of our province and the United States. It was called Hands Across the Border and was a rally against free trade, with very notable people going to that rally to put across some of these issues and talk to some of them. I'd like to read out the last part of the document that was signed by these notable people, looking at how we can best trade with our neighbours and still remain sovereign Canadians and still have our industries in British Columbia. I think that the principles set out in this document are very honourable and thoughtful, and they are issues and concerns that we should take forward to our negotiators on the federal scene and also have a look at in terms of our British Columbia initiatives.

The last part of this document reads:

"A trade agreement benefiting the people of our countries would be founded on the primary objectives of sustainable development and social justice. It would balance a system of production, distribution and consumption of wealth with our shared goals of protection of our respective environments, the elevation of our living standards and the self-determination of our peoples."

That is between British Columbia and the U.S. and our Mexican neighbours and others as we do our trading agreements.

[4:00]

I endorse these principles, and I think it's about time we negotiated a fair trade agreement. It's time for the Legislature to send the message loud and clear. Be decisive, decide where you stand -- not on both sides of 

[ Page 4188 ]

the issue, but find out what this agreement is really about. Let's debate it, and let's get on with trading in a fair way.

P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to be able to rise in the House today to speak in favour of this resolution and to urge our federal government not to ratify and implement NAFTA, this North American free trade deal which will exacerbate the inequalities and injustices that we already have under the free trade agreement.

I must confess that I was surprised, in reviewing the last time this House debated this resolution, on October 27, to find that the leader of the official opposition said: "...the Liberal opposition cannot support the motion that's before us today." I was surprised to hear him say that, because the member for Langley, who is the critic for this area, presented some very cogent arguments about the flaws in this deal, and presented very clearly some of the concerns British Columbians and, indeed, all Canadians ought to have about ratifying this agreement.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Then I reviewed a little further and found that the Leader of the Opposition had several pretexts -- I will call them -- for refusing to support the motion. They're very interesting. One of the pretexts was simply that the legal text of this agreement wasn't available to him; that somehow there was more work to be done; that somehow we didn't have a NAFTA in front of us, as a Legislature; that the government of Canada did not have a NAFTA before it and neither did the governments of the United States or Mexico. I must confess I was puzzled by that, because I have four inches of the official text before me, and I suspect that this was before the members of the opposition as well. In fact, I'm sure of it, because it was sent to the members of the opposition by this government. So they had every chance to examine exactly what was in the document that had been initialed by the Canadian, U.S. and Mexican governments in that lovely little ceremony on October 7, designed to enhance the chances of President Bush in the U.S. presidential election, which seems, unfortunately, to have backfired. We do have a legal text, in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition said and in spite of what the Opposition House Leader said. She said: "What are we talking about? What exactly are we discussing? There is no legal text; it's only a concept." This seems to be four and a half inches of concept. I would suggest that it's a lot of concept to get your teeth into, and there's probably much in there that could be discussed.

The second reason why the Leader of the Opposition claimed that we couldn't get down to the details of this deal and debate them is because it's still open for negotiation, and we must have a federal government with a renewed mandate before we actually have a final document that we can look at. I want to inform members of the opposition, if they're not already aware of it, that the federal government doesn't seem to feel any lack at all of a document to act on. I'd like to quote from a speech made by the Hon. Michael Wilson, Minister for International Trade, last Tuesday. When he was asked what was happening on the NAFTA front, he said: "I expect the NAFTA will be signed toward the end of next month. We currently anticipate implementing legislation that will be ready early in the new year." In the statements by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Mulroney it's quite clear that the federal government has no intention of waiting on this deal. They feel they have a deal; they feel they've signed it. They're getting on with the process of implementing it and imposing it on the people of Canada. It's incumbent upon this House to recognize that that is the case and express our views on that implementation. I would suggest that our views should be clearly expressed as fast as possible, and that we, in this province, want no part of this deal.

The third reason why the Leader of the Opposition said that we surely didn't need to debate this deal now is because there is no urgency; we must wait until after the presidential election in the United States. Who knows what Mr. Clinton might wish to do? They've had the election in the United States now. Any possible delay that was necessitated by waiting for that event is long over.

Interjection.

P. Ramsey: I hear members of the opposition heckling and saying: "Do we know what Bill Clinton wishes to do?" I think he has made his views quite clear. He intends to get on with ratification of this. If there is to be further discussion, he'll do that after the fact. He does not intend to renegotiate this deal. That is the reality.

We have a deal which, as the Prime Minister of this country says, is a done deal. It's negotiated. He and his government want to get on with implementing it on the people of this country and British Columbia. I think it's incumbent upon us, as legislators representing the people of British Columbia, to first debate the provisions of this thing openly, not hide behind smokescreens of delay or lack of text or waiting on somebody else's mandate. We have our mandate. We're elected in this House to represent the views of the people of British Columbia; let's express the views of the people of British Columbia on this document.

For my part, I plan to support the resolution that's before this chamber, and I plan to speak against the provisions of NAFTA. I was very pleased to hear the member for Chilliwack stand up and actually express his views. On the one hand he found some things good about it and on the other hand some things bad about it. But what I want to hear him stand up and say is: on balance, is this a good deal for the people of British Columbia and of Canada? How are you going to vote? Should the federal government implement this or not? We don't get to go back and renegotiate it; that avenue is closed. We don't get to impose our view of what it should be; that avenue is closed. We get to say yes or no. I think this chamber ought to quite clearly say no.

In looking at this deal, I see little that is not an extension of the already bad free trade agreement that we have negotiated bilaterally with the United States. I want to point out some provisions that I think simply 

[ Page 4189 ]

exacerbate what we already have there. Under the free trade agreement we have had a steady flow of jobs across the border to the south. Our biggest export in the last four years has been the jobs of Canadian workers. I fear greatly that if the NAFTA is passed, those jobs will not simply flow south to the United States; they will flow south across two borders to the maquiladoras in northern Mexico, and we will again be exporting the jobs of Canadian workers. That is the reality of this deal. There is nothing in this deal that would prevent that, and lots that would encourage that. Our industrial base has been eroded because of the free trade agreement, and I think NAFTA will simply continue that erosion.

A second major concern for me is protection of those things that we want to have here as part of our social compact in this country. We are proposing to establish a level playing field, but only for those who own the capital that they want to use to make and to export products in North America. I am concerned with having a level playing field for other people in this country as well. I want to see a level playing field for workers. We have employment standards in this country and in this province. The member for Nelson-Creston spoke eloquently earlier this afternoon about the working conditions for workers in the maquiladoras of northern Mexico. I don't want workers in British Columbia to be competing on that level playing field. I don't want them to be trying to undercut their brothers and sisters working in Mexico. I don't want them to somehow make believe that they can work for less than 80 cents an hour. They can't live on it, and we can't afford to have them live on it.

Another concern that I have is the protection of our environment. There is nothing in this deal to protect our environment. The member for Langley spoke of the opportunity for a parallel accord on the environment. Well, I'm afraid that is a little too flimsy for me. I want to see some of those protections built in and referenced in the agreement itself, and they're not there. The only thing in the agreement itself is the provision that somehow some talk somewhere might occur to address those issues. Protection of the environment is crucial here, and it's crucial in our country. Our population is increasingly demanding protection of the environment, and here we are prepared to sign a deal with a government which has an economic record in northern Mexico that is the dismay of the entire western hemisphere.

The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has spoken very well about his concerns about our water. I come from a part of the province, the interior, where this is not an academic concern. To the east of Prince George there is a serious proposal for the diversion of water from the Fraser River down the Rocky Mountain Trench and into the United States. This is seriously being put forward by some people as something we as a country ought to be doing: exporting our own water not in a bottle or a tanker, but down a watershed and a river straight into the U.S. I find that we need protection against this sort of bulk export of our water -- beyond bulk export, really; it's the export of our rivers and of the rain that falls on our land.

One of the most contentious issues about trade agreements are the remedies available under them to protect against the unfair actions of another country. When the free trade agreement was signed some four years ago, we were told that Canadian businesses, workers and jobs had a new dispute resolution policy available to them, and it would protect them against predatory and unfair trade practices by the United States. I don't think anyone in this House believes that the provisions of the free trade agreement have protected us from that. There have been no fewer than 21 unilateral actions against Canadian trade launched by the United States in the last four years. The free trade panels that are supposed to judge and resolve these disputes is charged only with determining whether the laws of the country under which the export takes place have been fairly applied, or whether the laws of the country into which the imports have come have been fairly applied. It does nothing to try to balance those laws. It simply asks: "Have they been fairly applied?"

Have these provisions protected us from vexatious duties and actions against agricultural exports? Clearly they have not. Have they protected us from vexatious actions and unjust import duties against a commodity that's crucial in this province: softwood lumber? Clearly they have not.

Last summer we had the outcome of the third action of the United States lumber producers -- those who would try to somehow get us to export our raw material rather than finished products -- against softwood lumber coming from British Columbia into the United States. Make no mistake: the aim of that countervail was not against lumber from Canada as a whole; it was aimed squarely at the workers in the communities of this province. Did we have an effective weapon in the free trade agreement to fight that? Not a hope. As a result, we have the imposition of an unjust duty on our lumber for the second time.

Under the former administration we already absorbed the result of the first action against our lumber. Under the memorandum of understanding we brought a whole new stumpage system, the comparative value system, to this province. As all members of the chamber know, we took the 15 percent duty that the U.S was imposing on lumber exports from British Columbia and internalized it. We put that additional 15 percent into our stumpage system, and there it sits today. The previous administration said: "We've given the farm away, but at least you'll let us go now. Won't you? We've internalized that unjust duty. We're going to impose it on our own producers." And there it is today, built into our comparative value system for stumpage and hindering our ability to compete in the world market as we export our lumber and our manufactured products from the wood sector.

In 1991 and 1992 we had yet another action brought up against our exports. What's the result at the end of the day? An additional 6.5 percent duty on all exports to the United States. Did the free trade agreement slow down or hinder this process in any way? Not for one day. Not for one hour. We are exactly where we would have been had that free trade agreement never been signed, and where we are is further behind. I would 

[ Page 4190 ]

estimate that a total of 21.5 percent in duties have been imposed on manufacturers of this province due to unfair trade actions brought against us by the United States.

[4:15]

We on this side of the House are not against trade. Trade will happen. Trade must happen. The jobs and the future of British Columbia depend upon our having good trading agreements with our partners. That's what we must do and we must encourage it.

The Premier of this province, the Trade Development Corporation of this province and the members of the executive council of this government have worked hard to enhance and build upon our trading relationships with other countries. But the question is not whether we favour trade. The question is: do we want an extension of this free trade agreement; do we want the North American free trade agreement? Is that the model of trading we want? I submit that that is a model of trading designed for the service of capital, not for the service of countries. If it serves any country well, of course, it will serve the United States well.

Perhaps if I were designing an ideal trade agreement and I were a member of Congress in Washington, D.C., this is the agreement that I might have designed. This is a classic hub-and-spoke arrangement. This is the classic arrangement of a way to deal with what you're going to do if you are a declining industrial power, as the United States is, and you're not going to take the hard measures to restructure your own economy. What can you do? Well, let's see what we can do here. Let's see if we can get more of those cheap resources from our friendly neighbour to the north and get them in here without any sort of restrictions, and let's see if we can get some more inexpensive labour from the south. Indeed, that's what they've got in this deal. This is hub and spoke.

The other thing that this trade agreement does, of course, is to absolutely ignore the reality of who our trading partners are in this province on the edge of the largest ocean in the world. Our partners are obviously those other countries around the rim of that ocean. Yet here we are thinking of coming into and entering into another agreement which strengthens our ties north and south enormously and has the potential for erecting barriers against the rest of the world.

This is a concern. I think hon. members know how much it is a concern for our major trading partners, particularly Japan. They do not welcome this NAFTA. They do not see it as enhancing their ability to trade fairly with people in this province and in Canada. They see it as a way that will indeed erect unjust barriers against their imports into this country.

There is much else that could be said about this deal and I hope that the members of the opposition will stand up and say some of it. I think it is time to stand up and say clearly what you think of this North American free trade agreement. Is your answer on balance going to be yes, sign it, ratify it, let's get on with it, or are you going to say no, we think this is a bad deal for Canada, a bad deal for British Columbia, and join with me and members of the government in urging the federal government not to ratify it and not to implement this deal?

C. Serwa: I'm not prepared to enter into this debate -- but it doesn't seem to matter; neither was anybody else. As a matter of fact, it was really interesting, because the hon. member for Prince George North kept referring to this thick stack of formal detail that he has perused, but I see from the crumpled first pages that he has only looked at one or two pages. In fact, the rest of it has not been looked at at all. I wish that that could be shown to the people up there. It hasn't been read or looked at at all. That is the type of frivolous and spurious debate that is being injected into this.

This is really an interesting opportunity to be engaged in this NAFTA debate at this point in time, when this Legislature was called specifically to debate an important bit of labour legislation. Remember Bill 84? Remember the urgent agenda? Remember the late night sittings and the time schedules in order to put it all...? No, nobody remembers that. Some spurious.... Oh no, it's not spurious, hon. Speaker; it's not spurious at all. As a matter of fact, on Friday night I attended the Salvation Army Christmas Kettle Kickoff in Kelowna. Today I'm attending a federal campaign kickoff in the Legislature in the province of British Columbia, because pure and simply, that's what it is: crass politics at its basest.

I have heard that the hon. leader of the third party in Ottawa, Audrey McLaughlin, is firing her advisers. As a matter of fact, another adviser has just been culled out -- if I can use that expression -- of the government of Ontario for questionable activities. I understand that our Premier is soliciting those people to come and drain the coffers of the province of British Columbia. The matter of strategists is really important when we talk about NAFTA. Why are we even debating this when we should be debating what we were called to debate, which was Bill 84?

The North American free trade agreement is a tremendous opportunity for North America. We face all sorts of trade groups in the world. Get real, folks. I've always admired people who kept their feet on the ground and their heads in the clouds. I've heard debate from a group that keeps their head buried in the sand and their feet in the clouds. That's what we've heard today in the NAFTA debate -- nothing more and nothing less. "Protect the workers," the hon. members chirp and chime from over there. Good heavens, don't you recognize that if we don't have employment opportunities, we can't protect anyone? You can't protect the health system, the education system or the disadvantaged in the country. These people of limited viewpoint and very shallow perspective believe that they can place the workers in some sort of a cocoon -- isolated from the real world. Well, we can't do that. We have tremendous opportunities. We have a good workforce: talented, innovative and hard-working. We've got the opportunity, because of our resource base, to compete with anyone anywhere in the world, and the members on that side of the House are terrified. The silver-spoon socialists are terrified of the word "competition." Silver-spoon socialists and elitists imposing their will....

Interjections.

[ Page 4191 ]

Deputy Speaker: Order, order. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member. I would ask the House to come to order.

C. Serwa: I am afraid that I will get animated about this, because I really believe in two things: opportunity for people and responsibility coupled with that opportunity. I see nothing but the crassest of crass politics being exhibited in this debate by the government of the province -- the silver-spoon socialists who are temporarily in power here in British Columbia.

This government has gone on record opposing any relaxation of interprovincial trade barriers in Canada. They quiver in terror; "protecting the workers," they say. We require only the opportunity, and that's all that anyone asks. The people in the province of British Columbia and in Canada will take advantage of that opportunity. But in Canada we have more interprovincial trade barriers than exist among all the sovereign states in the European export community. We're terrified of competition, terrified of having to put out, terrified of having to face productivity requirements. We have the capacity to do that. We need not be afraid of anyone.

One of the hon. members went on to say that what was really in jeopardy was our agricultural sector and how terrible and catastrophic it was to the grape and wine industry in the Okanagan, with the completion of the bilateral trade negotiations. How ill-informed members on the government side are! That was a major and significant turning point. The Minister of Agriculture knows the positive level of enthusiasm in the grape and wine industry, because for the first time in the history of that commodity in the Okanagan, we're doing the right thing. We have a microclimate, and we have people who are growing the right types of grapes, producing premium-quality wine, which is winning worldwide recognition. It was an opportunity created by the recognition that what we were doing was not appropriate for the microclimate in the Okanagan -- the right balance of acids and sugars. I recently participated in the opening of British Columbia's first champagne house, and I was very pleased to be there.

With the people that we have, the opportunities that we have and the resources that we have, we need not be afraid of anything. All we want is the opportunity. And these people would stand here and wilfully deny British Columbians the opportunity to participate in an expanded market. Does anyone think for one instant that we can export, that we can trade our goods...? We are a trading province; we have to trade in order to survive. Does anyone fail to realize that we have to import, that trade is a two-way street? They fail to realize that.

So their isolated, protectionist vision of protecting the workers, and their self-righteous indignation that somehow our people should be up here by some divine right and the Mexican people whom we're referring to in this particular negotiation should be way down there, are very, very wrong. It has to be clearly evident among the members opposite. I'm sorry I'm getting so excited about this thing, but it is really important that a number of concepts be made clearly evident: that as a nation Canadians consume altogether too high a percentage of the world's resources. We know that. The Minister of Environment realizes that; every individual in this Legislature realizes that. But somehow, with this self-righteous protect-the-worker concept, we believe that we have this divine right to an elevated standard of living, which, I might add, is based solely on the value of our basic raw material export opportunities: the minerals, the forest products.... We haven't earned that right. What we are doing is abusing the environment in order to maintain the standard of living.

An Hon. Member: So what did you guys do about it?

C. Serwa: The member asks what we were doing about it. Well, we focused on added value. We focused on competition. We focused on opening up international opportunities for trade. All you folks do is travel all around the world on a merry-go-round at public expense. Your ministers have travelled more than any previous government in the history of British Columbia, with absolutely no results.

We heard the Premier talk this afternoon about the revenue side. The revenue is important. They only talk about it. They don't understand how to create revenue, because there is no business expertise on that side of the House. In order to trade, we have to have business expertise. In order to provide jobs, we have to have entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs, private economy -- they're all naughty words here. We've heard a projection of the socialist dream, and all over the world the socialist dream has turned into an absolute nightmare. It has failed all over, not only in countries in the Soviet bloc but in Sweden, which has long been held forth as a shining knight. In New Zealand, for example, where they had a socialist government for a long time and a long history, the socialist government had to change to different principles in order to survive and in order for the country to survive as a nation. Trade opportunities are positive opportunities, hon. Speaker.

[4:30]

The last speaker, for Prince George North, brought something forth that I haven't heard since Bob Williams left the House -- which is the hate America and hate Americans attitude, as if it's some self-righteous right of the government of the day to hate Americans. I certainly don't respond to that type of thinking. Americans have been our traditional friends for a long time. They have been our most significant trading partners and supporters. A lot of our common ground is because of common populations and the north-south trading relationship that has existed ever since there was a Canada. They are our friends.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: I'm not concerned about competition. I'm just concerned about the opportunity to participate in that particular field.

The government of the day continues to persist in the politics of anger, envy and greed. There is no hope, there is no optimism, there is no future. They think 

[ Page 4192 ]

they're still in opposition, where the sky is falling and things are bad and getting worse. They see this North American free trade agreement as some sort of a situation which will end the world -- a real catastrophic calamity. I see it as a splendid opportunity -- a challenge, yes, and an adjustment, perhaps -- to do the things that we do to the best of our ability. I've been to Mexico. I'm confident that that country can also utilize the opportunity to expand their trading market.

In spite of the government's thinking, we have a responsibility not only to North America but as an industrialized nation we have a continued responsibility to all of the world. In order to respond to that responsibility, we have to show that we are clearly going to give them an opportunity to participate.

A little bit of a history lesson -- and the Minister of Agriculture is a history buff, so I know that he will listen very intently -- is that if we go to the early beginnings of Canada.... I can clearly hear in the House of Commons in Great Britain the same type of argument -- whether it was with Canada or perhaps with the United States in the early days -- of a resistance to provide any opportunities: the colonies should be just a source of raw materials, and the heartland and strength of the economy should be, let's say, in Great Britain. But, you know, we worked. When we came here, first we participated in the fur trade, early exploration, goldmining and that sort of thing. We developed communities and towns. We cleared the land and farmed. We built railways and highways. We created opportunities in Canada, and we're now ranked as one of the top seven nations in the industrialized world.

That's something, but the point I'm trying to make is that that opportunity was created. Great Britain gave us a great deal, an opportunity, a splendid parliamentary system and the rule of law and order as well to base the new country on. We accepted the challenge and seized the opportunity, and that's why we're here today. We're not whiners or criers, in spite of some of the sounds that were uttered here earlier this afternoon. We're a nation of doers, and we're very proud of the multicultural aspect that formulates that innovation, and the capacity to improvise, make do and meet any of the challenges. That's a strong point of Canada and Canadians.

I cannot believe that a government exists that doesn't realize the competence of Canadian people, and of British Columbians especially -- that they'd have to somehow be protected from these horrid things. The arguments that are being put forward by the members on the government side of the House are not dissimilar to the scare and fear tactics that were utilized so recently and so ineffectively in the Charlottetown accord debate. They carry no substance, only fear -- fear of the worst. I guess it goes back to the simple appraisal of a glass: is it half full or half empty? I think that displays a type of attitude. Government is responsible for creating a climate. When government creates the proper climate, the revenue that the Premier was talking about will in fact happen. When the climate in the country is positive, the entrepreneurs, developers and workers all participate in that growing, strengthening, economy. We have absolutely nothing to fear.

The hon. member for Prince George North, who just sat down, was talking about his perception of the failures of the bilateral trade negotiations between the United States and Canada. The hon. member has conveniently forgotten what inspired Canada's participation in that: it was the recognition that in Washington, D.C., there was an omnibus bill that marked almost all of our export products to be prohibited from entering the United States. That's what we would have enjoyed: not being able to trade with our strongest and most loyal trading partner. I think not. The bilateral trade negotiations may not be all that appropriate. There are opportunities for making changes. But it was a significant strengthening of our opportunity; the dismantling of our industrial power and might as claimed by the members opposite as they fire this fuselage in the initial part of the federal campaign is really for naught.

You may hear, if you listen to the news of the United States broadcast stations or read their papers, that they are also saying the same thing. They feel that their economy has been hurt by the agreement that is in place between the United States and Canada. That's fine: long live protectionism among those forces. But I say, it's more important that we have the opportunity for development and trade, not only to strengthen our economy but other nations, as a real long-term goal.

Not one person fails to recognize the impact on the environment that our standard of living has entailed. The reality in consuming a high rate of energy and all those consumables is that we're using the environment as a shock absorber. There is no question in my mind that our quantity of life has to be decreased; our quality of life can be increased, because they're different components entirely. If we're truly interested in the environment all over the world, and in world peace, we're going to have to focus on enhancing the opportunities for other cultures, countries and jurisdictions to pick themselves up the way we, as Canadians, were able to pick ourselves up. We stand truly on the backs of giants. Those were the pioneers who came to Canada in its infancy, some as many as 400 years ago, and built this country. They have to have that opportunity, and the members on the government side want to deny that opportunity, stating emphatically that they're here to protect workers. I say that the short-sighted agenda of the current government is precisely that. Rather than protecting anyone, it will take all of us down the tube.

There is no question in my mind that the only opportunity to protect the standard of living and quality of life that we have in British Columbia is to ensure that there are trading opportunities. We're a trading nation; we're a trading province. We require the continued expansion of those opportunities irrespective of the views of the government. Yes, there will be some adjustments; and yes, we'll have to do some belt-tightening. I assure you that we're not only capable of doing it, but we will rise to the level of performance required if we're called upon.

There has been a little bit of talk on the forestry situation and the stumpage system. Again, I refer to some of the remarks of the previous speaker. Fibre and the forests account for almost 50 percent of the exports 

[ Page 4193 ]

of the province, a very important foundation for our provincial economy. The reality is that while the stumpage rates appear very low, another factor took place there, and that was the wage level of the worker in the forest sector. At some point in the past there was a conscious decision made that rather than charging higher stumpage rates, higher labour rates would be paid for that particular industry. The net result is that the taxpayer of the province has probably not been as well served as they should have been by getting a greater return from the forest rate. We've taken it out in higher wages. The government has actually benefited because of the volume of economic activity and the ability to recoup that through taxation. Perhaps that's the way government got it: indirectly rather than directly from the forest.

The reality is that in British Columbia we have the highest-priced woodworkers of any jurisdiction in the world, bar none, and if we want to trade, we're going to have to preserve those jobs. Every time there is an increase in the forestry rates to those who labour in either the manufacturing or harvesting sector of forestry, fewer workers go back into the field after the settlement.

I'm interested in jobs for British Columbians. I view a lot of our social problems, as well as our economic problems in the current government of the day, as being caused by the lack of jobs. It is important that men and women have the opportunity to work. Every time there is a wage increase awarded without any significant increase in productivity, technology is brought into the field, and we replace more of those workers to keep the labour costs within the parameters that industry can survive with. The end result is a greater burden on certain aspects of our support systems, such as social services and unemployment insurance, causing social and economic devastation.

I see this as a tremendous opportunity. The Minister of Forests -- soon to be returned to cabinet -- must also see it as a significant opportunity for the export of our wood and paper products to Mexico. We have tremendous opportunities. We even have good opportunities for agricultural produce going to Mexico. But if we truly believe that we have an interjurisdictional relationship and a responsibility in the world, we're going to have to pick up our area of responsibility. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. We should enhance the opportunity for the citizens of Mexico and at the same time enhance the opportunity for ourselves.

In my constituency I have small businesses that are exporting products all over the world out of Kelowna. Northern Airborne Technology has high tech, communications-type equipment serving ambulances, police and helicopters all over the world. We can do it. We're not afraid of cheap labour. I would like any member in this Legislature to name one country in the world where the wage rate has resulted in affluence in that particular country. I would like one member in this Legislature to name one country where the environment has been anything but degraded because of low wage levels or a poor economy.

The reality is that unless we can pick up Third World countries that are suffering and start to bring them closer, and appreciate our own responsibility to consume and demand less -- and that includes government and taxes -- we are heading for a major crisis. You cannot on one hand argue about sustaining the environment and on the other hand ask for much higher wages that indirectly impact the environment in a most negative way. That's sheer hypocrisy. Reality and common sense must start to prevail.

There are many government members with a great deal of experience who should be able to clearly understand. They do on a one-to-one basis; it's when you get them together that they go funny. There are many good, commonsense individuals in that party, but somehow the socialist dogma seems to take over, and they become sort of a senseless mass. I don't know why that happens. It really bothers me.

[4:45]

This is a government that proclaims its interest in the environment. Their socialist brothers in Saskatchewan have just expanded uranium mining. When we talk about the North American free trade agreement, there is a province that has a very difficult time of things economically. Nevertheless, socialists in this province stand proud in supporting peace. They go on all sorts of peace marches. They lead them. They're opposed to uranium, nuclear power, nuclear submarines and all of this while their socialist brethren have just expanded uranium mining in Saskatchewan.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The governments of the day here and in Saskatchewan couldn't care less about the devastation that occurs in the sparsely settled areas of northern Saskatchewan. The people in Saskatchewan are lucky, because at that point the rivers flow northward. But when we talk about indigenous peoples in Canada, they couldn't care less about the radioactive contamination that takes place in rivers and to animal life. It's concentrated through the food chain. That is sheer hypocrisy. Governments can't run on hypocrisy. Governments have to run on the commonsense assessment of objective facts. They have to take those into consideration and appreciate and respect their responsibilities to all people.

With this trite thing they are playing a one-man band driven by strategists who are being fired in Ottawa. The party that this government represents in this particular campaign is very low in the national polls, and that's why the strategists are being fired. Nevertheless, the word hasn't come through to the current government of B.C. that perhaps we should sing some other tune. So I am dismayed by the shortsighted and shallow attitude of the silver-spoon socialists in the House today.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: That's right. The member brings it up, and I am glad that he has reinforced the recognition that "silver-spoon socialist" is the term.

[ Page 4194 ]

The realistic, practical and experienced view has to be substantial in this debate. When I use the words "silver-spoon socialist," I refer to those individuals who have never really played a part in the real world. There are a number who have been fed with that silver spoon from birth, through the educational system, through the university system and now into government service. I suppose that's why so many of them are out of the government and into the granddaddy of all conflicts of interest, which occurs in this government today.

Hon. B. Barlee: And you don't have a conflict?

C. Serwa: No, I don't have a conflict. I'm fairly well versed in the total picture and, most of all, in the need for opportunities for people in the province. Any constraint on opportunities for the people of B.C. is an attack on the ability of individuals to achieve their dreams. That's what it is. Keep them poor. The socialist strength is in poor people, so what we are doing is devastating our economy. That's clearly represented, because the Premier just spoke about it. The Minister of Finance continues to repeat that the revenue side is.... Every initiative they have taken has been to keep the people poor, and that's where they draw their strength. It's wrong and it's inappropriate.

I support the North American free trade agreement. If it's not right, we'll continue to work to make it right and to make it better, so that all people -- not only in North America but all people in the world -- have a right and an opportunity to reach the fullest of their potential, to strive towards reaching their dreams. Working together, hon. Speaker, we will make this world greater, better and more beautiful.

F. Garden: It's pretty hard to follow the kind of rhetoric we've just listened to as far as a political speech is concerned, so I'm not going to try to. At the outset of this debate, I'd like to just say that the previous speaker just told us about our brothers in Saskatchewan doing what they were doing. It's just a little unfortunate that he can't refer to any brothers in any province in Canada, because the people of B.C. rejected the type of giveaway policies of the previous regime: give away your resources, give away your forest licences. Give it away, and then when you're finished with it, we'll make a deal with the Americans and the Mexicans and you'll be able to get some more down there. I reject that kind of philosophy in the same way the people of B.C. did in the last election.

I've heard from the opposition today that it's crass politics; that we're playing politics; that it has something to do with the NDP's federal election policy. I also reject that. It's only a couple of weeks ago that the opposition was standing up and saying they didn't have a text: "We don't know what we're talking about, so let's not rush into this thing. Let's take our time." With Bill 84, they now say that there's no need to rush this: "Go back to the people with it; let's talk about it some more; let's stall; let's stall and see how the wind is blowing."

Unfortunately, the reason we're dealing with this now is not because we have lots of time to talk about it; it's because the federal minister, Mr. Wilson, stated, when he appeared before a committee, that this agreement will be initialed fairly soon and legislation will be prepared for the next sitting of the federal parliament.

This is a priority item, in my view, because we're not going to have any other opportunity to say anything about this agreement until it's a fait accompli. The opposition says: "Well, we'll wait. We'll wait until there's another federal election. There will be a change of government. Then when there's a change of government, we can sit down and talk about amending the North American free trade agreement." That is not going to happen. The agenda has been spelled out by the federal government. That agenda is to ram this free trade agreement through as soon as they possibly can before the next election. I believe they feel there's some political weight to be gained by doing that. They may feel that they have political gain, but if the success of this agreement is to be compared with the success of the free trade agreement, then they're barking up the wrong tree. I would like the opposition to take into account that they are not going to have the kind of time that they're talking about to fool around with this North American free trade agreement. This agreement, as I've said already, is going to be initialed and is going to be a fait accompli before the next federal election.

I attended a meeting of a convention of state legislators in Cincinnati in the summer. One of the panels was on the upcoming North American free trade agreement. On that panel, although they knew there would be Canadians present from all across this country, was one of the negotiators for NAFTA -- an American lady; there was a representative from the Mexican government, who was also interested in the negotiations; there was a lady from the midwestern United States; and nobody from Canada. I raised this question: if this were a free trade agreement and they were having a panel on it of such important proportions, why wasn't a Canadian sitting on that panel? The answer I got was: "Well, gee, we didn't think it was that important to have the Canadians on that panel."

Anyway, beside that point, the lady from the midwestern States stood up criticizing this agreement in much the same manner that this government caucus has been criticizing it. She said it was an agreement that's been concocted in secret. There had been no plethora of details. She didn't know what was going on. All she heard were reports from the negotiators now and again, and half the people in the United States didn't even know what was going on as far as the negotiations were concerned. And we end up with this document, the North American free trade agreement, and even the people in the northern United States didn't know what it was about.

I'm saying that if the opposition does not join us in condemning this accord and asking the federal government not to ratify it, then they're doing a disservice to the people they represent. We now have the text here, but we're going to have no time to examine it, because it's going to be initialed pretty soon. I suggest that the only way this could be slowed down is by the province of B.C. coming out unanimously as a Legislature and condemning this agreement and saying: "Slow it down, hold it up." I've heard this for months here. On every 

[ Page 4195 ]

other piece of legislation that has come before this House, I've heard this opposition saying: "What's the rush? Why are we doing this in such a hurry?"

At that same convention in that panel, while we were discussing the North American free trade agreement, there was one Liberal member from the Ontario Legislature who got up and he said: "Look, things are not too bad in Canada. The free trade agreement was okay. Let's give this a chance to work." This was one of the members of the Liberal opposition. He said: "Let's give it a chance to work so we'll see the benefits of the free trade agreement and then we'll see benefits from the new agreement." A government member stood up from Ontario and said they'd been waiting for the benefits of the free trade agreement for two years. All they've had so far is the loss of 250,000 jobs because of the free trade agreement.

I stood in a meeting just a few minutes ago and I witnessed the House Leader of the opposition standing up and nodding in agreement with these students who felt they were being wrongly dealt with. I wonder how she would feel if one of these 250,000 people came to her and said: "Don't sign that new free trade agreement. I've lost my job." Would she nod and say: "Oh, yes, we agree with you"? This opposition has proven, to me anyway, to be a windsock opposition, as mentioned by a previous member. They wait until they see how the wind is blowing, and then they take a position. You don't have time to do that with this thing. You've got to make up your mind now. You've got to stand up and be counted in a fairly short space of time, to tell the federal government that this is bad legislation. We had one member stand up and say.... The hon. member for Langley said she is in support of freer trade but does not blindly support NAFTA. She lists six very serious concerns with the agreement, but she still refuses to support the resolution that's before us not to ratify it. She's going to have to make up her mind. You can't be partly for something. When you're dealing in the national arena, you have to either agree to something or not agree to it. You can't halfway agree to it. This opposition would like us to think that they could play around with this agreement. They would take a little piece here that they don't really agree with, and they would polish it up and go along with it.

What I'm saying today is that we don't have time for that kind of procrastination. When they speak on Bill 84, I hope that they will recognize the open process we had that brought it before....

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Would the speaker please take his seat for a moment. Hon. members, it's very difficult for the Chair to hear what the member is saying with the chatter from members in their seats. As all hon. members know, you should not be entering the debate unless you've been recognized and are in your place. So I would ask all members to keep that in mind. Would the hon. member please continue.

[5:00]

F. Garden: We could get carried away, I suppose, in the rhetoric of the thing, but I want to remind the hon. members of the opposition that they've said to us on many issues: "Look, why don't you go out and ask the people?" This government caucus has a feeling that the people across this country and in B.C. are in general opposed to the free trade agreement, and that they're also opposed to NAFTA. I would suggest that the opposition members should have been standing up here as a body saying, as they usually do: "Let's not rush this through. Let's take time to examine it." But they're not doing this, for whatever reason. They've accused the government of playing politics, but for whatever reason they're not doing the kind of thing that they've done on every other bill. They're quite prepared to let the feds shove this thing through. It really surprises me that they're taking this stand. I thought they would have been leading the charge on this and saying: "Don't rush with this." I suggest to the opposition that with something so important to the people of Canada, they should join the House on the vote asking the federal government not to ratify this. Make this a unanimous vote, because this is a bad deal for Canada and for the people of B.C. in particular.

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, it is indeed milk and cookies time. As a matter of fact, there is a pattern. If one takes a look at the debate on October 27 and the debate today, there is an interesting pattern among the government members across the way. There is a pattern of similarity in attacking whom? Oh yes, those government members can attack the NAFTA, but who are they attacking?

It's very interesting that the people they are attacking are the Liberal opposition. Not once this afternoon have I heard the government members say anything bad about the Prime Minister of Canada. I thought that the NAFTA was forged by the Prime Minister of Canada; I thought this was a Mulroney deal; I thought this was a Conservative deal; I thought this was a deal initiated by the federal government. Yet, what do we see here? We see them attacking the Liberal opposition of British Columbia. There is a pattern and a purpose. The purpose is clearly not just to oppose the NAFTA; the purpose here is crude and crass politics at its very basest, and that is shameful and absolutely disgusting.

I remember this debate in 1988 quite well. I was a candidate for North Island-Powell River for the Liberal Party.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: It's interesting, yes. What goes around comes around. That is one point that I'm going to make here, because it has been some time -- four years -- that I've waited for this moment and wanted to revisit the past. I can tell you that that campaign revealed a lot of things, too.

When we take a look at the history of the free trade agreement, initiated originally in 1985, it took some time for the NDP to come to terms with it. It's interesting also, but not surprising, that they would also oppose the free trade agreement in 1988. It was the 

[ Page 4196 ]

Liberal Party, the NDP and their leaders who responded when the Prime Minister of Canada called for an election and established the agenda that this election was about the free trade agreement. That's no surprise. Indeed, one would expect the NDP to oppose the free trade agreement.

When I reflect on that particular campaign, I remember something interesting that happened. The campaign was 60 days long. In the initial phase of that campaign the NDP candidates and the NDP leader, Ed Broadbent, had focused their attention on Prime Minister Mulroney and the Mulroney free trade deal, quite correctly. Our party and our leader focused our attention there as well. During the course of that particular campaign, something happened that is also repeated here: the NDP opposed the free trade agreement.

I remember Ray Skelly, who is now the Member of Parliament for North Island-Powell River, and myself coming down on three issues. One of those issues was the free trade agreement. We were fairly similar in our opposition to it. I had some very deep concerns about the petroleum section. That was fine. The election campaign went very nicely. As a matter of fact, I suspect Mr. Skelly had thought he was going to win in a cakewalk. During the course of that campaign, Mr. Turner had also gradually built up momentum. Two weeks prior to the election date the polls had clearly indicated -- and the NDP had access to them, because Ray Skelly told me -- that the Liberals were in a position to form a majority government. Here's the interesting thing, hon. Speaker. In the last two weeks of the campaign where did the NDP and the NDP leader Ed Broadbent focus their venom? And venom it was. They focused it not on Prime Minister Mulroney, not on the free trade agreement, but on the Liberals and John Turner -- and that's a fact.

How hypocritical was that particular campaign? Do you know why they did it? The reason they did not focus their opposition to the Liberals in the earlier part of that campaign was that they really thought the Liberal Party was crumbling and they would form the official opposition. As soon as they found out that their political fortunes were on the decline and that Ed Broadbent was nothing more than a third party leader, all of a sudden they realized that if they wanted to save their behinds, they'd better go out there and attack the Liberals.

And guess what? This is what's happening again. The hypocrisy of that third party that I experienced in Ottawa in the campaign of 1988 is being reflected once again here. This is the reason why I have to agree with my colleague the member for Chilliwack that this particular exercise at a time when, oh, Bill 84 is important, at a time when there are students from Langara in our midst with all kinds of problems.... Oh no, we've got to negotiate this, we've got to re-examine, and we've got to look, and we've got to oppose the NAFTA.

I would say it's about time this government and the government members on that side stopped doing the dirty work for their federal counterparts. If this government wants to be re-elected, I can give it some darned good advice right now, and that is: don't be a hack for the federal members.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: No, we're not, and that's been quite clear. See, that just goes to show you where they're coming from.

The fact is that you look at a party, its members and at a government not according to its words but according to what it really does politically. There is that member for Nelson-Creston, who said to let our common sense prevail and don't let our parochial understanding get in the way of it. Don't let your parochial interests be reflected. Yet it was in 1988, that that third party, the NDP, was quite willing to sacrifice their principles and their so-called opposition to the FTA so that they could form the official opposition in Ottawa. That is the hypocrisy of that federal party, and these members actually have the gall to come in this House and say they represent B.C. interests. They have the gall to come in here and say, highmindedly, "Oh, we're against the NAFTA," when in fact...

J. Pement: We are.

A. Warnke: Oh yes, you are. Believe me, I agree. I see why you are. I don't doubt that you don't believe in it, but the fact is you oppose it not on the basis of principle but for crass political purposes -- and that is shameful. It's absolutely disgraceful, they way they behave and bring forth this kind of legislation.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: One of the members over there likes to give me medical advice. I wish they'd take a look at some of the medical advice from some of the doctors in this province. They might learn something.

Then they talk about soul. They talk about how they have a soul, that they look for the soul. Look at Audrey McLaughlin, the leader of the NDP -- really a lot of soul there. You know what this hon. leader of the third party in Ottawa said -- with a lot of soul, no doubt? She described Jean Chrétien and the Liberals as slippery, scaly, with fierce, beady eyes and no soul. Yet that kind of language is applauded. Is that kind of language applied to the Prime Minister of Canada and the Mulroney free trade deal? No. That is to describe the Liberal leader and the Liberals. That is to describe the Liberals in Ottawa and Victoria. In 1988 the reason why we Liberals were not a focus of such venom from government members and, at that time, opposition members of the NDP was simply because there were no members. But I bet you they would have pulled the same trick then. What they are pulling right here is a trick whereby they'd like to corner us. Oh, yes, they'd like us to stand up. Oh, yes, they would like to have it recorded on division and so forth, and broadcast it in all the newspapers, not only across British Columbia but all across Canada, before the federal campaign even begins. That is trickery. That is deceitful. That kind of conduct does not belong in this House. This is not the 

[ Page 4197 ]

place for that kind of behaviour. For that reason they have to be pulled into account here. We know the crass and crude tricks; you can see through them very easily. It won't work, because they think that we will automatically react to any darned thing or strategy that they put forward. There is something else coming yet. Just wait until we come to a vote.

I sure find some of these members on the other side hang their noses when the truth is revealed, including the smart-aleck Minister of Housing over there.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: It's not unparliamentary.

M. Farnworth: You've done that paragraph....

A. Warnke: You don't know how many pages I've got. As a matter of fact, I'm a little worried of running out of time.

M. Farnworth: Don't let that bother you.

[5:15]

A. Warnke: It has never bothered me before, hon. member, and I'm sure it won't start now.

The NDP is pretty slow off the mark in terms of thinking that they could devise some cute little strategy to initiate the federal campaign to help their buddies and all the rest of it. But I would say one fatal flaw that they are committing is that the Canadian public, particularly we in British Columbia, can see that the federal and provincial NDP work in tandem. This is not the first time it has happened. On many issues, over and over again, including the constitutional referendum issue, these two branches of the NDP worked very closely together. I wouldn't doubt....

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Here is another member going on about what the Liberals did. Jean Chrétien can plot his strategy; our leader will plot our strategy; and we'll plot our strategy according to the interests, beliefs and opinions of the people of British Columbia, pure and simple.

In initiating that campaign in 1988, the Rt. Hon. John Turner stated the phrase that was extremely important. The event that led up to that debate was the free trade initiative by the Prime Minister that he wanted passed through the House of Commons. He had no trouble getting it passed with the huge majority he had, but the Rt. Hon. John Turner had instructed his Senate -- his Senators -- to oppose the deal or at least obstruct it. Do you know what happened then? This was in reaction to the free trade agreement. The NDP -- and some NDP members over there -- said: "Oh, the Senate has no business blocking the business of the House of Commons." I find that very interesting. They want to have it both ways. They want to be against the free trade agreement, but on the other hand they want to be against the Senate too.

Well, had it not been for John Turner's instructions and the actions of the Liberal Senators, a free trade agreement would have been whistled through Parliament like anything. All I have to say is thank God for those Senators in 1988 who gave a very clear message to the Prime Minister as to what he should do. John Turner said it so nicely in one phrase: "Let the people decide." Interestingly enough, among the members who talked about NAFTA this afternoon and on October 27, I have not heard one member over there say: "Let the people decide."

I learned a lot in that campaign of 1988. I learned how the NDP reacts when it comes to the crunch and their political fortunes are on the decline. They react according to what is in their best party interest and their best parochial interest, and sometimes they can get very mean. That was one of the dirtiest campaigns I have ever experienced, and I've been in quite a few. It was not just a matter of ripping up signs. They ripped up all my signs in North Island, but that's another....

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Oh, the NDP, and I can say that here. It certainly wasn't Conservatives who set up a whole bunch of phone calls throughout Sechelt telling them what a character I am.

Deputy Speaker: Back to the resolution, hon. member.

A. Warnke: That particular campaign illustrated that even on election day, the NDP could get really down and dirty when it serves their interest. But the NDP like to claim they're pure. They like to claim that....

Deputy Speaker: Order! Order, hon. member. The hon. member realizes that we are on the resolution with respect to NAFTA. Please proceed.

A. Warnke: At any rate, simply put, whatever the NDP members on the government side vote now, I confess that I do not trust them at their word to the end of this particular campaign and issue.

How do we know that when the election campaign comes around again, and no doubt this will be the issue all over again.... You know, hon. Speaker, history doesn't repeat itself, but it sure rhymes a lot. How do we know that when this becomes the issue as soon as the political fortunes decline -- as they have been recently -- the NDP will once again be distracted from really debating the NAFTA agreement and focus their attention on the Liberals and their leadership, just as they have done this afternoon?

The NDP in 1988 compromised their high-minded principles. They compromised those high-minded principles once, and their remarks just recently about slippery, scaly, fierce and beady eyes seemed to indicate that once again the NDP are on that path. Sometimes they can be just as vicious as any Tory, by the way. Clearly this is a crass political manoeuvre to favour 

[ Page 4198 ]

their federal counterparts. What a sham! What a disgrace!

I would say this: for the misdeeds of their past -- and misdeeds they were, the way that the NDP conducted themselves in the last two weeks of that campaign.... They didn't focus their venom on Mulroney or Reagan, who interfered, or Thatcher, who interfered, or Bourassa, who interfered. They focused their venom on Turner and the Liberals. So for their misdeeds of the past -- and some of these members, maybe all of them, were involved in that, and serious misdeeds they were, I would say -- and for their crude behaviour we cannot trust them. They like to put it in a context: where do you stand on NAFTA? Where do you want to go? These high-minded arguments; these high-minded principles; and those oh-so-bad Liberals. Those high-minded principles. I would like to turn it right around: are you going to stick to your bargain to keep with it right to the end of this election campaign coming up at the federal level, or are you going to compromise your principles, which you did so easily in 1988? Ed Broadbent and the NDP just threw away their principles when it came to crass and crude political interest. To be quite honest with you, hon. Speaker, I saw it then and I expect it again. And I for one will simply not abide by that silly agenda, which has no business being in this House while we in British Columbia have British Columbia interests. We have British Columbia problems to face, and this government refuses to face them. There are budgets. There are students. There is everything: ferry workers going on strike, and so forth. And they want to piddle around playing crass, crude politics in the Legislature. What a shame! What a sham! What a disgrace! Hon. Speaker, we can't kick this government out fast enough. It's about time that those members stood accountable to the people of British Columbia; that those members start really facing facts around British Columbia, instead of piddling around trying to put Audrey McLaughlin on some sort of silly little scale. If these members expect us to fall for that trick, they've got another think coming.

I've been waiting for a long time to essentially put out the fact that the NDP are not as lily-white and high-minded as they try to convey to the public. And do you know what, hon. Speaker? The public is catching on. On this issue, like other issues, they will see through this manoeuvre. If the government members really want some advice, it's about time that they stopped toadying to the federal branch of their party and were responsible to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think, to put the rhetoric aside, that we have to look at several things. Who will really win in this agreement? Certainly the United States will win. We know that. We know Mexico will win. There have been about nine studies right across North America examining this agreement quite closely. None of those studies mention that Canada will win. Certainly Canada will not win. Who else will win? I guess the multinationals will win. They usually do. They fly one flag, the green flag of money. I believe the Liberal Party understands that.

Who will lose? Who usually loses in these agreements? We in Canada lost in the free trade agreement; we're going to lose in the GATT; and we're going to lose in the NAFTA. What will British Columbia lose? The member for Chilliwack admitted, stated, that the farmers of British Columbia would lose. Indeed, he's correct. The farmers of British Columbia will lose. Who else will lose? All those workers in British Columbia who are making $10 or $12 an hour. It's very difficult to compete with 87 cents an hour. With these agreements your standard of living usually goes down, not up. We won't bring Mexico up; we'll go down to meet their level. The B.C. processors will lose, too.

Let's look at the strategy and how it has really benefited Canada and the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement has cost us, by all accounts, 475,000 jobs in about four years. The GATT agreement will impact farming again. And NAFTA, like other agreements, concentrates on a few things and doesn't mention a few things.

You say we need the trading agreement. Well, I don't quite fall for that, and I'll tell you why I don't. Japan is probably the leading trading nation in the world, and what does it have? It has a 2.1 percent unemployment rate and a $100 billion surplus every year. They can do quite well without the free trade agreement; they can do quite well without the GATT agreement; they can do quite well without NAFTA.

You talked about your Liberal leader, John Turner, and you talked about the sacrifice of principles. Let's examine John Turner. I think you have to give credit where credit is due. John Turner took a stand; he spoke from the heart in 1988. He concentrated on the disadvantages of the free trade agreement to Canada. Do you know something? He was right. We were right, too. We both agreed on the principle that the free trade agreement was bad for Canada. And what happened? What happened to John Turner? Let's see what happened to John Turner. The corporate elite threw $10 million or $15 million into the election barrel, and they turned the election around on John Turner. But was that lesson lost on the Liberal Party? You bet it wasn't. Now they have a new leader: Jean Chrétien. He says nothing about the free trade agreement and how damaging it has been to Canada. You can go into the House of Commons and listen to the Liberals, and they say nothing about the free trade agreement. Talk about sacrifice of principles; that's a real sacrifice of principles. It's rather interesting what they did to John Turner. John Turner was gone; the corporate elite made sure he was gone. He did not survive. And this is a guy who spoke from principle, one of the few Liberals who really spoke from principle. He put his career on the line, and what happened? His own party abandoned him.

[5:30]

We had the member for Okanagan East say: "We are going to have to tighten our belts in this agreement." Who is "we"? I don't see anybody in this House tightening their belt; we get a pretty good wage. Why not ask those 475,000 Canadians who lost their jobs because of the free trade agreement? Why not ask the 1.6 million Canadians who are out of work and looking for a job?

[ Page 4199 ]

Interjection.

B. Barlee: How are they looking for a job? A classic example. They are really looking for a job; they are not lazy. They need a job. Last week in Toronto they advertised 20 part-time jobs at very low wages for a sustained period of ten weeks. Hundreds of people lined up to get 20 part-time jobs. So the free trade agreement didn't work very well. Surely you don't expect the NAFTA to work much better.

What about the corporate friends, the bankers and the corporate elite? They love this deal. You can go into the federal House and you won't hear the Liberals saying anything about NAFTA. They know. Take a look at the corporate donations. Do you think they're worrying about the little guy on the street? I don't think they are. Who got the majority of corporate donations this year? The Liberal Party did. They've gone back to their friends again. That's principle all right -- a principle I would rather not have.

Some members sitting in this House heavily criticized the member for Langley, who criticized the North American free trade agreement. The member for Chilliwack spent ten minutes criticizing the North American free trade agreement. But when it comes to a vote, he will vote for it. That isn't principle; that's a lack of principle.

It really is strange, because when you come right down the line on the Liberal Party, they have some fine thinkers, but they are always all things to all men. When it comes down to principle, they are the running dogs of the corporate elite. That's all there is to it. We know it and you know it. By the way, there is only one party in this House that will stand on principle and that will stand for the guy who needs a job. This agreement will not produce jobs in Canada. You cannot compete with 87 cents an hour. It is almost impossible.

What else was left out of the agreement? Water -- just down to California. They didn't have a drop of rain in parts of California, around Sacramento, for six months. They are eyeing our water, and they have eyed it for years. They didn't get it in the free trade agreement or under GATT; they're targeting it under the new North American free trade agreement. They are looking very closely at our water. For them to survive, they must have Canadian water. That's why we'll take a stand on it. I urge even those Liberals who have the faintest doubt -- and there are some -- to vote against accepting the free trade agreement.

H. De Jong: I'm amazed, or perhaps I should say I'm baffled, at the political manoeuvring that's going on in this House at this time. It seems strange that this is the most important initiative of this government since the Premier came back. After the vote was held on the accord, he said: "We will work on the economy. We will try and do everything to strengthen the economy." First we had Bill 84 come on the table, which I don't think is an added feature to our economy at all. I'm just wondering why this resolution has come back today. Maybe there's some good in it. I'm not sure. But as much as the Premier failed to stand his ground during the constitutional debate, so is this government incapable of dealing with this issue with our federal counterparts. That's why this debate is here today and for no other reason. They're simply incapable.

The Premier speaks about expanded trade on one side of the fence with the Pacific Rim -- creating jobs, value-added products, more investment, higher-paid workers. How can this same Premier speak against expanded trade by way of this agreement? In fact, this government's financial resources depend heavily on exports.

I'm also amazed at what the various levels of government have come up with throughout the years. The federal government is no exception, and neither is the provincial government. Governments from all political colours have come up with a great variety of ideas, proposals and programs. Some are good, and some are not so good, but many of them have only created a great buildup of government bureaucracy -- federal, provincial and, yes, even at the municipal levels -- at an astronomical cost to the taxpayers. Now it is a late hour, and the federal government sees another opportunity to come up with some other bright idea -- the North American free trade agreement.

Canadians have not changed. They have always been entrepreneurs and will always be entrepreneurs. The problem is that governments have changed; they have changed their direction. We came here 45 years ago, and there was no such thing as a government deficit. The Canadian dollar was higher than the United States dollar. There were lower interest rates and lower taxes. Farmers today pay more taxes per acre of land than they could rent it for in the early seventies. Now if that doesn't tell you something.... That's only municipal taxes; it doesn't include provincial or federal taxes. Then this government had the audacity to add the corporate tax to it.

There are many farmers not caught by this corporate tax, because they are not incorporated. I want to go into a little bit of detail on this, because the Minister of Agriculture spoke about it in Abbotsford the other day. But I'll tell you that the farmers did not simply choose to go corporate. Many farmers had no alternative but to go corporate, and now this government is laying on them another 0.3 percent tax on assets, whether they've paid for them or not.

In addition to that, most farmers require a large land base, and land is expensive in British Columbia. It's expensive in the Okanagan; it's expensive in the valley; and it's expensive on this Island. That adds to the burden of the farmer. So can the farmer afford the free trade agreement? Not without some changes -- and the changes must come from this government and the federal government, as well as from the municipal governments. Again, hon. Speaker, it's very unfortunate, I believe, that this government has chosen this afternoon to debate this important issue with hardly any warning. Even though it's been on the order paper for some time, there was no indication that this debate would come back to the floor. However, I always like to look on the brighter side: is there perhaps a glimmer of hope that Bill 84 has been postponed for a day for debate? Is the government perhaps thinking about allowing some changes to Bill 84?

[ Page 4200 ]

The Minister of Agriculture -- I'd like to mention him again -- spoke to the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce last week. The minister spoke about the GATT agreement, which is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and I think he was honest in his approach. He told the farmers and the business people that the supply management systems as we have known them for British Columbia farmers may well be on the road out. But he also said that his government would do everything to make it possible for farmers to survive during that period of change and into the more free-trade era. Maybe I'm just too hopeful, but I'm hopeful that there will be some substantial changes to Bill 84 because of this debate today. Perhaps we can look forward to something. At least I would hope so.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, with the greatest respect, Bill 84 is before the House and should not be discussed in this particular motion.

H. De Jong: I will try to stay away from Bill 84. However, I believe the consequences of that will have something to do with the economic liability in British Columbia, not just for farmers but for very many more people in business.

We have more and more regulations put on agriculture as well as on many other businesses. I'd just like to point out one of those regulations that is really bothering the farming community in the lower mainland -- and there are many farmers who are expanding their businesses; they have purchased additional land.

Interjection.

H. De Jong: It is difficult; there's no question about it. However, farmers, being private entrepreneurs, are willing to take a chance.

For many reasons there have been some serious delays in approving second homes on farms because of conditions related to septic fields. We have discussed this back and forth with the minister on many occasions, and there doesn't seem to be any change. But now, worst of all, the provincial government somewhere.... I'm not sure. I haven't detected yet who made the order, whether it's the Minister of Health or the bureaucracy within the Ministry of Health. But when a farmer wishes to transfer or purchase a piece of property from his neighbour, which may be a separate parcel, there is no way he can get that transfer completed through the land registry office within a year's time because of these stringent regulations that the Ministry of Health has on septic fields -- while the farmer hasn't even got any desire to build a home on the property. That's just one of those examples of government interference in the private sector, and that's what makes it so difficult for people to compete.

I would like to come back to some of the things that have been thrown up as roadblocks in the area of competition. As I said earlier, it's not only the federal government or the provincial government, it's the local government as well.

We talk about the provision of affordable housing. On one side, the higher the density of the development, the higher the impost fees. Does that really make sense in order to provide affordable housing, which is usually high density? It does not.

[5:45]

Debating this important issue on a couple of hours' notice just tells you and me and the people of British Columbia how seriously this government really takes this issue. But worse, hon. Speaker, is the fact that such an important issue will have an effect on all British Columbians, and its effects under the present circumstances....

If the government was serious on this issue, I believe they should be discussing this in Ottawa. But this government, on account of its dismal financial performance, is following the same route as the politicians in Ottawa: higher taxes, more restrictions and a labour bill they know will have disastrous effects on small business. They have no choice but to oppose the entrepreneurial spirit of Canadians and British Columbians. The question is: should I, representing the free, entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians, vote in favour of this resolution, without the government providing an opportunity to discuss the possible measures that are within the reach of government? It's no different from what the Minister of Agriculture said in Abbotsford the other day: we must change, and that change will have to take place. We have no choice in the matter, so why have a vote on this issue? Hon. Speaker, that change can be achieved only through negotiation and consultation with business and industry and with our federal counterparts.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise and make a brief contribution to the debate on this motion. Just to remind members of the House, the motion is very brief, and it says: "Be it resolved that this Legislature call upon the government of Canada to not ratify the North American free trade agreement as initialled on October 7, 1992." That's the resolution that has been brought forward by the government. They want to debate this. It's interesting. We've had debate on it previously, and it was adjourned. Now it is brought forward again today.

I think the member for Abbotsford is absolutely correct: the reason it's brought forward today is that the government's legislative program is in disarray. They've brought this forward without any notice to the opposition, because they don't know how to proceed with Bill 84. They're struggling with that, and understandably so.

Nevertheless, I think we should be prepared to debate this, because it's an important resolution. It's unfortunate, though, that the government actually wants to put this to a vote today. Why would they do that when there's a much better way to proceed? That is the motion that was given notice last Thursday by the Minister of Economic Development. It was a very important notice, which appeared in the Votes and Proceedings of November 19, standing in the name of the Minister of Economic Development. It says: "That the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development...be empowered to examine the implications for 

[ Page 4201 ]

the economies of British Columbia and Canada of the North American free trade agreement."

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. I do appreciate your bringing the matter to the House's attention, but that is another motion, which is not appropriately debated in the House under this particular piece of public business.

D. Mitchell: I will not debate the other motion, but I wanted to indicate that I think the notice given by the Minister of Economic Development is the correct way to proceed on the larger issue of NAFTA. I think the idea of referring it to a select standing committee of this House for further study, to really take a look at the impact of NAFTA on the economy of our province and country, would be the way to proceed. In advance of that, why should we be deciding whether we want to recommend to the federal government that they ratify it? I think we're doing things backwards here. That was the point I was making, Mr. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: Do you want to tell the committee what to do?

D. Mitchell: I don't think we should be advising or predetermining the judgment of a legislative committee if the government wishes to bring this matter forward and actually refer it to a select standing committee. That's the way to go. Let's not prejudge NAFTA.

The thing that concerns me is that even before NAFTA was initialled, critics, including members of this government and that party, wanted to scuttle the whole thing. They asked the Prime Minister and others to leave the table. They didn't even want to debate it. They asked them to bring the Canadian negotiators home. That was before we even knew what was in the agreement.

It's a large, thick agreement with a lot of legal subtext. Some of the legal texts are not yet available. We're now being told we shouldn't ratify it. Why not? Why should we not take a look at the emerging reality of a large regional trading bloc that, whether we like it or not, we're going to be part of? That's the reality of world trade; that's the reality of the trading relationships that Canada has always been part of.

NAFTA is part of the emerging trend in world trade. Yes, we're committed as Canadians to multilateral trading agreements, but NAFTA doesn't preclude us from pursuing multilateral agreements. In fact, NAFTA should be seen, and I think can be seen, as a step toward the larger goal of liberalized trade, where we break down trade barriers, break down tariffs and pursue the goal, the liberal goal -- small-l liberal goal, hon. Speaker -- of freer trade. It's something we all want to see.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit the Mexican-American border. I had a chance to go over to the Mexican side of the border to visit some of the maquila plants in the famous maquiladora zones. It was interesting going down there and talking to some of the people who work in and manage some of these maquila plants to ask them who they felt their competition was. If we listen to the members of the New Democratic Party and members of the government opposite, we would be led to believe that the jobs in Mexico, the production jobs, the low-paid jobs in high-volume manufacturing plants, will be lost to Mexico from Canada. I think nothing could be further from the truth. What I'm told and what I was told repeatedly when I went down there and examined this and talked to the workers is that the competition is not the United States or Canada, but the newly industrialized nations of the Pacific Rim. If the jobs will not be in Mexico, they will most likely be in countries like Taiwan and other countries in the Pacific Rim, where labour is cheap and, yes, where we probably cannot compete in terms of high-volume, labour-intensive manufacturing.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

So we have to look at the natural competitive advantages of our economy. We're not going to compete with those jobs anyway. We're not going to be losing jobs to Mexico. If those jobs aren't in Mexico, they're likely to be overseas on the other side of the Pacific, hon. Speaker -- and it's nice to see you in the chair.

I would argue: what have we really got to lose by taking a look at NAFTA, an agreement that is not going to be ratified until January 1, 1994? We have time to take a look at it. We have time to realize that the next federal election in Canada is going to be fought on this issue -- as well as on other issues. This will be a key issue in the next federal election. We will not be able to determine today in this House whether or not a federal government, after the next federal election, can or should ratify this agreement. Let the people of Canada decide; let the people of British Columbia decide. Let them express their democratic will in the next federal election campaign, which surely must come within the next 12 months. But why should we prejudge that? I really believe that the Minister of Economic Development has it right. Let's refer this matter to a select standing committee. Let's inquire into the impact on our economy in British Columbia and on our national economy in Canada. I'm behind the Minister of Economic Development, and I wish his colleagues would get behind him as well. I wish they'd get behind him and realize the folly of their position in trying to advise the federal government today not to ratify this agreement, which doesn't come into effect for well over a year.

The NAFTA is not a perfect agreement. In fact, I might even question whether it's really a free trade agreement, much the way the free trade agreement that was approved a few years ago was not free trade, per se.

But what does NAFTA actually do? It provides barrier-free access to the Mexican market, and we have to think a little about what that market represents to us today. Who will benefit most from NAFTA as it's currently structured? Clearly the Mexicans will benefit most. After that, probably the Americans will benefit next most because of their geographic proximity. Perhaps Canada will benefit the least, but still there will be benefits.

[ Page 4202 ]

When we think about the Mexican marketplace, the interesting fact that I observed when I had a chance to be there recently is that the population of Mexico is some 85 million people, but the median age is about 17 years. That's about half the median age in Canada.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The population of Mexico is going to increase rapidly and perhaps double over the next 30 years. What kind of market does that potentially represent to us in Canada over the long term? What kind of market does that represent for the service industries and the other high-tech manufacturing industries in the long term? There will be short-term benefits to Mexico, but perhaps longer-term benefits to Canada. We should study that and think about it clearly and thoroughly before we are asked to make a definitive decision as to whether we should recommend to the federal government not to ratify this agreement.

The Mexican market could be very important. We're part of the North American continent. We can't stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact that global trading blocs are one of the next stages toward freer multilateral trading agreements. When we consider all these facts, we have to recognize that NAFTA has some potential advantages for Canada.

What are those benefits? Well, the principal fact of NAFTA that's important to me when I look at it is that it improves upon the FTA. The FTA was a much-flawed agreement, but it improves upon the FTA in many respects. There's greater protection for Canada's cultural industries. Social services and health services are protected under NAFTA. Canada's high health, safety and environmental standards are preserved and can be strengthened. Canada's supply management and import quotas for egg, dairy and poultry products are not affected under NAFTA, and I think that should be important to the Minister of Agriculture.

Unlike the free trade agreement, transportation services, including land and specialty air services, and intellectual property rights are included. There are clearer North American content rules, and I think that's important. It's something the member for Langley spoke to when this debate first came forward. I think that's an important feature, and it's a benefit over the original FTA.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. The list is significant. But one of the most important things that NAFTA does is strengthen what were established under the FTA, the dispute settlement procedures. I think that's important. The dispute settlement procedures between the participating nations are improved under NAFTA. That's important to us in Canada and particularly to us in British Columbia because of the fact that our lumber industry, which sells into the North American marketplace, particularly into the United States, has been and is severely affected by American protectionism. We know that there are right now at least three cases before binational panels established under the FTA. One case is coming forward in the very near future which could be very important to us in British Columbia. I wonder whether the government opposite will change its mind if that decision under the binational panel favours us in British Columbia. If the decision coming forward favours us in British Columbia, as I believe it will and hope it will, will the NDP change their view in terms of their unwarranted attack in opposition on something that we don't fully appreciate? Will they change their view? Will the Minister of Forests change his mind if the binational panel rules in favour of us? Because under the NAFTA, these binational panels and the dispute resolution procedures which are established are now strengthened, and I think that could benefit us in British Columbia and in Canada in the long run.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad I had a chance to participate in this debate. We take a look at what's happening south of the border and south of their border and recognize that there are some important changes in trade taking place. President-elect Bill Clinton has not actually asked my opinion yet, although some of you will be surprised to learn that. But when he does, I'm going to tell him to think clearly about NAFTA and to take a look at some of the concerns. Let's proceed, with caution perhaps, but let's pursue the goal of freer trade, breaking down barriers and opening up markets for British Columbia products. I think that's a step in the right direction.

L. Fox: As I listened to the debate this afternoon, I became somewhat depressed. As I listened to the government members speak in support of their resolution, I began to wonder whether we're fighting a federal campaign within this particular chamber. It seems to me that the sagging fortunes of the federal NDP, which has the lowest rating in the polls in years and a leader who is below any previous leader of the NDP in terms of support right across the country, make me understand why we aretaking up this valuable time within these chambers. It's in order for this government to try to improve the sagging fortunes of its federal brother.

I listened to the debate, hon. Speaker. Not one government member stood up and mentioned points in this agreement that would prevent them from supporting it and ratifying it. They did not give the public viewing this debate any idea as to the contents of this prescribed agreement. They talked solely about the federal Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic parties, and that disappoints me. I was hoping to learn something through this exercise, and I have learned absolutely nothing. The only member who I have heard speak with any kind of knowledge as to what this agreement contains was the member who spoke prior to me.

[6:00]

I heard the Minister of Agriculture suggest that we could not compete with the lower wages paid in Mexico. In a way, that is an admission that we've taxed our business community so dramatically and increased our salaries so dramatically that we've put ourselves in a position that it makes it extremely difficult to compete with other nations in this world.

When we look at the economic opportunities of a growing and developing country such as Mexico, one wants to believe that somehow British Columbians could meet the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities that this new market would provide for us. 

[ Page 4203 ]

However, this government would see us moving the Berlin wall -- which was taken down -- over here and putting it along the 49th parallel to protect ourselves from the masses of people and the great trading opportunities that are to the south of us. That is not foresight; that is merely hindsight.

There is no question in my mind that there are going to be difficulties. There's no question in my mind that there are issues around NAFTA that have to be discussed and have to be dealt with to a large degree by all three countries. But the dispute mechanism for dealing with those is much improved over the dispute mechanism that was in place, and is in place, through the free trade agreement that we now have with the United States.

If this government was really meeting the challenge, we would be looking at building a positive climate for investment in British Columbia. We would be looking at our labour code and just exactly how it is going to hinder our opportunities to trade with other countries. We would be looking at the large picture, not the narrow picture. We would be looking upon this as an opportunity, not something which is going to be detrimental to the economy of British Columbia.

This government does not stand and face the future; instead it puts its back to the future. It does not look upon any kind of positive development or economic development in other countries, such as Mexico, as an opportunity. How could we not at least suggest that this go back to a standing committee of the Legislature for it to examine the point-by-point issues that are in here? How could we write off without consideration the immediate elimination of Mexican tariffs on coal, sulphur and some wood and paper? How could we write off without some consideration the immediate elimination of Mexican tariffs on fish, including Pacific salmon? Those are two issues that directly involve British Columbia and are great opportunities for our entrepreneurs and the residents of British Columbia.

There's no question in my mind that this particular North American free trade agreement is being placed on the Orders of the Day for discussion to allow this government to somehow deal with some of the issues that Bill 84 is placing before us. It's no more than a delaying tactic to help their federal brothers build a crutch, if you will, in order to improve their image on a national scale.

I'm extremely disappointed. I have to repeat myself in saying that there hasn't been one member over there who has used this as an a opportunity to point out, in point-by-point form, how we could improve on the agreement. Not one member.

In Bill 84 discussions this same government is telling us to give them our ideas for improvement. Here we have something that they're not even prepared to look at, because Dave Barrett and Audrey McLaughlin have said that this is their only opportunity to increase their fortunes for the next election. We've seen a campaign start in the last two to three weeks.

I'm opposed to the resolution, and once again, I do not believe that this particular resolution will improve the fortunes of the federal NDP, nor the provincial NDP. It's going to be seen by the public as the straight opportunism and negativeness that we're so used to from this government. If this government really wanted to improve our opportunities, we would decrease the size of the provincial government and decrease the costs to our taxpayers and look at ways and means of improving the opportunities for business to become competitive. We wouldn't be saying on one hand that we can't compete with the low wages of Mexico, when we're talking about Bill 84 on the other hand. This government is saying that big unions and big union wages are the key to improving the economics of British Columbia. What a hypothesis!

There's no question in my mind that this is purely a politically motivated discussion, tabled by this government to look after their friends in the federal party. With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my chair.

D. Symons: I shall be fairly brief. I just have a few comments to make. The first comment is regarding the government bringing this to the House as an important issue that had to be discussed today. As a matter of fact, when there was a motion to put it off and get back to Bill 84, that was defeated by the government. So this is important. This was introduced to the House on October 27 for one day only. This has now sat dormant for close to four weeks. I have not seen any reason whatsoever that suddenly this is an important issue today when they've let it sit there for close to four weeks. It is just impossible for me to believe that it is as important as the government would have us believe, because if it were, they could have brought it before the House before, and we could have discussed it at length. I think this is a phony issue.

What is the phony issue? The phony issue has been alluded to by many of the previous speakers, and that is that it's simply a political ploy. They are politicizing the issue of NAFTA. They're not politicizing it for the sake of discussing NAFTA but for the sake of trying to co-opt this House into their political agenda.

D. Streifel: Imagine! -- crass politics in the Legislature.

D. Symons: That indeed seems to be the case, as the hon. member says. I'm afraid I have to go along with the member who says that we have caught on to what they're up to today.

I for one do not intend to play their game. I feel that it would be best for hon. members of this House to absent themselves and not take part in the charade when we end up taking the voter later on, which they're going to force us to do. I believe the best method is for members to absent themselves and not be co-opted into their politicizing this issue. It's too important an issue to be politicized in that way.

Many people who are much wiser than I am -- and I suspect much wiser than most of the members in this House -- have discussed and examined the NAFTA. It seems from the articles you can read in papers that opinion is divided. Indeed, the Vancouver Sun on August 15 said: "Naysayers Aside, NAFTA Will Be Good for Mexico and Us." We find in the Globe and Mail on August 14: "NAFTA Fumbles Key Anti-Dumping 

[ Page 4204 ]

Issue." And we go on and on. When you look at articles, you find that opinion seems to be divided quite a bit. William Thorsell in the Globe and Mail on August 15 says: "NAFTA is a Poor Issue for Economic Nationalists to Fault." He goes on in the article to point out all the good points about it. Low wages do not give countries an economic advantage in some sectors, but rich companies stand to gain more than they lose through trade agreements like the one with Mexico. In return for lower trade barriers, rich countries gain access to stimulated markets and investment opportunities in poor countries that more than compensate for job losses at home over time. That's one opinion. Of course, we find in the Maclean's August issue that Peter Newman takes the opposite view. "Industry will have to be restructured strictly along continental north-south lines, destroying the little that's left of Canada's one-time dominant east-west axis." I must say that I am somewhat concerned about that and tend to agree with Mr. Newman's opinion here. He goes on to say: "That means redirecting rail lines, trucking routes and telecommunications systems, and building something called 'non-energy pipelines,' which sound suspiciously like Canadian water being allowed to flow freely below the 49th parallel." That issue has been mentioned by one of the government members earlier in the day.

I am trying to point out that there are many different issues here that we are not really addressing in the discussion today, because I believe the discussion today has nothing to do with the NAFTA. It has to do with co-opting the House, as I said earlier, into looking like we're either for or against them, rather than getting into the real issues of this agreement.

There have been statements made here which make me concerned about this, because it appears that government members are using an anti-U.S..... I very much dislike seeing that sort of argument come in. We should discuss NAFTA on the merits of an agreement and not on an anti-American sort of approach here. They are indeed our neighbours and they have been for many years our friends, but at times you have to watch your friends -- I would agree with that. But again, I find offensive the anti-U.S. sentiment that has come out from three or four of the government speakers.

I'm also concerned, from the way the motion is worded, that are we going to really change the current loss of jobs by ignoring the NAFTA? There has to be something more than ignoring it, and that seems to be what the motion is doing. We just don't agree with this: put our heads in the sand and pretend that we're not going to go anywhere with it. I can't go along with that notion, because the world markets are going to control how successful businesses in B.C. will be. The world markets are going to control to a certain extent how well the natural resources that we have an abundance of -- and that's our strength in our British Columbia economy -- are going to be traded on the free market of the world. If we are simply going to pretend that we're going to put trade barriers up and keep the free market out, those trade barriers can be erected in other ways to keep us out.

It doesn't work quite as nicely as the government would like us to pretend. You can't simply put your head in the sand and ignore what's going on in the rest of the world. We cannot do it, because they won't let us do it; and as much as we might like it to be otherwise -- and I will be first to admit I also would not like it to be that way -- we have the problem of adjusting and making the best we can in the way it's going to occur to us.

We can find that we can. We can find that a country like Japan has done extremely well in trading with the world while having a very expensive economy of its own there and a high standard of living. They've done very well in selling to countries that have a much lower standard of living. We in Canada are going to have to learn in order to do that. We find in Canada that we've had some companies.... One that comes to mind is the Electrohome company, which was a leader for a while not only in Canada but around the world as an electronics organization that could produce really good quality material. That company has not made it in the world scene, because it did not really keep up with the changes in the world. That's what effect trade barriers in Canada have. Putting tariffs on goods being brought in from other countries did no good to the Electrohome company. It gave it the advantage domestically where it didn't have to compete, and therefore it didn't have to keep up with changes in technology in that particular field.

[6:15]

In the long run, they lost out; and that's precisely what I think the government's suggesting we somehow do: that we'll protect their union friends and union jobs by somehow pretending that the rest of the world isn't there, and let Canadian technology fall behind the rest of the world. And somehow we're going to remain competitive. It won't work for Canada or B.C.

For those reasons I intend to absent myself when the vote is being taken, because I don't care to be co-opted into the sort of politicizing that you're doing on as important an issue as this.

M. Farnworth: I find the opportunity to speak on this motion to be quite interesting, because there have been a number of comments made by members of the opposition and the third party. I see one member in particular getting ready to take his seat, so obviously he's going to have a few reactions to some of my comments. I'm flattered by that.

There have been a lot of statements made that this is a political debate; that members on the government side aren't prepared to debate the merits or demerits of this particular agreement; that nobody has spoken about it. That's simply not true. This is not a political debate in the sense of a partisan nature. It is about trade for British Columbia; it is about trade for Canada; it's about how trade affects our province. We're a trading nation. Historically we've always been a trading nation, from the fur trade to the lumber trade to minerals to natural gas to our petroleum resources. This country was built on trade, but trade that we have been in control of.

We negotiated the Auto Pact, for example, in the sixties, for mutual benefit both south and north of the 

[ Page 4205 ]

border. We made sure that all our interests were protected. Yet what the opposition wants to do is fast-track this agreement and the process. They're not satisfied with the existing free trade agreement and the problems it has created in other parts of this country. Without even looking at the problems of the existing trade arrangements and trying, either by abrogation or negotiation, to correct the flaws that exist, they want to sort of say: "We've got that; now let's go and do something bigger." Instead they want to rush headlong into an agreement with the United States and Mexico.

The last election was fought on the free trade agreement that we currently operate under. We have seen the problems. But the people of Canada had a say. The opposition doesn't want the people of Canada to have a say; they want us to rush headlong into this agreement.

The federal government is saying that this agreement will be signed within a few months, but they're also saying that there will be an election next August or in the fall. At that time it could be too late, because we could find ourselves in an agreement that hurts Canada in a way that the free trade agreement has hurt Ontario, but on a much wider scale. It would be much more prudent not to look south of the border necessarily but to look around the world to other areas that are reaching trading agreements and arrangements. They're taking their time and making sure that all parties benefit; that it's not just made for one party, but everybody enters as equals and on a level playing field.

I look to the EEC model, because it started in the early fifties -- 1951 I think it was -- with the steel and coal arrangements, which were the foundation of the European Common Market treaties that followed. It has evolved over the last 40 years, not on a fast-track basis but with a process that has allowed time for the problems that come when different nations try to integrate and coordinate trading patterns and reduce trade barriers. They solved those problems. There will be problems, and it's a mistake to fast-track something and think that your problems will be solved by doing that. They won't be.

We also have to have faith that our own government is prepared to stand up and ensure that our interests are protected. We have seen proof here in this province of what happened when our large neighbour to the south, to protect its own industries even after the free trade agreement was signed, invoked the softwood lumber tariff -- a tariff that was earmarked against an industry that supplies 50 percent of the economic opportunity in this province. What did our federal government do? Did they try to retaliate in some way that would show the United States how seriously we took this and how serious an impact this was going to have on us? They brought in protectionist measures against Christmas trees and oatmeal. Our forest industry was under seige from protectionist measures in the States, and our federal government's response is to slap a tariff on Christmas trees.

We're the world's second largest Christmas tree farm. We're a breadbasket. We produce more grain and cereals than most other countries in the world, yet the second half of our federal government's response to this assault on British Columbia's primary industry was to slap a tariff on oatmeal. I like oatmeal, and I'm sure lots of Canadians do, but we certainly don't see it flooding across the border from the United States to the degree that you need to slap a tariff on it.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: We need to take a close look at this agreement. It's a very complex agreement, and it needs to be looked at and examined in detail. It makes up three volumes and over 700 pages.

The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca talks about asking for a reason not to fast-track. All you have to do is look at some of the formulas within the agreement for determining things and their required explanation.

L. Fox: Explain it.

M. Farnworth: I'll tell the member for Prince George-Omineca, who's saying, "Explain it," that I have in front of me one of those formulas for determining products, of when a tariff kicks in and when a tariff doesn't kick in. It reads something like this: ANPS = (PPy -- CPy) + CF, where ANPS is adjusted net production surplus, PP is the projected domestic production, CP is the projected total consumption, plus CF, which is a correction factor; all within y, which is the next marketing year. But this only comes into play, hon. Speaker, where CF = (PAys -- CAys) -- (PPys -- CPys), where PA is the actual domestic production of the material and CA is the actual total consumption, minus projected domestic production in the year of surplus plus a correction factor, which takes into account ys, which is the year surplus.

So hon. Speaker, if that's not a reason to....

C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, I would draw the Speaker's attention to the clock.

Deputy Speaker: The government House Leader.

Hon. member, are you moving a motion?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Are you moving a motion to adjourn?

C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, I'm bringing the House's attention to the clock: it's way past 6 o'clock.

Deputy Speaker: That's right. Does the member care to move the appropriate motion?

Interjections.

C. Tanner: I would think it was the government's responsibility to recognize....

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned at this point, until later today.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4206 ]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Until later today. We just voted to adjourn to later today.

C. Tanner: I didn't hear that, Mr. Speaker. I didn't hear anything about later today. I heard a motion that....

Deputy Speaker: Yes, the Speaker heard that.

Hon. M. Sihota: A point of order. It's my understanding that the motion that was moved was that the House adjourn until later today.

Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn was sustained. I call on the House Leader.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned for five minutes and sit no later than 10 p.m. unless otherwise ordered.

Motion approved on the following division:

Deputy Speaker: This House is recessed for five minutes.

The House resumed at 6:45 p.m.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call adjourned debate on the following motion: "Be it resolved that this Legislature call upon the government of Canada to not ratify the North American free trade agreement as initiated October 7, 1992."

The debate was adjourned by my colleague the member for Port Coquitlam.

NORTH AMERICAN
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

M. Farnworth: I have a few closing statements, and they are very brief.

Just before adjournment of the debate I pointed out some of the reasons why I had concerns about this agreement and why I felt that the fast-track approach was a wrong approach and why I am opposing it.

There is another thing that needs to be addressed. In the course of the debate this afternoon, there has been some notion that to oppose this is to be anti-American, that we're somehow trying to cast a slur on our neighbour to the south. Well, that's simply not true.

In opposing this, we're attempting to ensure that we have the best deal for British Columbia and the best deal for Canada. In a trade agreement we want to ensure that our interests come first, that the nation's interests come first. That is not anti-American; that is just being a good British Columbian and a good Canadian.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my seat.

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada