[ Page 3605 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

G. Brewin: Hon. Speaker, this is a neat morning for me. The person I want to introduce is not yet in the gallery or in the precincts. His name is Andrew Stephen John Clark Brewin, and he is 17 hours old. He was born to my daughter-in-law Debbi and my son Andrew. His brother Christopher, 13, and sister Bronwen, who's nearly two, are very enthusiastic about this. I would like the House to join me in welcoming my fifth grandchild.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE BIRDS AND THE BEES

In the 1960s, Joni Mitchell urged farmers to put away their DDT. She said she'd rather have spots on her apples, but she wanted the birds and the bees, and there was a message in that. In this two-part private member's statement, one of which I will deliver today, I will deal with the bees.

There is a problem in British Columbia. . . . I did not know what apiculture was. I didn't know that that was the name given to the keeping of bees, but I've learned a great deal about it. I've learned that it has recently become a big problem for those who derive their living or a portion of their living from the raising of bees. I just want to share with hon. members today, on private members' day, some of the numbers and some of the challenges that are facing the people that are responsible for honey production and pollination in British Columbia.

The numbers are quite significant. In terms of the number of producers that operate in British Columbia, there are over 2,000 of them. That number has dropped rather dramatically in the last number of years, but there's a reason for that, and I want to talk about that. We used to have 3,700 as recently as 1990; by 1996 the number was down to 2,100. In terms of honey production, over $5 million worth of honey is produced in British Columbia.

But that isn't the real story here, because bees serve another function, and that is the pollination they provide to a number of other crops. I want to draw hon. members' attention to the fact that in British Columbia over $100 million worth of raspberries, apples, cranberries and other berry crops depend upon pollination from bees in order to reap a harvest. Quite frankly, that doesn't mean that that's the total value of those crops in British Columbia. In fact, there's a formula, because not all of the crops depend on honeybee pollination. But in British Columbia, over $100 million worth of those crops do. The threat to the honeybee population means that there is a threat to those crops and to the people that derive a living from the raising of those crops. Across the country, honeybee pollination accounts for half a billion dollars in business, in terms of the crops that are produced.

So what happened? I guess that's the issue here. Why is there a problem? We've all heard about killer bees and how they're making their way north from Mexico. I guess that was the extent of my knowledge -- that perhaps this somehow related to that. It's not killer bees. They're in Mexico; they're in California. Our bees are dying right here at home because of things we are doing or things we aren't doing.

Just to give people a sense of the impact this can have, the virus and the mites that I'm going to talk about in a moment have become a factor in California. For just one crop, the California almond crop, producers there lost over $150 million in the last year alone because of the lack of pollination that they have become accustomed to receiving from the bee population. So I guess the issue is, really: what's going on?

I had an article out of the National Geographic for April of this year, and it begins with: "Beware, pollinators are in peril." It makes the point that mites. . . . There are two types: tracheal mites, which lay their eggs in the breathing tubes of these bees, suck their blood and eventually kill them; and varroa mites, a different type that also suck the blood out of bees and destroy the entire colony.

The point is that they have already operated to wipe out over 90 percent of the wild honeybees in the United States. As a result, crop losses in the U.S. could approach $5.7 billion. The same dynamic is at work here in British Columbia. Ironically, I am told that these bees first became a problem in the Abbotsford area. In about 1992 they made their way from Southeast Asia. I don't know how they landed in Abbotsford first.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I wasn't aware of scheduled service between the Orient and Abbotsford just yet, but that day is coming, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you.

In any event, since 1992 they have spread into the Okanagan and into the member for Yale-Lillooet's riding. Vancouver Island had been the last bastion of a mite-free wild bee population in British Columbia. That is no longer the case. Producers are suffering. That's bad enough, but fruit producers and crop producers in British Columbia are feeling the pinch. If you've got a hive of bees now, you've got a commodity that is in demand. People are making some money renting those beehives out, and there's one reason for it: the wild bee population is disappearing.

It's going to have an impact on a lot of people. We need to encourage the research that is necessary to combat these two types of mites that have infested our wild bee population. I know that the Ministry of Agriculture has taken some steps to encourage better bee husbandry, if that is the correct term. It's an issue that doesn't attract much attention, for obvious reasons, but if it doesn't begin to attract attention, the impact is going to be rather dramatic in a whole range of agricultural ventures.

H. Lali: I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this issue to the floor this morning, and also for his titillating debate. It also gives me an opportunity to put on the record my appreciation of the beekeepers in our province and commend the work of the provincial bee specialist, Mr. Paul van Westendorp, who has been working very proactively with the beekeepers to manage the mite problem. Staff inspectors are monitoring the situation closely, especially in the Parksville-Qualicum and Coombs-Errington areas, which have just recently been infected.

[10:15]

[ Page 3606 ]

B.C.'s bee industry on the mainland has been managing this pest since 1992, and as the hon. member just mentioned, it has now spread to Vancouver Island. Most Vancouver Island producers have been preparing for the arrival of the pest since it first started out in Asia in the 1940s, and was transported to Europe and South America in the seventies and to the U.S. in the 1980s.

The varroa mite is a pest, but one that can be managed with proper techniques and using technical expertise available from the Agriculture ministry staff.

I also want to read out some of the controls that are available. This is a bulletin that's been put out by the B.C. apiculture program, so there's no recommendation or approval implied for the use of any product mentioned. For further information people should consult with the apiculture program staff. Some of the non-chemical controls are:

"Varroa mites cling to adult bees by means of sticky pads on the ends of each leg. A fine powder or dust can disrupt this hold and result in many varroa losing grip and falling to the bottom board. To trap varroa, place a sticky board covered with an eight-mesh-per-inch screen on the bottom board of your colony. Commercial sticky boards are available from Phero Tech Inc. of Vancouver or can be made at home. For directions, contact apiculture program offices."

"This product is only effective in the control of varroa and does not control tracheal mites. The product is delivered in an impregnated plastic strip that is suspended between frames in the brood chamber. Apistan is noted for its high efficacy, very low toxicity to the applicator and bees. It is commercially available in lots of ten and 100."

"This product is effective against tracheal mites and varroa. Although slightly different methods are used, the following is one which combines most of the information.

"Note: formic acid is corrosive and can cause burns. Rubber gloves and goggles must always be worn, and breathing vapours must be avoided.

"This method is only used on two-storey colonies in the fall. Each application consists of one to one and a half fluid ounces. . .of 65 percent formic acid to each two-storey colony. Apply three to four treatments, four to seven days apart."

"Apply the liquid in several layers of paper napkins on the top bars. . . . You can monitor the mite fall with sticky boards, as in the dust method above. Formic acid treatments may result in loss of up to one queen in ten, especially with older queens."

M. de Jong: I feel as if I have participated in a clinic, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I know we're all abuzz with anticipation, but perhaps a little quiet so we can hear the member.

M. de Jong: Leave me "bee," Mr. Speaker.

The problem that threatens the bee producers. . . . And I have to say this: I came to this information the way most members in this House do -- through a concerned constituent who is involved in the industry, Mr. K.C. Jones. He said: "Look, the number of producers has fallen dramatically in the Fraser Valley, to 600 from 1,000. The bees aren't out there for the blueberry and raspberry crops that require them for pollination."

There's a longstanding history. I've seen material that traces this industry back to the days when the pharaohs were travelling up and down the Nile, for obvious reasons: most people like honey. The fact of the matter is, aside from the impact this is going to have on honey production, it's going to have a dramatic impact on a whole range of other commodity groups. Though it's not something that comes to our minds on a daily basis, maybe I could ask hon. members, the next time they're having breakfast and putting some honey in their tea -- as I am inclined to do -- or on their toast, to think of the tragedy that may befall those honey producers and the commodity group producers that require pollination.

I'm obliged that the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet mentioned Mr. Paul van Westendorp from the ministry. I'm obliged to him for the information he has provided. I'm obliged to the B.C. Honey Producers Association, who are also playing a very active role in trying to heighten awareness of the problem that exists now and take steps necessary to ensure that it doesn't get worse.

COAL COUNTRY

There are tales told of bumps, or mini-earthquakes, when sometimes the floor of the mineshaft smashed into the roof of the shaft, crushing anyone and anything. Coal Creek, near Fernie, was notorious for the bumps which occurred there. Men could walk into the mine in the morning through an eight-foot opening, but by the end of the day and in the evening, they needed to crawl out on their bellies because all that was left was a very narrow opening. It was a hard life and a deadly one.

April 3 of this year marked a 30-year anniversary for many people in the Elk Valley communities of Sparwood and 

[ Page 3607 ]

Fernie, and for the communities of Blairmore, Coleman and Bellevue in the Crowsnest Pass in Alberta. It was the thirtieth anniversary of the Balmer North mine explosion which killed 15 men and seriously injured ten others. At one minute to four that fateful afternoon, one spark ignited a buildup of methane gas 1,200 feet underground. Within seconds, the coal dust air exploded, and it killed 14 men instantly. These men were coated with coal dust and mud to the point where they were unrecognizable. A fifteenth man died later as a result of his injuries. For the next 14 hours, mine rescue crews scoured the mine looking for two missing mechanics who were working near the face of the mine when the explosion occurred. At 6 a.m. on April 4, the two missing miners were found dead. They also were killed instantly by the blast. The Balmer North mine reopened a few months after this disaster and continued to produce coal until its closure in 1988. The loss of life experienced by the small communities near Natal is remembered to this day by the people of my region who lost husbands, sons and fathers.

I want to take a moment to have the names of those lost miners recorded in the provincial Hansard, in respect for their families, their labour and their lives: John Brenner, 46; Michael Bryan, 64; Anton Cepeliaskas, 65; William Cytko, 41; William DeLorme, 19; Ronald Freng, 31; Walter Gibalski, 53; Hugh Hopley, 36; Eugene Lucky, 27; Eric Lutzke, 38; Walter Parker, 27; Delfie Quarrin, 37; Sam Tolley, 53; Guido Venzi, 58; and Archie Wotjula, 44.

The mining industry has continued and has grown incredibly in the Elk Valley. In the past 25 years, the population of our region has tripled. Today, underground mining has been abandoned in favour of huge open-pit mines. The largest coalmine in the Elk Valley is Fording Coal's Fording River mine. This mine employs close to 800 people and will produce 8.2 million tonnes of clean coal this year. On June 13, 1996, employees at Fording River produced the 100-millionth tonne of coal from that site. With the signing of a five-year collective agreement in '96 with the United Steelworkers of America, Fording River is poised to take advantage of expanding world coal markets.

The second of Fording Coal's mines in the Elk Valley is the Greenhills operation. Located near the village of Elkford, this mine will produce 4.5 million tonnes of coal in '97 and employ 450 people. The Greenhills mine is known for its safety achievements, and their mine rescue team captured the provincial championship for '96 -- the second time in four years.

The third of Fording Coal's mines, located near the coalmining town of Corbin, close to the Alberta border, is Coal Mountain. This year Coal Mountain will produce 2.5 million tonnes of clean coal, with 200 employees represented by the United Mineworkers of America.

The Line Creek mine, purchased in 1991 by Manalta Coal Ltd. from Shell Canada Resources, will produce 3.3 million tonnes of coal in '97, employing 456 people represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers. This mine has achieved a high level of quality assurance in the past five years.

The fifth Elk Valley coal mine is Elkview Coal, owned and operated by Teck Corp., near the community of Sparwood. This mine will produce 3.4 million tonnes of coal in '97 and employ 505 people represented by the United Steelworkers of America.

The Elk Valley coalmines of today are using space-age technology, and the size of their equipment is incredible. The coal from the Elk Valley is finding its way into steel mills, thermoelectric plants and a huge variety of manufacturing facilities around the world. The initial boom in the Elk Valley coalmines of the seventies was to fuel the needs of Japanese steel mills. Currently the five mines in the Elk Valley ship to more than 35 countries around the globe. I am pleased to say that the Kootenay reigns in the province as the number one mining region.

[10:30]

Since records were kept in 1960, which is 37 years ago, coalmining has disturbed 13,390 hectares of land in this province, but it has reclaimed 4,696 hectares of land. At the same time, metal mines have disturbed 18,260 hectares and have reclaimed 3,937 hectares of land. That's a total amount of land disturbed by mining in this province of 31,650 hectares, with 8,633 being reclaimed. The balance of the disturbed land that is left today is just over 23,000 hectares and is mostly in operating mines. Let's put this in perspective for the people of British Columbia. The Coquihalla connector is approximately 21,000 hectares of land, which will remain disturbed forever. Mining reclaims itself. Mining is actually environmentally friendly in comparison.

I ask the people in the lower mainland and other areas of British Columbia where we have small resource-based communities that give more than they take from this province that when they're sitting in their cars at the Port Mann Bridge and their cars are polluting while stuck in a traffic jam, or looking at their freeways and developments, they should remember that the amount of land that is actually disturbed by mining in this province is small compared to what is going on elsewhere in the lower mainland and in other places in British Columbia.

Mining Jobs 2000 feels that it can come up with 22,000 family-supporting jobs over the next ten years, which is the equivalent of 40,000 average jobs, and generate $5.1 billion of investment. There are four new mines presently under development in the province, with $660 million of investment, and they will provide 874 jobs. Right now nine potential new mines are under review, which would bring $1.8 billion of investment and 2,294 new jobs to the province.

You have to understand something when we talk about mining jobs. This industry is the number two resource industry in British Columbia. It's a $3.8 billion industry, and 30,000 people depend on B.C. mining for jobs. It is the highest-paying industry in the province, with an average wage of $73,900 per year, and it pays $480 million to government. This is an industry that is positive on the landscape of British Columbia.

The concern of the mining industry is only that they be provided with the opportunity to provide more jobs for British Columbians. They ask for only seven things: assured access to land; security of mineral tenure; the creation of a competitive tax structure; development of an efficient and transparent permitting process; native land claims to be set-

[ Page 3608 ]

tled and be solid; competitive electrical rates; and streamlining of regulations. It's a small thing to ask of us for the positive effect that it has on communities like those in the East Kootenays.

I compliment the member on bringing this to the House, and I think it's important for us to realize the positive impact that mining has on British Columbia.

E. Walsh: I'd like to thank the hon. member across for his comments on mining and on the importance of mining within the economy of British Columbia and specifically in my region of Kootenay. I just want to wrap up by saying that our government has supported mineral exploration and development in B.C. in many ways and has taken a number of steps to maintain this competitive position, specifically in the mineral exploration code and the Mining Act.

But more on the economy and my area again, the constituency of Kootenay. The contribution to the economy of this province from the Elk Valley mines in the Kootenay region is immense. In '97, more than 21.9 million tonnes of clean coal will be mined and shipped from the Elk Valley coalfields. This is actually a record amount of tonnage and revenue for the region. This tonnage means literally thousands of indirect and direct jobs, which we were just speaking of. It also reflects millions of dollars for our provincial coffers.

Through the sweat and investment of coalminers and coal companies, many British Columbians are going to have health care, education and a social safety net. I believe that these can be made secure through these investments. The past four years have seen a huge growth in the Elk Valley mines after the initial downturn of the early nineties, but since then, the tonnage has increased each year since '92.

Uncertainty over rail costs, taxation and land use are of prime concern to mine owners and to the employees of the mines. As MLA for Kootenay, I know that I must work to ensure that the concerns of my constituents are heard and that they are addressed. The coalmining industry has had significant tax relief in the past three years with the reduction of the coal tax to the level of mineral taxation and with changes to environmental bond-funding requirements. We are working to stabilize rail costs within British Columbia and across the country. Through land use planning, we will bring a degree of stability to Kootenay land issues, including coalmining access.

My constituency has a rich history of coalmining, and it is steeped in vast reserves, incredible potential and painful tragedies. As MLA for Kootenay, I am very proud of my region and the people who live and work there. Coalmining is not just what and who they are; it's what they do, and they do it proudly.

M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: When the districts of Abbotsford and Matsqui amalgamated, the name Matsqui disappeared from everywhere but my riding and Matsqui Elementary. Twenty-six students and their teacher Ms. Covey are here from Matsqui Elementary, a school I attended, and I bid the House make all those students welcome as they partake in the debates today.

FIFTY YEARS A CITIZEN

It's one of the interesting quirks of Canadian history that, technically speaking at least, there were no Canadian citizens registered in either the army, the navy or the air force during either the First or the Second World War. That's right; there were no Canadian citizens technically registered in the First or Second World Wars in any of our forces. There's also a quirk of history in realizing that until I was in grade 12, I was not a Canadian citizen, though both myself and my parents had been born here in Canada. Then suddenly, without being aware of it, one night after midnight, I became a Canadian citizen. No, it was not a dream; it was a real happening. It was in the early morning of January 1, 1947, that I and millions of others were transformed from British subjects into Canadian citizens. This was a momentous occasion, for I, among others, was given a very precious gift: the gift of Canadian citizenship. It was a gift to be cherished -- one to be very proud of and be humbled by, for I had done absolutely nothing to earn it.

In my case, my grandparents came from northern Ireland in the nineteenth century and as such were British subjects. Here in Canada, as part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, they and my parents and myself continued to be British subjects. There was then no such thing as Canadian citizenship. If one travelled abroad, one used a British passport. Indeed, Canada became the first of the British Commonwealth countries to establish its own citizenship provisions. In large part, this came about because of Canadian peacekeeping efforts in the two world wars, starting in 1914 and 1939. For it was in the remembrance of the sacrifice of Canadians that the Hon. Paul Martin Sr. visited a cemetery in Dieppe in February 1945, where many Canadians were buried. There he conceived the thought of Canadian citizenship. With the support of Prime Minister Mackenzie King, he tabled a bill of Canadian citizenship in the Canadian House of Commons in 1946, which became effective January 1, 1947.

So in 1997, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is urging all Canadians to celebrate 50 years of Canadian citizenship, and they have provided much of the information from which I have taken these comments. I am pleased to be part of the celebration, for in my mind the Canadian Citizenship Act is a lasting tribute to the men and women of Canada, from all provinces and all ethnic and cultural backgrounds, who offered their lives that we might live in peace, though none of them were officially Canadian citizens.

From January 1, 1947, we could travel on Canadian passports, a cherished document. Strange as it now may seem, prior to 1947 married women were required to use their husband's passport. In 1867 the British North America Act gave us the beginning of our identity as Canadians, but it was 80 years later that we became Canadian citizens, joined in 1949 by the people of Newfoundland.

As we are aware, the aboriginal nations were already centred here when others came from the west, from the south and from the east. Our parents were people in search of a new country and a new home where they could have liberty and peace. They were a pioneering people prepared to work together to build a nation with values and a soul. They were a people who fought for justice and worked for peace both at home and abroad, so much so that on their behalf, in 1956 the Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was awarded the Nobel peace prize for developing the concept of United Nations peacekeeping. Peacekeeping, though, meant not only going abroad to fight in wars but also building a peaceful nation which others might come to.

In 1951 Canada signed the United Nations convention related to the status of refugees to welcome those whose 

[ Page 3609 ]

homeland was no longer available to them -- persons who after five years, and later after three years, could become Canadian citizens through their personal oath of allegiance. I have been at these citizenship ceremonies, most recently this spring, and witnessed the joy of these persons, for now they belong here as Canadians, they can participate and vote and travel on a Canadian passport.

There are millions of other new Canadian immigrants who are proud of their new land. Also, Canada allows them to maintain dual citizenship if they wish. However, there is a warning that their previous country may not recognize that dual citizenship, and this may be a problem for them if they should return to their home country. Also, there is a reminder that transfer from being a British subject to being a Canadian citizen was not always automatic. Probably there are still some seniors who thought this had happened and who need to confirm that change.

It was only in 1960 that Canada welcomed its two-millionth immigrant since World War II. It was only in 1962 that Canada officially ended its "all-white" immigration policy, thereby opening its doors to people from all the world.

[10:45]

In addition to that -- very coincidentally, and perhaps not so coincidentally -- this past weekend the Chinese community celebrated our fiftieth anniversary of having the right to vote in British Columbia. As the member mentioned, he was blessed -- by virtue of the fact that he was born in this country, he was made a Canadian. Many others have to work hard, and indeed they have to earn the right to be a Canadian. Not only do they have to earn the right to be a Canadian, but as a first step, they have to gain entry into this country to begin that process of becoming Canadian.

For some, it is not an easy process to get here. I think back to the history of where we came from in the history books and to some of the struggles that many immigrants had to embark on in order to make this country their home. I think back to the old days -- and I know that my family experienced this, as well -- to the issue around the head tax. The Chinese head tax was a contentious issue for many years. But many people who were my ancestors, who came to this country before me, had to go through those struggles in order to gain entry into this country and then work towards Canadian citizenship.

I know that very recently there is the issue around the $975 landing fee for other people who want to gain entry into this country and begin to make Canada their home. So those barriers are not easy barriers, but they are barriers that people continue to have to deal with, and they have to fight for the right to equally participate and to be the proud Canadians that we are.

When I think about these struggles, I think back perhaps to British Columbia and ask: where have those struggles been? As I said earlier, the Chinese community celebrated our fiftieth anniversary of the right to vote. One of the highest honours, I would say, of being Canadian is the right to fully participate in our democratic system and to cast a vote during election time. But some other people, despite the fact that they might have been Canadians, did not have that right in British Columbia. As an example, I know that the women's community did not get the right to vote until 1917. The aboriginal community, to our amazement -- the original owners of this land -- did not have the right to vote until 1949. When I think about the Japanese community's right to vote in British Columbia, that also did not happen until 1949. The Indo-Canadian community and many other communities. . . .

Those rights did not come automatically by virtue of the fact that they were Canadians. Those rights came afterwards; people had to fight for that. That is an important part of our history for us to remember -- and to remember what those struggles meant for our ancestors and mean for us who are here today.

The hon. member also mentioned that being Canadian is not just to be Canadian; it comes with responsibilities. Those responsibilities are vast indeed. That is to ensure that we fully participate and contribute to this country, to make this country our home and to make this country richer than we have found it.

I believe that many immigrants do that. They come to offer their cultural diversity, the language diversity. They come to offer and enrich the value and the basis on which this country is built. We think a lot of times about immigrants, where people come from and as they were, to be the proud Canadians that we've been honoured to become. We oftentimes think about our differences. But there are a lot of similarities, as well.

I know that the hon. member across the way knows these differences and these similarities, and that he celebrates them, because I know that in his own family he has richness, with different cultural backgrounds in his own home. From that point of view, I think it is important for us to remember on this fiftieth anniversary the differences and the similarities of what we all bring to being Canadians, as we celebrate this anniversary.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

Vancouver-Langara, I believe your colleague from Chilliwack wanted to rise to ask leave for an introduction. Is that the case, member?

B. Penner: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was going to give my colleague a chance to respond first, but. . . .

The Speaker: I'm sorry I have interfered. Shall leave then be granted for the introduction?

Leave granted.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. members and Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature 31 grade 9 students from a school in Chilliwack, Timothy Christian School. They've just completed a tour of the Legislature, and they're seated in the Speaker's gallery. With them are two teachers, Ms. Maaike Van Wingerden and Corrie Stoutjesdyk. Accompanying them earlier was Mr. Jim Beeke, who at one time was the principal of that school. He now works directly for the provincial government in the Ministry of Education. Would the House please make these people welcome today.

The Speaker: Thank you, Vancouver-Langara, for your indulgence. Please proceed.

V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. And I thank the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, a neighbouring rid-

[ Page 3610 ]

ing, for the presentation she has shared with us out of personal experience. I acknowledge with her that it was just 50 years ago that the members of the Chinese community also received their long-deserved opportunity for Canadian citizenship. But it was also only in March of 1960 that the aboriginal peoples were given the right to vote in federal elections. In 1964 women in Quebec were given their full rights; they then were no longer required to have their husband's permission in order to conduct business transactions. In some ways, we have been very slow to grow up as a nation.

It was in 1976 that the Immigration Act broke new ground by fundamentally changing the principles upon which Canada's immigration system had been based. The previous emphasis on country of origin was abandoned in favour of other new, relevant considerations, such as educational background and professional skills. So Canada was opened up in new ways to welcome the people of the world.

Then another milestone: in 1982 the Canadian constitution was brought to Canada. We became a fully independent nation with our very own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have reaffirmed Canada's commitment to complete equality for all its citizens, based on their place of birth or on their citizenship oath. Citizenship is, as the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant has indicated, a gift and a responsibility made available to us by the dedication of millions of Canadians who have gone before us. It can be abused or misused. It is a gift that can be ignored and overlooked, and it may even be lost if we are careless, individually and collectively.

Perhaps the greatest threat is our own selfishness, only seeing our own provincial view and not having the broader view that citizenship is a gift and a responsibility to which we give thanks for those who have given us this gift and made it possible.

GAS SAFETY AND
PUBLIC AWARENESS

These potentially disastrous events pale in comparison to the terribly sad gas explosion in Quesnel on April 16. Six people have now died. Twenty more were injured after a shifting in the earth caused a gas line to break and gas moved through the ground and into buildings. In a Kamloops motel earlier this year a propane explosion killed two men and critically burned a child. In North Vancouver a 26-year-old woman died of carbon monoxide poisoning, and two others were severely injured.

This spring, throughout British Columbia, rising and receding floodwater and shifting soil broke gas lines. City blocks were evacuated, and floodwater in basements lifted furnaces and water heaters, snapping the black iron piping and releasing gas. On May 1, 1997, B.C. Gas issued a caution that appliances exposed to flooding could be dangerous.

Those of us who are, fortunately, high and dry and comfortable seem so safe -- but are we? How old is your furnace? Your water heater? What about your workplace? Gas utilities, such as B.C. Gas and Centra Gas, maintain a high standard of safety, but it is impossible to protect our entire aging infrastructure.

Perhaps your furnace is one of the new complex systems, lightweight and computerized. These new furnaces may have little tolerance for ground movement and vibrations. New furnaces may fail sooner and more often than older ones. Furnaces, both new and old, are supplied gas by black iron pipe which is inflexible and vulnerable to fracture under building movement caused by natural disasters like flooding, winds, earthquakes or excessive snowload, as occurred during last winter's snowstorm when roofs in Victoria collapsed, tearing out gas lines.

A minor furnace failure is also potentially lethal, as it may release carbon monoxide. Owners of ice arenas know of the carbon monoxide leak in Seattle in 1996, which hospitalized 70 people and led to 70 lawsuits. Carbon monoxide is a colourless, odourless gas which attaches itself to the hemoglobin in our blood, preventing oxygen in our lungs from reaching our bloodstream. As a result, our blood carries little oxygen to our cells, we become drowsy, the cells stop functioning, and we become comatose and may die. Driving carbon monoxide out of the blood may require an oxygen decompression chamber, highly sophisticated equipment. B.C. hospitals treat many cases of carbon monoxide poisoning each year. While local hospital statistics have not yet been obtained, one hospital in England reported 50 deaths and 150 near-fatalities in one year.

Natural gas leaks may be ignited by flame, electric spark or room lighting, causing fierce explosions and fire. Fires rage, and the gas continues to flow. Think of it. Existing fire systems do not automatically shut off natural gas when they detect a fire. How extraordinary! How outrageous that a building can be on fire, yet we continue to pump natural gas into the building.

Consider earthquakes. Canada experiences about 1,500 measurable earthquakes per year. An earthquake of sizeable magnitude occurred off Vancouver Island in 1992. The Fraser Valley registers about 200 earthquakes a year -- luckily, none in an urban area so far. All experts agree that a major earthquake disaster in British Columbia is inevitable. Are we prepared? No. The public, the insurance industry and the government are not financially prepared for the risk of a major urban earthquake.

Canadian insurance companies are actively lobbying to clarify earthquake coverage by amending the federal Insurance Act to separate earthquake coverage from ensuing perils such as fire. Insurers are in the process of trying to limit their exposure. Some are increasing premiums, while others will write earthquake coverage, but only for renewals and not for new business. I understand that the Insurance Bureau of Canada is against giving courts the power to determine just or reasonable claims in the event of an earthquake.

Insurance experts have drawn out the implication to government if a major earthquake hit British Columbia. If an earthquake of a magnitude of 6.5 hit greater Vancouver today, the damage would result in a loss of $15 billion to $30 billion. Insurance companies would become insolvent -- an economic shock ten times greater than the last Depression.

Experts state that 60 percent of the damage caused during an earthquake is the result of fire caused by gas explosions. The insurance companies' response to attempt legal and 

[ Page 3611 ]

political changes which reduce their own liabilities does nothing to save people, buildings or assets. We need to reduce the risk of fire following an earthquake by automatically shutting off the flow of gas, thereby reducing the risk of the insurer, possibly by up to 60 percent. That would solve the unfunded liability problem for insurance companies, and save lives and property.

If we automatically interrupt the source of the gas leak, we can protect people and facilities. A good gas protection system automatically detects dangerous gases, analyzes their potential for harm and, when necessary, automatically shuts off the flow of gas. Such systems are now available. For the past 18 months I have worked with the provincial gas safety branch and GPS Gas Protection Systems of Maple Ridge to raise the issue of public safety in regard to natural gas and carbon monoxide. The provincial chief gas inspector assisted with the defining of the specifications for acceptance to produce the most certified and approved safety system ever developed in the world.

Properly implemented, protection systems are a wise investment. Electric protection systems are mandated in all buildings; gas protection devices are not. Yet the benefits of gas protection are as real as electric protection. The time has come to add protection systems to gas systems, including old and new furnaces and their piping. When the cost of uncontrolled gas emissions and their consequences is measured in terms of bricks and mortar, it is high. When it is measured in human terms, it is tragic -- perhaps even more so because it is preventable. I look forward to comments from the member opposite.

[11:00]

If you look back over the years, I think one of the things that very few people in British Columbia realize is that the sulphur smell they get from their natural gas is not there because the industry can't take it out. The sulphur smell is actually put into the gas after it is totally scrubbed, totally removed. They actually put the odour back in for the purpose of gas safety, so that individuals can detect if there is a gas leak in their house. That is obviously a very crude measure, when you've got to rely on your nose to know whether or not you are at risk in your home. Some of the technology that is being developed around the world is certainly something that we have to look at very seriously.

The insurance industry that the member referred to. . . . I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the Insurance Bureau of Canada yesterday, as I'm sure the member did. We recognized that there are some changes that are going to be needed to protect consumers, to give consumers the kinds of insurance vehicles (1) that they can afford and (2) that will be realistic in the case of a major disaster in this province. I don't think it's one of those issues that is partisan, where we're going to come down to clashing ideologies in this chamber. It's one of those issues that we as members should be working together on, perhaps at a committee stage, to deal with the changes that may be necessary so that changes to legislation can be moved forward.

I was also interested to note, talking about earthquakes, that automatic gas shutoff may not be the answer at this stage in our history. The technology is still being developed. I know there are some very real concerns that if you had a community of 40,000 households and an earthquake resulted in gas being shut off to those households, it could cause all kinds of other problems, especially if it was in the middle of winter when heating is obviously going to be essential in homes that are not damaged. It was estimated that when gas is shut off in a home, it can take half an hour for a technician to re-establish flow if there is not a danger of explosion. So if you take 40,000 homes and multiply that by half an hour per home, you wind up with 20,000 hours of technician time that may be necessary to re-establish heat in those homes. So when we move into the whole issue of automated shutoffs, I think we should be very careful to look at the implications.

I know that we have public servants in this province who are very cognizant of these issues and are obviously giving very good advice in terms of what is in the best interests of consumers. I think that on technical issues like this, we often have to defer to the judgment of those experts as to what are the most timely and the most cost-effective measures that will truly protect the safety of British Columbians.

In closing, hon. Speaker, it's an issue where I think government has to be very careful in how it encourages companies that are pursuing this technology. I think that when it comes down to it, we obviously have to encourage research and development in this province, but it is not for government to pick the winners and losers in that process. It is for government to determine the environment in which research and development can take place, to encourage it, to make sure that investment dollars can be made available to companies that wish to pursue research and development and then to allow those companies to put their product forward to the marketplace and market their wares. The successful will succeed, and those who are less successful will not. I urge the government, as they proceed on any of these kinds of research and development issues, not to try to play the game of picking the winners and losers in the private sector, because that has not been a successful process for governments in years gone by.

W. Hartley: I am very pleased that our provincial government has been able to assist Gas Protection Systems in marketing their product. The Ministry of Employment and Investment has been instrumental in working out this agreement that will benefit the people of British Columbia. Last month Employment and Investment minister Dan Miller signed a strategic partnering agreement with GPS Gas Protection Systems of Maple Ridge. The agreement will give government a framework to help this company test and market the product, and it also begins to ensure some measure of public safety for people entering and working in public buildings.

The successful launch of Gas Protection Systems' safety device means more than 100 new jobs in Maple Ridge. Gas Protection Systems has the exclusive rights to assemble, manufacture and distribute their technology in North America, South America and the Pacific Rim. This automated gas-sensing and protection device is unique. British Columbia is a prime location to support the wide distribution of high-tech products such as this one. The prospect is exciting in terms of the job creation potential and in terms of protecting the existing infrastructure in our province to make our families, our homes and our workplaces safer.

[ Page 3612 ]

We know that gas risks are increasing, as over 50 percent of all furnaces in North America are operating beyond their approved certification period. The CGA standard certifies a furnace for 8,000 cycles, or about ten years. We have seen extreme weather conditions result in damage to major gas lines, allowing gas to escape through the earth. In cases where gas comes into a building equipped with gas protection system sensors, this system will sound an alarm and automatically interrupt the regular gas flow into the building. This would extinguish all gas pilots and be an added serious warning to the occupants, giving them time to leave the building and call for emergency help.

We cannot even imagine the magnitude of loss in a major earthquake. I said earlier that we have been lucky to date; however, luck is not a good basis for public policy-making. We need a greater degree of risk management. When natural disasters occur all too frequently, I think we all can agree that we need to do more to protect our families, our homes and our workplaces. We need the assurance that the flow of gas will be automatically interrupted when our building is on fire. We need the tools to survive an emergency situation. Electric protection systems are mandated in all buildings. It's time the gas industry caught up.

This strategic partnering agreement that our government has signed with GPS Gas Protection Systems of Maple Ridge will allow us to help the company pilot their product. I hope for their success, because ultimately their success will be ours. This is a win-win agreement for public safety.

I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: I've just been informed that students from Meadowridge School in Maple Ridge are in the gallery to witness the proceedings here today, and I'd like everyone to please welcome them.

Petitions

S. Hawkins: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today is a director from the regional district of Central Okanagan, Mr. Aaron Dinwoodie. Would the House please make him welcome.

Motions on Notice

MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT

[That this Assembly request the Government of Canada to immediately withdraw from any further negotiations on the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment until the Government of Canada has (a) convened a public meeting of first ministers to discuss any such agreement and (b) has completed a process of public consultation with industry, labour, small business and any other Canadians who are concerned about the impact of such an agreement on the future of our country.]

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, I recall a debate which took place in this House. . . .

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member. I understand that we probably should ask leave first, and then I'll take the point of order. We do require leave. So may I then proceed in that way? Shall leave be granted, members?

Leave granted.

The Speaker: On the point of order, Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: I agree that this is an important issue, but I believe there is a better way to do it and a better motion that could have come forward to this House.

I would ask the House to recall a debate that took place and a ruling from the Chair that took place on April 30, 1997, in this House on an amendment that was brought forward by the member for Shuswap. At that time, the Chair ruled on the motion -- for very similar reasons and I'll put the argument -- that it dictated government policy. Specifically, if one looks at the Journals from March 20, 1964, page 179, the motion in this case calls on the House to make representations to the government of Canada, which clearly dictates government policy -- 1920 Journals, April 16, page 236; 1919 Journals, March 11, page 156; 1965 Journals, March 26, pages 198 and 199; 1937 Journals, November 25, page 82.

It also requires an expenditure of public funds in that it calls on not just this government but nine other provincial governments and the government of Canada to have public meetings. In so doing I think there is an even stronger case to be made on this one than we would have had on the entry of the Journals from April 30, 1997, where consultations were merely called for in a very restricted way.

This is certainly more expansive than that ruling, hon. Speaker. Further, if one looks at the Journals from 1939, November 30, page 93; the Journals from 1969, January 23, pages 13 and 14; 1962, March 29, page 194; 1966, March 28, page 183; 1968, March 25, page 12; 1970, April 3, page 238. . . . This imposes an obligation on the Crown in a number of ways, and one can find that that is indeed a contravention of order and rules for this House. If one looks at the Journals from 1963, March 27, page 197; a second ruling on the same date, on page 198; 1983, August 25, page 116; 1983, August 25, page 117; 1985, February 14, page 140; 1985, November 22, page 148; 1991, March 22, page 156. . . .

And further, one can look at MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition. I know it's required reading for all members of this House. Pages 144 through 147 list the standing orders, and clearly the motion is unfortunately in contravention of that. I further refer you to Erskine May's seventeenth edition of Parliamentary Practice, at pages 781 and 782.

Hon. Speaker, I would suggest that this very important public issue, which does need to be debated, would better be

[ Page 3613 ]

done by a government motion referring this to the Select Standing Committee on Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations for a full public hearing, done in order, so that we can get the input of the various groups that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast would like to see.

It's important that we do debate this important issue and that we do it in a more open way that involves all sorts of people from right across the country, particularly from across this province. I would hope that the government would bring that type of a motion forward so we could engage in that type of debate.

The Speaker: I'm going to entertain other submissions on the point of order, before anything else.

[11:15]

Furthermore, I find it rather surprising that there is opposition from the Liberals. I have twice communicated with the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. I have a letter dated April 24 in which the Leader of the Opposition indicated there would be no problem. Furthermore, on April 28 on this very specific matter, with respect to whether or not the orders of the day and the matter of this motion being in order would be provided, the Leader of the Opposition indicated that all that is required is for the Government House Leader to call it during orders of the day, and it then could be debated at that time. It goes on to say: "I wish you the best of luck in your negotiations with [the Government House Leader] and look forward to the debate."

Clearly, it would appear that there is agreement prior to this debate happening, and I find it rather odd that after a month of discussion, this is brought forward now.

Hon. J. MacPhail: By the government calling this motion, we consent to it proceeding.

The Speaker: On the point of order, I think the crucial point to remember in the debate about whether a motion confers an obligation on the Crown is that it is ultimately a matter to be adjudicated by the Crown, by the government. That is not the opposition's prerogative. Some of those are therefore clearly questionable in terms of their validity. The reference made by the member to standing order 67, I remind all members, refers only to the province of B.C. -- again, not to the federal government, not to other jurisdictions and other provinces in the country. On those grounds, then, it seems to me that the point of order doesn't stand. I thank the member for the thoughtful intervention, however.

Vancouver-Little Mountain -- a clarification? Certainly.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just ask a clarification, then, with the ruling; I don't quibble with the ruling. Is the Speaker saying that the government, by consenting to this motion, agrees that it does not impose a charge on the Crown? That's all I would like to know.

The Speaker: I think that is not the issue. Rather, the point being made is that the government is not objecting to the motion. The government isn't making a judgment on whether it does or does not confer an obligation or expense on the Crown. It's a procedural point entirely; that is the conclusion I'm drawing.

Having said that, on motion 52 on the order paper, Powell-River Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: I thank the members of the assembly for providing this opportunity to debate what I believe is a most critical issue, an issue that is important for all Canadians and certainly for British Columbians. It's a motion that we as legislators -- people entrusted with making decisions that will profoundly affect the future of British Columbians -- really need to discuss. The motion, which has been read to the assembly, specifically requests that we have a greater degree of consultation on a matter which is of profound national importance.

Many Canadians -- in fact, I would argue the vast majority of Canadians -- regardless of what sector they may be in in terms of their employment or what province they may reside in, would not be able to tell you what the MAI stands for. MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment, a rather large and rather weighty agreement, is being negotiated and has been negotiated on behalf of Canadians with representation from the federal government through the OECD countries for the last two years. This multilateral agreement on investment effectively drafts an agreement that will be essentially a constitution for multinational corporate investors. It will provide a bill of rights for multinational corporate enterprise in their endeavours to do business worldwide.

In providing that constitution -- in providing that unfettered access to global resource bases -- it will greatly restrict, if not eliminate, the possibility for governments to put in place regulation and law that will be able to protect, in the first instance, the rights of citizens to access jobs, to own the economy and, secondly, to control the level and degree to which foreign investment will come in and, more importantly, go out, having made profit in our nation.

So in a sense this picks up where NAFTA and the FTA left off. The free trade agreement was, in its continental agreement between America -- the United States -- and Canada, further expanded by NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which included Mexico. In those trade agreements, we have started to break down trade barriers in order to be able to permit a greater degree of ease of investment and flow of economy.

Many of us, and I include myself in the numbers, say the freedom to trade is a vital part of a growing national economy. Most of us recognize that we want to be participants in the global economy. I think all of us as Canadians can take great pride in the fact that Canadians are second to none when it comes to our entrepreneurial spirit, our ability to be able to create new product, our ability to be able to trade competitively worldwide. We are outstanding traders.

But we are also a nation of 28 million people that has an absolutely outstanding resource base -- a tremendous potential -- and that is now under the threat of losing control over that resource base and, through the loss of that control, losing our ability to put our investment into Canada and Canadians first.

In my comments today, I want to stress the reason why we need that consultation within the Canadian fabric and our 

[ Page 3614 ]

society prior to us moving any further down the road on this agreement. On Monday and Tuesday of next week these negotiations will continue. It was intended that this document, which came out in the spring of this year, would have been signed by June of this year. It would have been done without any consultation with the provinces whatsoever. It would have been done without the governments of the provinces having been consulted, notified and included in the debate. It would have taken place without any consultation with the major corporate leaders in Canada. It would have been done without any consultation with the major union leaders in Canada, and it certainly would have been done without any consultation with the Canadian public.

It seems to me that the Liberal government in Ottawa has to be held to account for that, because Mr. Eggleton said in his comments that this was a complex trade agreement that was a little bit beyond the capacity of Canadians to understand. Well, that is a most outrageous comment from a minister of the Crown who was about to embark on the signing of an agreement that is going to most profoundly affect the ability of Canadians, and especially the federal, provincial and even municipal governments, to put in place the rules, regulations and requirements to make sure that we protect Canadian investment and Canadian job interests first.

To suggest that we are too uninformed, that we cannot understand the complexities of this agreement and, therefore, that we should simply trust this federal government to put in place this new agreement is an absolute outrage. It is something that ought to be spelled out today, tomorrow and all through the next set of negotiations, so that they recognize that Canadians demand to know what their government is negotiating on their behalf. They want to be participants in it, and they want to make sure that it's in our best interest before we sign it.

It is also ironic if you look at the matter with respect to the outrage that was addressed at the hidden agenda of Mr. Parizeau. Let me quote what our Prime Minister says about a hidden agenda of the separatist government in Quebec: "It's incredible to develop a plan without informing the population first." That's what our Prime Minister says about the hidden agenda of the Quebec government. Yet we have a hidden agenda right here in Canada with this MAI, with a Liberal government that is proposing to put this through without one word, with not one syllable of debate in this nation. And that is wrong, hon. Speaker, that is quite wrong.

What we have to understand here is the degree to which this agreement is going to affect the lives of British Columbians -- of each of us, whether we live in Victoria or Vancouver or Powell River or Port Alberni or Kamloops or Kelowna or Prince George, wherever we may be. This agreement is going to have a profound effect on the ability of government to make sure that we protect job interests here. Let me give an example of something current. We are just about to sign a jobs and timber accord, which the members opposite will herald as a tremendous agreement between the major forest companies, the government of British Columbia and the forest workers to provide, in the first instance, an investment in jobs and job opportunities in B.C.'s forests. This agreement will threaten that jobs and timber accord because the agreement specifies that you cannot enter into an agreement that will be market-restrictive or that will determine local hiring and local employment opportunities.

Just to underscore the significance of what I'm talking about, I raised a matter yesterday with respect to an agreement that is being put forward for a change of regulation by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. What this union structure is going to put in place, because they have become tuned in, believe me, to what the MAI says. . . . This creates a hiring hall that will provide an opportunity for this American union to hire carpenters in this hiring hall that is national, that is international, that is continental in scope.

Hon. Speaker, it says very clearly here, in this union restructuring. . . . And let me just read it to you, so the people of British Columbia can understand the significance of what I'm talking about. It says:

"The executive committee of the council shall adopt and all workers" -- all workers -- "shall be governed by uniform rules and/or procedures for the registration and/or referral to employment of unemployed workers. Workers shall have employment mobility throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the council."

This agreement restricts the opportunity for us, as the government of the province of British Columbia, to determine that we want to have employment opportunities that will provide for and protect the right of Canadians workers to be employed in Canada first, before we have transient workers coming in from either south of the border or somewhere else across the country.

What that means is that people who are living in. . . . Let's choose a community like Port McNeill, which is highly dependent on the forest industry. People who want to go out to work and who want to work in lands that are now predominantly being harvested. . . . Timbers are predominantly being harvested off private lands, because about the only place the forest companies are making any money is by harvesting off private forest lands.

They will no longer be able to have security of employment, because this agreement also says: "Governments will not be able to prevent repatriation of assets." What does that mean? It means that private forest holdings. . . . Let me give you this, by way of another example. One of the largest American insurance companies, Hancock, has just recently bought up all of Weldwood's private forest holdings in British Columbia. They just recently purchased it. All of that private land and the standing timber on that private land can be repatriated under this agreement without this provincial government or national government doing anything about it -- nothing. Those assets will be deemed to be the property of that corporation and can therefore be repatriated.

For the first time the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment, will allow foreign corporations that come into the province to be able to sue municipal governments, sue provincial governments and sue federal governments if they deem that the actions of those governments are counterproductive in the marketplace.

[11:30]

[ Page 3615 ]

Today, under this agreement, a corporation such as Laidlaw can come in and make its representation through the tendering process. And if they deem by their tender -- by hiring workers at substantially lower rates -- that they are able to put that proposition together at a cheaper rate, and if they deem that they have been unfairly treated in the marketplace, they now have full flexibility and rights under this agreement to sue the municipality. That municipality is going to have to have this agreement as the measure by which it will be judged and as the measure by which trade tribunals will recognize whether or not it has engaged in fair or unfair trading practices. These are very significant changes.

I want to also address for a moment the issue of what it says about our ability to run Crown corporations. Perhaps the most controversial of all in this agreement is the section that deals with monopolies. The section that deals with monopolies in particular talks about government-created, government-regulated monopolies and the extent to which governments will be able to put restrictions on market access as a result of government monopolies. Think about B.C. Hydro for a minute, or perhaps you might want to talk about ICBC. But B.C. Hydro is a good one, because B.C. Hydro has its rates regulated through the B.C. Utilities Commission. B.C. Hydro has a regulatory authority that is established to make sure that we protect, in the interests of British Columbians, the rate, the supply and the flow of electricity into the B.C. grid.

If signed, this agreement will tell us that B.C. Hydro cannot restrict access into that market and that the Crown corporations we have established to protect British Columbia interests and to provide us with a B.C.-first policy will be subject to challenge in the international marketplace. We can't have that challenge once this is signed. We can't have that challenge heard, read and looked at in the context of B.C. law, because British Columbia law cannot have supremacy over the agreement. That undermines the very sovereign right of this House, this assembly we stand in today, to have supremacy over the laws that we put in place to regulate and to govern Canadian industry, Canadian investment and Canadian job opportunities in this province.

That is a fundamental change in the way in which we're doing business. Just so that people know that this change is not something that is going to affect only British Columbians or Canadians, let me draw to the members' attention a memorandum that has come out from the Western Governors Association, including the state of North Dakota, the Governor of Alaska, and also members associated with Washington, Oregon and Colorado. What do the western Governors in the United States have to say about this? I'll quote from their memorandum: "Western Governors support in principle an agreement that will reduce restrictions on international investment and assure investors they'll be treated fairly." I'm quoting now from Ben Nelson, who is the Governor of Nebraska. He then goes on to say: "At the same time, we must be mindful of the impact that internationally negotiated investment or trade agreements have on the sovereignty of our states." And they go on and point to exactly the same kind of issues that I'm raising here. The state Governors are now starting to wake up and look at this and say: "Hey, how is it that this kind of international negotiation can go on without state Governors having their direct input, without us being able to have some kind of say over the degree to which our sovereignty is going to be affected?"

Not only are there problematic issues with respect to the sovereignty of the province, there's also a larger issue here that has to do with the sovereignty of Canadians and the right of their federal government to be able to negotiate on behalf of each of us. I think all of us would find it passing strange that the federal government in Ottawa, which hasn't been able to negotiate a deal that protects B.C. salmon -- which has allowed the B.C. salmon negotiations to collapse around us here in B.C. -- has been very successful at negotiating an extension of these investment rights that will cause us even more difficulty in negotiating a fair agreement with respect to the provision and protection of jobs related to the salmon industry in British Columbia. Funny how they can't negotiate a decent deal to protect British Columbians, but they sure know how to negotiate a decent deal that protects the top 100 corporate entities around the world.

Hon. Speaker, there will be those who might stand up and say that there's a real problem, a very large problem, with respect to the issue of the MAI in terms of our ability to compete internationally and in the global economy. I think it's important for those people who would argue that freedom to trade and freedom to enter into these agreements works to Canadians' advantage to look at some realities. The first question I guess we'd have to ask is: if this is such a good deal for Canada, why in the middle of a federal election isn't this a central plank in the Chrétien government's proposals for the people of British Columbia, for the people of Canada?

If this is really such a good deal, why is it that when we are literally within months of signing it, binding us to it -- because there's a 15-year binding agreement with a five-year notice period. . . . That's what it's going to take to get out of it. Why is it, if it's such a good deal, that this is not front row centre in this federal election campaign? Surely, if it's such a good deal, the government and Mr. Chrétien would be up there saying to Canadians: "Go out there and support it. This is great; we're doing great things for you."

But they know. . . . Even today, in contacting people in Europe who are preparing for Monday's and Tuesday's negotiations, we find that the OECD countries are now starting to slow down negotiations because in every single member state, when the public, the people, are starting to hear and understand what is being done, they're rising up and saying: "Just a minute, just hang on a second here. I'm not sure we're ready for a new corporate feudalism in which we become the serfs, we become the tenants and we allow the major multinational corporations, the top 100, to simply come in and have control over our economy without our right and our ability to determine and regulate it."

And to those people who say, "Just relax; take it easy; we're going to have an ability to compete," to those people who say that this is a lot of fearmongering and that this is a good deal, I think what we have to do is put into context what Canadians are facing with respect to the trading challenge that we have. In 1996 the gross domestic product of Canada, our GDP, was $639.8 billion. Do you know what it was in the state of California in 1991? It was $764 billion. One state had a greater GDP than the whole country of Canada. That's the reality.

Let's also look at those people who say we're going to put together a model that resembles the European Economic Community -- that they have the freedom to trade and that they've set up the European Economic Community as a free, open market to have greater access to Community supply for corporations. Well, let's look at the comparative models there. The Canadian population right now sits at 28.8 million people; the population of Europe is 374 million, and they live together in a relatively shallow and a relatively protected trading market. They don't have next to them a trading competitor like we 

[ Page 3616 ]

do in the United States, with over 300 million people who will greatly affect our ability to have a "level playing field." Let's be realistic here.

And if people wonder what's driving this, we have to understand that in the so-called new world order, the times are changing and changing very rapidly. If we look at some of the statistics with respect to the corporate world, Mitsubishi, which is the world's biggest company, had a gross domestic product that was greater than the fourth-largest country in the world, which is Indonesia. We know that General Motors put out a GDP last year bigger than Denmark's. We know that Ford Motor Company had a GDP bigger than South Africa's, and we know that of the top 100 richest economies in the world today, 51 of them -- over half of them -- are corporate economies. They're not even national economies. Their wealth is generated and controlled by the corporate sector.

It's also important for us to recognize that if you were to subtract the GDP of the nine major national companies, the top 200 corporations put out a total product value of $7.1 trillion. That is the economic reality: $7.1 trillion compared to our Canadian $639.8 billion.

So when these wealthy multinational corporations come together and say, "We want unrestricted access to your resource base; we don't like to be fettered or impeded by democratically elected governments; therefore we want new agreements to allow us to bypass democratically elected governments," at that point I have some concern.

I think we've got three choices as we look at the new world order. There are three choices in front of us. We can decide to allow ourselves to move into a new corporate feudalism, in which case we will become tenants in our own house. Or we can choose to go the second route, which is gathering steam in the southern United States. It is the religious-fundamentalist right wing that says we ought to now come marching in with a new morality that is imposed on us and that makes us less tolerant of each other, less tolerant of our differences; let's try and homogenize ourselves into some kind of one people. Or we can take a third option, which I believe is the preferred option, and that is to allow the people to rise up and take control over their economy, to allow the communities to have the right to determine their own destiny and to allow us in Canada and in British Columbia to put British Columbian and Canadian investments first to protect those of us who live in Canada.

You know, it is interesting to note, as we look at this investment agreement, how silent the negotiators have been. It is interesting to note also, when it has been raised -- and I know that I have sought to raise it, and others around Canada are now seeking to raise it -- how defensive those who are negotiating it have become. They know that this is one of the greatest sellouts of Canadian sovereignty that we have seen since Confederation. And if people in this country are worried about national unity, you ain't seen nothing yet. Because if you put this in place, it won't matter what deals we cut with the provinces; it won't matter what constitutional amendments we make. This agreement will allow those major multinationals, which have the greatest resource wealth ever in the history of the global economy, to bypass due process, to bypass the sovereign right of each nation-state to put the people first. That's what it says and that's what it means.

It's been negotiated without any discussion among the Canadian people whatsoever. And on that ground, I think thePrime Minister of this nation and all those around him who have been negotiating it need to be held accountable, and they need to be held accountable now, today.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: One member says that I'm a very angry man. The defence of this nation makes me angry. Those people who are prepared to sell it out make me angry. Those people who turn around and say that we don't have the ability to understand agreements, because they're too complicated for us to understand, make me angry. Those politicians who will not trust the people, because they think they know best, who are not prepared to give people the information so they have the tools to be able to gear up and make what they wish of their lives, because big government wants to do it for them, they make me angry. So to those people who suggest that I am angry, I am.

[11:45]

Interjections.

G. Wilson: I hear in this debate that a number of the Liberals are rising up to speak on behalf of their federal cousins. They have a lot to be accountable for. They have a great deal to be accountable for. It is true that this is the creation, very much, of the federal government, which happens at this current time in our history to be a Liberal government.

But the issues are far greater than any partisan wrangling. This speaks to the future of our country. This speaks to the future. And to those who laugh, I question whether they have read it; and if they have, I question their ability to understand it. If the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove thinks this is a funny situation, I suggest he should read this document and understand what it means to his constituency.

Hon. Speaker, I will tell you that those people who have read this -- and it's happening around the world, now, as people who are in the OECD countries are finally being informed of this process -- are saying that we need to have a greater degree of information, a greater degree of debate on this subject. I find it absolutely incredible that as Canadians we have not been given that information.

[ Page 3617 ]

I brought this motion forward in a non-partisan effort and in an attempt as a provincial politician to suggest that what we need at the very minimum is for there to be a first ministers conference convened at which the detail and documentation of the MAI is discussed. We have to have the major corporate heads of Canada informed about what this means. I have met with many of them; I have yet to find one who understands fully what the context of this agreement is all about. We need to consult with members of the union movement in Canada, because what is going on in terms of the continental application of international union agreements is going to greatly restrict our ability to protect jobs in Canada that are well-paying, long-term and have security and ability. They need to be consulted. Small business needs to be consulted. They need to know what is going on with respect to this agreement, and that has to happen.

The people of Canada are an intelligent, aggressive people when it comes to the economy. We know how to carve out our trading niche. We are second to none in the world in terms of our ability to move forward with new ideas, new creative responses to our problems. We don't need a federal government to be negotiating a contract -- which is essentially what this is -- of this magnitude, with this implication. It will put into the hands of the major multinational corporate sector the tools and rights and abilities to come in and access our resources -- whether they be our minerals, our timber, our water or even our labour -- and to do it without the ability of municipal, federal or provincial governments to regulate how that is going to take place. That's what this agreement does.

Hon. Speaker, I want to close my remarks by addressing two very related issues. We are trying to get an agreement with the Americans on fishing right now. The jurisdictional question on fish is an important one, because while the province has rights on the so-called ocean surface, the federal government has the rights to all the water between surface water and down to terra firma. Their ability to negotiate contracts on our behalf, such as the Nanoose contract, which is in the news today, and to bind us to these agreements is no less important than what they are doing in this agreement now. The difficulty that we are facing in trying to resolve this most complex fishing conflict is compounded by the jurisdictional difficulties we have when our federal government negotiates, on our behalf, an agreement that ties our hands, that binds our abilities and that negatively affects our communities. That's what this agreement does. It will negatively impact our ability, unless we are properly armed with the tools and information to be able to gear up and respond to what is going on.

There is a second issue I just want to touch on before I close. This agreement, which many people say is inevitable. . . . Many people say that the globalization of our economy is an inevitable thing, and therefore there's really no point in discussing it. It's a done deal; it's a fait accompli; you're going to have to go along with it. Hon. Speaker, that is not true. There is nothing that is inevitable in this agreement, because the Canadian people have the right to stand up and say no if they choose to.

For those people who would argue that this would put us at a severe trading disadvantage, I ask them to look at the numbers I just talked about and recognize that we are already at a serious disadvantage with respect to population, investment, GDP and the control of capital in the hands of multinational corporations that have a greater wealth potential than the whole country of Canada.

There is therefore an urgency for us to return to the very concept of what created Canada in the first place. That concept is for Canadians to unite, from to coast to coast to coast, to resist those continental forces and those international forces until such time as we can prepare to put Canadians first.

It was suggested that I am an angry man, and today I am an angry man. I am angry at the federal government. I expect, and I think that the people of British Columbia will expect, to hear from the Prime Minister, from Mr. Eggleton and the others -- and in our own community, from Mr. Anderson -- who have all been actively involved in this negotiating process. We expect to hear why it is, if this is such a good deal, that it has been such a well-kept secret. Why is it that they don't believe that the people of Canada can be trusted with their own future? That's what this motion speaks to, and I hope I'll have full support of all members of the House.

C. Hansen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Hansen: There are two individuals in the gallery whom I've had the pleasure of knowing for the last two years. I hope the House will help me welcome Stephen and Cecilia Sothy.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to start off by thanking the member for bringing this resolution forward. I also want to emphasize the timeliness of this debate in this House, because there's a bit of déj� vu associated with this particular resolution. I recall that in 1988, with the Mulroney government, people during the election began to talk about the GST and that government bringing in the tax, but that happened right in the middle of a campaign.

During the 1993 federal election, the Liberals were leading, and people were talking about NAFTA and the implications on this country, on our sovereignty and on our ability as a democracy to make decisions to govern our country, our province and our neighbourhoods. Indeed, the Liberal government made commitments with regard to NAFTA, and there was somewhat of a debate.

But here we are in the middle of the next federal election, with the Liberal government, having breached their promise to the nation, now behind closed doors making deals on a multinational level.

Interjection.

J. Smallwood: A member from the Liberal opposition makes the point that everyone knows about it. Unlike the previous speaker, I want to make the point that the fact that this government is negotiating at OECD tables with corporate interests should not be a surprise to anyone in this country, because what elections are about is whose side you're on. What this agreement is about is the fact that the Liberal government in Ottawa is on the side of corporations and is not on the side of the citizens of Canada. I think it's incumbent upon the members of the Liberal opposition in this House to get up and say very clearly whose side are they on and who they are going to vote for in the federal election.

What this deal is about. . . . I want to emphasize some of my own particular concerns, because I know there are other speakers who want to speak to other broad implications. There will be speakers today who will talk about the implications on the sovereignty of British Columbia and on our ability as a government to deal with the creation of jobs. Our Minister of Employment and Investment will speak later with respect 

[ Page 3618 ]

to the implications of the MAI on jobs. We also have a speaker today who will talk about the implications that this corporate deal will have on the environment, should it be signed and should it not be exposed to the people prior to the election to give the people of this province the opportunity to vote for someone who is truly on their side and is an advocate for working people.

I want to talk about the agreement specifically -- in particular, about its implications for social policy and social programs in Canada. Many people will talk about the corporate rule deal or the MAI with respect to NAFTA-plus. Let me emphasize what NAFTA does and mention some of the negotiations that have been held in the past, prior to the signing of NAFTA. What NAFTA does is that it clearly defines what investments are. Compared to MAI, the definition is considerably narrower.

It also gives democratically elected countries and provinces the ability to red-circle, if you will, the policies and legislation that would protect existing law or existing practices. The fear that most of us have in reading the MAI is that what the MAI does, if Canada should sign on to this agreement, is limit the ability of Canada to protect its sovereignty and its policy-making through legislation.

In NAFTA, what annex 1 does is place reservations on law. It says that laws cannot be added to -- it red-circles them -- and allows provinces, this province in particular, to protect consumer protection, environmental, labour and other legislation that helps govern this province. Annex 2 protects broader programs. It protects health care and social programs in general. This is a special annex, because not only does it protect them, but it continues to recognize that governments in these particular areas -- whether they be national or provincial -- can continue to develop social programs in the interests of their country.

What the MAI will do is build in a ratcheting program so that should Canada protect those particular laws or policies, it automatically ratchets down that protection and virtually eliminates it through the lifetime of the 15-year agreement. The previous speakers talked about how angry they were. As citizens of this country, everyone should be angry. They should be angry that a few people in Paris, France, are sitting down with corporate interests and negotiating away our ability as a democratic country to make decisions that govern our interests and that put people before the interest of a few corporations.

[12:00]

The legacy we have in Canada with health care, public education and social programs helps people who often don't have the power, the clout and the voice of corporations, which can dictate an agenda that will tie the hands of democratically elected countries while sitting at tables in Paris, France. It's important for us all to recognize that now is the time, with two weeks left before an election, to ensure that this debate is raised, so that people are aware that the Liberal government in Canada is negotiating away the democratic right of citizens in this country without any discussion.

I also want to touch on one other point before I take my seat, and that has to do with a section in the MAI that mentions the definition of investment. In NAFTA an investor is specifically defined. If there is a dispute, the investor or the corporation has to go through the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Commerce then puts the dispute -- should they think it's viable -- to a dispute resolution committee. The MAI allows an investor to be defined in such a broad way that it could also deal with future investments. It also allows that investor to make the case -- not through the Department of Commerce in the States, as in the example of NAFTA, but straight to the dispute resolution apparatus -- that they believe that something a country or a province is doing is going to affect their ability in the future to make a profit or to have their investment actualized.

Contemplate that, members. I'm hoping that there are more members of the Liberal Party who are actually listening to this debate and who will join in. Contemplate that and the effect it will have on the ability of a democratically elected government to make policies for the future that will affect the economy and the social reality within its jurisdiction. It virtually eliminates any ability for a province to govern resources or to bring in policies that will encourage and help people through the economic transitions that we are facing in that global market.

I'm hoping that all members will support this resolution. Beyond that, I'm hoping that you'll stand up and be counted, and will send a clear message to the Liberal government and a clear message to the voters of Canada to vote for the people that will advocate on their behalf and that do stand clearly on the side of democracy and the average working person in British Columbia and in Canada.

C. Hansen: I would like to start by complimenting the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. When he first introduced this subject in this chamber last month, I must confess that it was the first I had heard about it. And I think that is probably true for 99.99 percent of Canadians -- that it's a subject that is totally new to them. In the time since it was first raised I've tried to do a little bit of research on it, and as I've done that research I've wound up with more questions than answers. I've listened carefully to the comments made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and by the member for Surrey-Whalley. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast asked whether or not he was fearmongering, and I think answered his own question: he was not.

I'm not sure that a lot of the issues that have been raised are not in fact overstatements of what this MAI amounts to, but I think the questions need to be raised and the questions need to be answered, and that's what's important about this debate. This is not a debate that should be done behind closed doors but a debate that everybody in the public should be participating in.

I compliment the member again for having brought it to our attention and to the public's attention. But in doing so, I recognize that the world is changing very much, and I think all speakers have mentioned that up until now. We are living in a global village, and we need international rules so that we can co-exist on this planet together. We need rules to control the environment, because the environment is not something that stops at artificial borders between nations. We need international rules to protect our environment. We need to travel 

[ Page 3619 ]

around this globe. We need international rules on transportation and a host of other issues. There's probably not an issue in our society that doesn't have international dimensions to it. We need those kinds of rules so that we in this world can live together peaceably and not deteriorate into strife and war, as we've seen in so many parts of this world.

Historically, centuries ago we needed to start to develop rules within communities, and then we needed to develop rules within regions and rules for countries. There is now obviously an increasing need for rules among nations on this planet. But we have to ask ourselves: should those rules be imposed on us? Should we allow rules from other bodies around the world to impose their rules and regulations on Canada? The answer, I think, is clearly no. We want a say in how those are developed.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

One of the things that I have been greatly concerned about since my university years, when I think I was very much absorbed in looking at what was happening in Third World countries -- and I still have that concern today. . . . You watch as Third World countries start to pull themselves into the twentieth century, never mind the twenty-first century. They start to do that by developing jobs in their country, primarily because they have cheaper labour than other countries, unfortunately.

As those countries started to build up their own economies and started to participate in international trade, we saw the standard of living of those countries slowly start to emerge and slowly start to develop. But then, what we have seen in the last ten to 15 years is that technology has actually become cheaper in many areas than the cheapest labour in the world. As a result, we've seen those Third World countries start to slip back when it comes to the standard of living they are realizing.

So we have to ask ourselves today: how is it that we as the nation of Canada support the Third World and support economic development in those countries? Clearly what is happening is not the ability for us to go after cheap labour. What is required today is the need for us to transfer technology and the need for us to transfer investment to Third World countries around the world so that they too can be part of this global village and can enjoy a higher standard of living -- a standard of living that will at least give them some respect and decency, which we do not see in many countries on this planet.

What we have seen in the past is that many First World countries have developed international assistance programs, and yet we see that those very programs are under attack today in many quarters. We see many countries facing their own crises when it comes to funding the very social programs that we need for British Columbians: health and education. We see that one of the areas being attacked around the world in First World countries is their ability to deliver international aid, and I find that distressing. The reality is that we have to find vehicles that will allow the Third World to participate in our modern society, in our global village. Much of that has to come through technology transfer and international investment.

So we have to ask ourselves: who are these investors? Who are these investors who are going to create a better standard of living in Third World countries? We have this image of some fat, cigar-smoking individual with a top hat sitting on the back of a luxury yacht in the Caribbean or the Mediterranean. You know, that is not the investor today. The previous speaker indicated that somehow these are big corporations that go around plundering the earth. Well, the reality is that the investment dollars flowing around this globe today to provide those opportunities, the investment dollars coming into British Columbia and other parts of Canada to create jobs here and the investment dollars going into Third World countries to create those opportunities are typically coming from pension plans and mutual funds.

They're not coming from the fat cats; they're coming from unsophisticated investors. They're coming from individuals like you and me, who are concerned that governments may not be able to provide for our pensions in the future. We're looking at how we can protect those ourselves. We are the investors; my neighbours are the investors. Individuals around this province who have even a small amount of money in a pension fund -- whether it's through their union or through another organization -- are the investors.

I recognize that this multilateral agreement on investment is being negotiated among 29 of the richest countries in the world. This is not an agreement that is on a table where all of those Third World countries are participating in the discussion. I think that's a very important part, but I think we have to recognize that rules are needed when it comes to investment. If we are going to have investors -- those pension funds, wherever those investment dollars are coming from -- who are prepared to go into Third World countries, we have to make sure that the risk is as low as possible, so that those in those countries who are receiving those investments and those who are creating jobs in those countries can minimize the risk and can secure the investments they need for their countries at the lowest possible cost. Cost is translated into risk.

Can we come up with a standard that reduces this risk and thereby reduces the cost to Third World countries? What we need is an international agreement that we can go to other countries with and say: "Is this country prepared to abide by these rules?" Yes, these rules were designed by OECD nations, but if you have a country that's prepared to accept an international standard of some kind, then at least the investors who are prepared to go in and help make that country work know what kinds of risks they are dealing with.

So we have to ask ourselves: is this agreement that is being negotiated by the OECD the best possible agreement that can fit into that environment, an agreement that's going to protect the best interests of British Columbians and, at the same time, allow for the international rules on investment that are needed? I don't know the answer to that question, hon. Speaker. I've listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised by the two previous speakers, and if those concerns are valid, then I think we need a very good public discussion as to whether or not this is in our best interest. But is that the discussion that is needed?

Will I urge the federal government to sign this agreement? Not based on what I know now. I've done some research on this. I must confess I was up till midnight last night trying to read this particular book. In it, as I said earlier, I developed a lot more questions than I did answers.

I want to quote from an article -- which I think most of us have probably read -- by Marjorie Cohen of Simon Fraser University, who is with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. She says: "MAI would ban the requirement that corporations provide social benefits in exchange for the right to exploit public resources." If that's true, I share her concern that a notion of national treatment would extend to include government incentives. The government's right to set targets

[ Page 3620 ]

could be challenged as illegal performance requirements. A subsidy to non-profit day care could be illegal. Medicare would be threatened in the same way. Environmental laws will be open to challenge. The MAI could lead to investor challenges to B.C.'s recent ban on bulk water exports.

I think many of these points have been raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Hon. Speaker, if that's in the agreement, I share those concerns.

[12:15]

It says unequivocally:

". . .Canada will retain, through exceptions, the ability to: review large-scale mergers and acquisitions under the Investment Canada Act; protect its cultural industries; maintain foreign ownership restrictions in sectors such as transportation, minerals and petroleum; preserve the integrity of Canada's health care system; and impose and maintain foreign ownership limits when privatizing Crown corporations."

"The MAI will not exempt foreign investors from national or provincial laws and regulations. Any foreign investor, like any domestic investor, will have to comply with environmental, labour, health and safety, municipal zoning and indeed all laws and regulations which affect business operating in Canada.

"The MAI will not, therefore, affect . . .Canada's right to prohibit the import or the export of certain goods and services -- for example, our water resources.

". . .the MAI will allow Canada to condition receipt of investment incentives on compliance with requirements to create jobs, or to conduct R and D activities in Canada."

"Throughout these negotiations, the government has consulted with the provinces, the private sector and with others to ensure that interests of Canadians are properly reflected."

The one other area that I consulted was some papers that came out of a conference in Brazil last year. I was reading the speech that was delivered by one of the chief negotiators. One line jumped out at me that I think is important. It said: "The door is open, but no one, not even members of the OECD, will be forced to walk through it." As I understand it, what they're negotiating is an agreement that OECD members can or cannot opt into; that non-OECD members around the world can either opt into or not opt into. I understand there is already one country -- I believe it's a Latin American country -- that has indicated they will in fact sign this agreement, because they want that as a symbol to international investors that their country welcomes the investment that's going to come in, to allow them to create a higher standard of living for their citizens.

So in this, I think we all agree that there's a need for more discussion, more answers to these questions. But as to whether or not Canada should withdraw from negotiations, that's another issue. If we want to be part of shaping this agreement, if we agree that international rules are needed in whatever sector -- whether they're in the environment sector or whether it's the investment sector -- if we agree that there need to be rules, it's important for Canada to be at the table to help shape those rules, so that we can shape those rules in the best interests of British Columbia and in the best interests of Canada generally. For Canada not to be at the table is to put us into a worse position, which will say that either we accept what the other 29 countries come up with or we reject what the other 29 countries come up with. That gives us much less strength on the world stage than if we participate in the program and if we negotiate the best arrangement possible in the interests of Canadians -- and then we decide whether or not Canada should be part of that agreement and whether the Parliament of Canada should vote for or against signing this agreement.

I would, therefore, hon. Speaker, like to move an amendment. The amendment would have the effect of deleting the words "to immediately withdraw from any further negotiations on" and to replace that with: "not agree to sign." Hon. Speaker, with your indulgence, if I read the first part of the motion with that amendment in place, it says:

[That this Assembly request the Government of Canada to not agree to sign the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment until the Government of Canada has (a) convened a public meeting of first ministers to discuss any such agreement and (b) has completed a process of public consultation with industry, labour, small business and any other Canadians who are concerned about the impact of such an agreement on the future of our country.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Miller: My own view of the amendment is that it makes enough of a difference that it does have an impact on the intent of the resolution. Therefore I will be opposing the amendment.

Having said that, I think the primary issue is one that, it appears to me, all members. . . . I think, in listening to the speeches that have been given thus far, there is some relative degree of unanimity with respect to some of the risks involved for British Columbia in the MAI. I just want to comment on those in some areas that perhaps have not already been covered.

Members should be aware, by the way, that I sent a letter on behalf of the government of British Columbia to the Hon. Art Eggleton on May 14 on this question of the multilateral agreement on investment. Essentially, in my letter I've raised a number of concerns that have been raised by members in this debate today, and I have urged the government not to proceed prior to consultation with the provincial jurisdictions. I think that's important, as well, in the context of subnational governments or provincial governments within a federal state.

There are a couple of arguments that could be used, but first of all let me deal with what I think is the primary issue. If I put that in a kind of succinct way, these issues around globalization, trade and investment practices are not ones that in the normal course of events British Columbians or indeed Canadians ought to fear. I mean that in the sense, as one member referred to it, that the thrust of the agreement is really 

[ Page 3621 ]

to define rules for international investment. Therefore there is a benefit to those countries that are trying to attract international investment. It creates some stability. It's therefore of assistance to them that this proceed.

British Columbia and Canada are not in that position. It's not as though we are some evolving economy or that we have an unstable government. The rules in Canada. . . . I'm not speaking specifically of B.C. Quite frankly, all members will agree that all Canadian provinces, the territories, Canada as a whole is generally regarded as one of the most stable countries in the world. Investors putting their money into Canada, whichever province, really have some of the most stable investment conditions in the world. We are also traders; British Columbians in fact are very good traders.

We have plants in this province. I recently attended a ceremony in Richmond; it was the production of the five-millionth aluminum wheel out of Toyota's plant in Richmond. At that ceremony there were executives who were flown over from Japan and Toyota people from, really, around the world -- New York, Los Angeles. I talked to them and members of the board of the company. I was very pleased, as a British Columbian, because they told me that the plant in Richmond is one of the most competitive in the Toyota network, which really is around the world.

That tells me that we can apply the technology and the skills of our workforce, and we indeed can compete with virtually any country in the world when it comes to manufacturing. Manufacturing, or the input costs for the production of a variety of goods, is more than just the cost of labour. It's the skill of labour; it's the cost of energy; it's the cost of land. There is a variety of factors that impact on your ability to be competitive.

In fact, I always refer to the Swiss manufacturer of the Swatch watch, which claims that they could. . . . I like this philosophy and have adopted it since I first read about it as a member of the opposition. This individual was speaking for Switzerland but said: "We can be competitive with anybody in the world." That's a good philosophy. We British Columbians have nothing to fear in terms of our ability to be competitive internationally. There are examples well beyond the Toyota plant that are testament to that, and British Columbians should understand that.

We are, however, a jurisdiction that does have a strong reliance on our natural resource base. We are working very diligently -- and there are some very positive signs there, as well -- to move that beyond the primary manufacturing of commodities, beyond being simply hewers of wood and drawers of water, with a. . . .

An Hon. Member: On the amendment.

Hon. D. Miller: I think there's a degree of latitude with respect to. . . . And I did deal with that specific issue in my opening statement with respect to the amendment and stated my view.

We are working diligently to apply the technology and to apply skills to move production up the value chain. There are lots of good examples there of plants around this province. We've started new initiatives at our universities to develop even more skilled people. We'll have some people coming from Germany this year, for example, at our invitation, to participate in the development of the advanced wood products centre at UBC, which will turn out to be comparable to the Rosenheim institute. So we're doing everything we can with respect to trying to move up the value chain.

But we also have an obligation as a government in this province. Indeed, any party that wishes to govern has an obligation to deal with the primary issues of employment and the economy. There are two examples that stand out. We as a province are currently trying to encourage the federal government to take a stronger position to negotiate a Pacific salmon treaty -- protect the conservation of the fish and the employment and economic interests of British Columbians who rely on that for their livelihood. It makes a significant billion-dollar contribution to our GDP. We find, in this case, that in dealing with the federal government of the United States, one state has the ability to veto, and therefore we are unable, or Canada is unable -- because, quite frankly, they have not really been prepared to put on some pressure -- to get an agreement.

We also see -- and I think this is a pretty critical issue. . . . The previous speaker talked about the need for rules. The last time I heard that debate was when the forest industry and industry in general -- capital in general -- said: "We need to have the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA." One of the primary reasons they cited was the rules. "At least with these agreements, if there are issues like a countervailing duty that arises on softwood lumber, we've got a process, we've got a dispute resolution mechanism, and we are therefore much better off because we have these rules."

Well, what did British Columbia and Canada do? We fought the softwood lumber dispute all the way up, and eventually it was referred to a dispute resolution panel under the Free Trade Agreement. We spent millions and millions of dollars on the legal and technical expertise to fight that case, because we firmly believed we had a sound case. We won. A free trade panel made a decision under the rules and said that British Columbia and Canada were right. What happened? What happened as a result of that?

The U.S. clearly has a style. Not meaning any disrespect, they are trade bullies. They have the economic muscle to be trade bullies. They always have been, and in my view, they always will be. They always want to win. So in the case of the free trade panel on softwood lumber, which we clearly won, the United States turned around, notwithstanding that, and slapped another countervailing duty on our softwood lumber and impaired our industry's ability to export to the United States. In fact, at the end of the day, because of the clout that they had, an agreement was concluded. And talk about a deviation from the practice of free trade: the Americans insisted on putting a limit on the volume of lumber that could be shipped into their jurisdiction.

That is not free trade; that is supply management. They have limited supply from an outside jurisdiction into the United States. And while some have clearly benefited, because the price of lumber has been dramatically driven up, the U.S. National Association of Home Builders has calculated that the only impact of that action on the United States was to increase the cost of construction of an average house in the United States by $2,000. That is not free trade, and yet they've done it.

[12:30]

[ Page 3622 ]

of those licences, to say: "As a result of transferring the authority to you to harvest these resources, we want certain things for the citizens of British Columbia. We want a certain number of jobs, primarily."

This agreement is directly contrary to that provincial interest. It flies directly in the face of. . . . The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast referred to sovereignty, and I think that's appropriate. The issue, in a nutshell, as it generally is in these trade issues, is primarily: what are the interests of capital, what are the "national interests" -- and when I say national, I refer to British Columbia's provincial interests -- and what is the balance between national interests and the interests of capital?

We are elected by the people. It's fundamental in our democracy. We are not elected by, if you like, capital. Surely that is one of the best things about the free world: that ordinary citizens -- for example, those people we are trying to represent in achieving accord to create 20,000 more jobs in the forest sector -- want us to do that. Their view is that their interests are equally as important as the interests of capital. It seems to me that the dangerous trend in these international agreements is that the balance has tipped away.

When I speak about capital, I don't say that in any kind of disrespectful way. I think capital investment is critically important to this province. I think the ability of companies to invest in this province, to be profitable, to contribute to the economy in terms of jobs, is very, very important. And we are working in a significant way with a variety of interests to try to increase investment to create more jobs and more opportunity. But we should have the right to use our resources in a way that maximizes the benefits to British Columbians. We ought to have the right to use our Crown agencies in a way that maximizes benefits to British Columbians.

If I recall -- not to raise an old debate again -- the member for Kamloops-North Thompson clearly expressed that view when he came to me and said: "I would like the contract for printing lottery tickets to go to a British Columbia company. There are 200 jobs in my constituency." He was saying that regardless of whether the Lottery Corporation can get a cheaper bid in Louisiana or some other part of the world, his view was that that contract should go to a company in his constituency. And I want to tell you, without interfering in the processes that make these decisions, that as a matter of principle I support that member.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: What I was simply pointing out was that I thought that during the broader debate there was an issue that was a bit of a dichotomy in position between the member for Kamloops-North Thompson lobbying for jobs for his constituents based on gambling and the Liberal caucus generally taking the position that gaming is one of the most heinous things that has ever come along, and they are dead opposed to it. I didn't raise that to get into that debate, but rather to illustrate my point.

Let me draw your attention to another resolution that we're not debating today but that I think is important, and that is Motion 11 that's on the order paper. I think it's very illustrative, and other members have talked about that. This is a motion by the member for Kootenay. It's a laudable motion -- one which the government supports and in fact has acted on:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of ensuring women and other under-represented groups are represented in publicly funded construction projects such as the Island Highway Project and reaffirm its support for the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act.]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The Liberal member for Parksville-Qualicum says the fair-wage policy is wrong. I can only assume he disagrees with equity policy, which I find a great disappointment. We had lunch the other day with the Ambassador of the Netherlands, and they have very good policies, which I think make it a delightful country to be in.

It just seems to me that there are vivid examples here in British Columbia. Surely all people elected to this Legislature feel that they have to represent the interests of British Columbians first.

My view on trade is that we can be competitive. My view on trade, as well, is that I and this government will look at every opportunity to maximize our advantage. We were elected to represent the people of British Columbia, not the people of anywhere else. That's our first priority, and that should be the first priority of every member in this House. I think it's quite legitimate, given the import.

Perhaps there are some debates around what the specific clauses mean. But going back, we went through that FTA, we went through NAFTA, and we had all the promises: don't worry, it doesn't mean that; don't worry when it comes to softwood lumber; now we're going to have a dispute resolution, and boy, all our problems will be gone. Guess what. They're not. They're worse. The United States is now able to dictate our stumpage policy. That is a loss of our sovereignty and a loss of our ability to use our resource base to benefit the British Columbians we represent.

That is a significant issue. It's worthy of debate in this country. The member's motion, which I applaud, simply says: "Stop. Engage the citizens of this country in a debate." I'm not saying don't go back, because I don't think you can avoid participating. We take the position in British Columbia that we are in a holding pattern with respect to the Agreement on Internal Trade in Canada. We have said -- and I have said as a representative of the government: "We'll stay at the table, but I can tell you: here's our position. We're not prepared to negotiate the addition of the health and social service sectors to the Agreement on Internal Trade. We are simply not prepared to do that. Those are issues that we will define here in our province." And that's not a bad position to take.

So I really want to applaud the member. We support the resolution as it is printed on the order paper. It's reasonable: stop, and have a discussion with the Canadian public; find out what the real position of the Canadian public is before you sit at that table and perhaps endanger our ability as provinces and as a nation to act in the best interests of the people who put us here in the first place.

B. Penner: I will participate in this debate in a few moments. First of all, though, I'm just rising to make an introduction, and I seek leave to do so.

Leave granted.

[ Page 3623 ]

B. Penner: It's my great pleasure today to introduce a class that travelled here today from Yarrow Elementary School. It's a grade 6 class consisting of more than 50 students, two teachers, I believe, and a number of parents who are here today having a tour of the Legislature and other areas around Victoria. I'd ask that the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, I want to commend the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for putting forward the motion. I think it's an important issue, and I'm delighted that on private members' day we're actually debating a resolution by a private member. I think that, too, is a positive thing.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

But I have to wonder: why today, why resolution 52? Why not one of the resolutions that has been there on the order paper for weeks and months? Why not a resolution that deals with the internal affairs of the province of British Columbia? Why, for example, aren't we debating a resolution that deals with ICBC? -- and there are a number of them. Why are we not debating a resolution that deals with gambling in this province? -- and there are a number of them. Why, today, have we decided to move this resolution forward? Why has the Government House Leader decided today that item 52 should come forward?

One had only to listen to the member for Surrey-Whalley to understand why it was: because it's on the eve of a federal election, and the government is desperately trying to make some sorry, sad little points for their NDP friends in the federal campaign. And only yesterday I listened to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, in his desperate and pathetic attempt to do a little campaigning on the health issue. And, Mr. Speaker, for whatever role you had in deciding to shut this House down this next Thursday and Friday, I say, "Good on you," because obviously these folks across the way are so consumed with trying to get one or two more members of the New Democratic Party sent to Ottawa that it's the focus of this House. That's unfortunate, because this is an important issue. There are important issues to be debated in the House.

I get a sense, though, as I listen to this debate, that we're really debating the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA again, and that everyone's coming from the same position that they had in those debates. I'm not sure that I at all agree with the Minister of Employment and Investment with respect to NAFTA and its impact on softwood agreements and softwood tariffs. I suggest to you that British Columbia would be far worse off without a free trade or a NAFTA agreement. I suggest to the Minister of Employment and Investment that he would have less control over his relationship with the forest industry in British Columbia were it not for some protections that are built in by way of international trade agreements.

I think it's important for us as we go into this debate to recognize that the motion is to involve the provinces and Canadians in a debate around this multilateral agreement on investment. Certainly I support the need for some public debate.

I don't think the agreement is as bad as some members would paint it to be. Indeed, I looked up through a number of the speeches, wondering if, as the sky fell, it would damage this wonderful building -- because it sounded like the sky was falling. I don't think that's the case. I think there are some very positive elements in the agreement, as I've examined it.

I suggest, as others have, that we are moving to a new economy, a world economy. To suggest that British Columbia or Canada can somehow become a little, protectionist enclave is false. It's wrongheaded. It isn't good for British Columbia, and it isn't good for Canada. Canada can compete; British Columbia can compete. More importantly, Canadians and British Columbians can compete. If we're worried about Americans moving in and taking our jobs, doesn't the equal opportunity exist for Canadians to move into that much larger market? So I think that while we should have a debate on this issue and listen to the concerns, I'm not at all persuaded that we should simply condemn the agreement. I support a call for openness, for broad public debate.

[12:45]

As I read the analysis by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, they were greatly concerned that this agreement might limit Canada's ability to regulate ownership in corporations such as Air Canada. I thought, gee, would that be so bad? I live in a community that's serviced by Air Canada. I live in a community that sees ever-worsening services to Dawson Creek, while I see the far less regulated Canadian Airlines providing better services to the neighbouring community of Fort St. John. So I wonder: am I a great beneficiary as a Canadian in limiting ownership in Air Canada?

As I look at our ability to deal with the frequent-flyer points -- to get some help for rural British Columbians by way of use of frequent-flyer points -- I look at which company is holding up that initiative. It happens to be Air Canada. Canadian is quite happy to participate. So I'm not so sure that I want to maintain Canadian ownership over Air Canada, because I can tell you quite candidly that I haven't seen any great benefits for the people I represent as a result of the actions of Air Canada and, I assume, actions endorsed by their Canadian board of directors.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member for Surrey-Whalley says: "Try medicare." Well, I happen to believe we have a good medical system. But I can tell you again that I don't think we should throw out a multilateral agreement on investment because we have some fear about the effect of that agreement on medicare. If indeed. . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, the member chirps away: "What's your party's position on medicare?" It brings me back to the original argument I made after I listened to that member. This debate is not about a multilateral agreement on investment; it's about an election on June 2 and the desperate hope of the members that they can elect one or two more members to their party. That's what this debate is about, and it's unfortunate. As I look at the NDP members on the other 

[ Page 3624 ]

side lined up to speak, I know their motives equally well, and I know the reasons that they, too, are so anxious to get into this debate.

An Hon. Member: What's the Reform position on private health care?

J. Weisgerber: I'm proud of the position that Reform B.C. has taken on each and every issue. Reform B.C.'s positions were developed in British Columbia, by British Columbians and for British Columbians, and I won't apologize for any position that I took.

J. Smallwood: You're distancing yourself from Manning.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, it is indeed tragic that even in the middle of the debate, this member -- who has already had one of the few slots available to government members to herald the benefits of the NDP and Alexa McDonough -- finds that she can't constrain herself even after having had an opportunity to speak. I would suggest that this debate would have been far more fruitful, far more genuine and far more focused had the Government House Leader chosen to call this resolution the Friday after next.

I support the resolution, and indeed, I support the amendment, because I believe the thrust of this is to engage the provinces and to engage British Columbians in a debate -- a genuine and legitimate debate -- around a multilateral agreement that's being negotiated in France. It's not about the next federal election -- or it should not be about the next federal election.

So, Mr. Speaker, while I'm going to support the amendment and the motion, I'm going to say to you that I am disappointed in the approach being taken by the government on this issue and by the way that members are attempting to inject the federal election into every aspect of the activities of this House. I believe that British Columbia has enough issues and problems for this House -- and particularly for these members across the way -- to deal with. Lord knows, Mr. Speaker, they've created enough problems over the last six years that when they have them all addressed, I would be happy to see them move into the federal field. Until then, it is self-serving, and it is a disappointment to me.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, for the opportunity to speak on the amendment to the motion. I will try to focus my remarks on the issue at hand, which is the amendment to the motion. I note that the MLA for North Coast didn't really get around to addressing the content or the purpose of the amendment to the motion.

I think that the amendment serves a very important purpose. It would allow the Canadian government to remain at the bargaining table, to remain vigilant that the concerns of Canadians and British Columbians are represented and well looked after. There are a number of reasons why I believe it is important that we monitor and remain involved in the process so that our interests are looked after. I know that the members opposite, and indeed all members of this House, have from time to time expressed concern about working conditions in Third World countries. We've also expressed concern about our ability as Canadians to compete in terms of attracting investment and in terms of selling our exports globally when we're facing competition from countries that don't abide by the same environmental or labour standards that we all believe are very important.

One of the issues that is being addressed by the MAI -- the multilateral agreement on investment -- has to do with maintaining certain minimum standards of employment, labour, health and safety issues. Specifically, they are seeking to prohibit member states -- that is, countries that would agree to become members of the multilateral agreement on investment -- from lowering labour and environmental standards in order to attract foreign investment.

If such an agreement were to be reached, I believe it would be quite revolutionary. I think it would mark a tremendous threshold in terms of advancement globally, recognizing that countries should not try to "race to the bottom," a phrase that we've all heard very often. Instead of racing to the bottom, we should compete on our strengths -- the strengths of our people, the strengths of our industry, the strengths of the technology that we're able to develop within our own countries -- rather than trying to compete on the basis of the lowest common denominator.

Certainly, going back to my days as a student at Simon Fraser University -- I know the member for New Westminster reflects fondly on those days as well, as he was a student with me at Simon Fraser -- I remember a debate taking place: would there ever come a day when, globally, we could somehow regulate multinational corporations and prevent them from playing one country off against another in terms of lowering their employment standards, lowering their health standards and lowering their environmental standards?

In economics, which is a subject that I studied at some length, I didn't think I would ever see the day where the world would be at the threshold of embracing a concept that would prevent countries from racing to the bottom and slashing environmental standards or employment standards in order to attract investment. That's why I think this amendment that has been moved by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena is worthy of the support of all members of this House. Unamended, the motion would require Canada to walk away and not be there to help shape this proposed agreement to make sure it reflects our beliefs and our values, in terms of protecting everyone.

I think it's important to acknowledge that in British Columbia, one in three jobs is based on trade. Without our trade exports from British Columbia, fully 33 percent of British Columbians who are presently employed would be unemployed. But there are two sides to the trade coin. One side is trade, the exports; the other side is investment. Without the investment, you don't have the trade. That's why I believe a full discussion and debate on this issue is warranted. That's also why I believe that the Canadian government should remain at the table to monitor things.

But it also needs to raise public awareness and involve groups, even if they are university groups in economics and political science classes at Simon Fraser University, to spread the word and get people's ideas around this issue. Do we believe it's important to maintain certain minimum environmental and labour standards? Do we think it's appropriate that we restrict different nations' abilities to put their own people in short-term jeopardy in order to attract investment?

Our province has already sent out over the last few years some negative messages toward the international community 

[ Page 3625 ]

and investment. We've introduced the job-killing capital tax in British Columbia, not just for financial institutions, as it historically was -- something that certainly I don't disagree with; I think that banks need to be taxed -- but in terms of the tax being applied to investors and their investments before they hire a single employee or sell a single widget. We in British Columbia -- well, certainly not our party, but the party opposite -- have embraced a policy of taxing those investors before they even know if their industry is going to be a success. I think that sends a negative message to outside investors.

For us to turn our back on any discussion of a multilateral agreement on investment would also send the wrong message. I think what we need to do is embrace a full public discourse on this topic and encourage the federal government to remain at the bargaining table. But do not sign an agreement purporting to bind all of us before consulting the provinces, all of the first ministers, all of the trade ministers in the various provinces, and allowing ordinary citizens a chance to have input on any proposed agreement before binding us to it. That is our position on my side of the House. As the trade critic for the B.C. Liberal Party, that's something I endorse, and I think all members of the Legislature would support that position.

Mr. Speaker, trade and investment are essential to our economy. In this kind of an era where we see struggles in terms of rising youth unemployment, we need jobs, we need investment and we need employment. So when we get to a vote on this matter, I encourage all members of the House to support the amendment to the motion so that the right thing will happen. With that, noting the hour of 1 o'clock, I move adjournment of the debate.

B. Penner moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada