[ Page 6539 ]

The House resumed at 7:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Introduction of Bills

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. D. Miller: I am very pleased to introduce Bill 53, the Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1997. This legislation gives the province the ability to implement a settlement with Alcan which would provide replacement power to Alcan should they build a second smelter in British Columbia.

This government has been working hard toward a negotiated settlement with Alcan that will protect existing jobs in the northwest, encourage the development of a new smelter and new jobs, and protect our precious environment and fish resources.

I move that Bill 53 be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the office of the Premier.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Walsh in the chair.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
(continued)

G. Campbell: The first issue. . . . I know the Premier was dealing with this earlier this afternoon with a number of members with regard to the youth in the province of British Columbia and his position as the Minister Responsible for Youth. One of the concerns I have is that for all the words about what we're going to do for youth, what we have in terms of real lives and the real young people of this province is a drastically and dramatically deteriorating situation. At one point in 1989, we were doing far, far better than we are today. It's always good to talk to the Premier about these issues.

We have 62,000 more young people in British Columbia today than we did in 1989. However, unfortunately, we have 15,000 fewer jobs and 32,000 fewer full-time jobs. I can recall last year that one of the things we heard across the province was how the Premier was going to create 21,000 jobs in the forest industry. Well, the only thing that's come true about that is that there are more than 21,000 fewer jobs for young people in July of 1997 than there was in January of 1997. That's according to Statistics Canada. That's on top of the incredible job loss that we face throughout the entire economy.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

The question that I have for the Premier is: when you set your goal of accomplishing the employment of young people, of having young people have a sense of opportunity, a sense of hope, and you find that your policies, day in and day out, lead to fewer and fewer jobs for the young people of British Columbia. . . ? At any time does cabinet -- does the Premier -- stand back and say: "What we've done is wrong -- the incredible tax load we've put on the job creators of the province of British Columbia, the incredible regulatory load we've created"?

What we've done -- and what I believe the government has done -- is create for young people and for employers huge barriers to the employment of young people in this province. So my first question to the Premier is: when we see that the cumulative result of this government's policies over the last five to six years is a reduction in just six months -- six months. . . ?

I believe that most members on the government side of the House can probably remember back to January of 1997. At that time there were 21,000 more young people employed than there are today -- 21,000 fewer jobs, the loss of 21,000 jobs for young people. What policy initiatives does the government intend to undertake so that next year, unlike last year and unlike this year, we will have more young people employed and we will have people trying to hire young people instead of trying to avoid it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for this question, and I'll just give the government's perspective. The Premier had to step out for a moment to deal with the Alcan situation.

I actually appreciate where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from. There is no question that when you look at any economic statistic as a snapshot in time, there are peaks and there are valleys. I know that from my background. And the snapshot of 21,000 fewer jobs in a one-month statistic is merely that -- a snapshot. The general economic growth in British Columbia has been one of increase over the last four years. From the month that the Leader of the Opposition mentions, June of `97. . . . If you look back at the previous four years, there has been an overall increase of 10.4 percent, a gain of 172,000 jobs. That compares to a growth in the rest of Canada during that period of time of only 6.2 percent.

But I must say that there have been other policies. Not only have we been enhancing general employment growth, but there have been some very targeted economic policies specifically for young people in this province. Our Youth Works program that the Premier has discussed is targeted specifically at getting people who were never part of the workforce into the workforce. I know from other estimates that the members of the opposition know very well the strengths of Youth Works.

Our increase in the minimum wage has directly affected the ability of youth, who. . . . Women and youth are the major uptakers of the minimum wage. There has been a direct correlation in the improved economic situation of people who are on minimum wage. Our tuition freeze and our expanded student financial assistance program have not only greatly assisted in preparing people for good-paying, life-sustaining jobs in the workforce, but have actually allowed them to be employed in the workforce.

It would be easy -- and I don't in any way suggest that the Leader of the Opposition isn't permitted to do this. . . . But 

[ Page 6540 ]

taking one snapshot month of an economy is not indicative of anything. In fact, if you look at the medium-term economic growth of the last four years, you will see that the picture is much more positive and, frankly, outstrips the rest of Canada.

G. Campbell: I appreciate the response from the Government House Leader, but I think we have to stand back for a minute and recognize that this isn't a fight about statistics; it's a fight about trying to create opportunities for young people in their lives. This is not a one-time snapshot for young people. Go out and talk to young people in this province and ask them whether they feel there are opportunities there.

In fact, I heard the Premier speak to a number of young people, saying: "When I was a young person" -- which was a long, long time ago for the Premier, I understand. When he was a young person, there were far more opportunities for the young to seek employment; there were far more places. When they'd gone and got an advanced education, they'd done the training they needed so they could go and look to a brighter future.

The fact of the matter is that the participation rate for young people in the provincial economy, in jobs in the provincial economy, has gone down. It was down last year; it's down again this year. There are 21,000 young people out of work.

Let me tell you a story about a person who is an entrepreneur who has two different businesses in Maple Ridge. I was chatting with him, and he said to me: "You know, with the regulations this government has imposed on me, the taxation this government has imposed on me, the fees this government has imposed on me, every day I think to myself: how can I do more with fewer people employed?" It's because of the burdens we put on that particular enterprise, whereas a year ago he had 115 people working for him, right now he has 85 and he's still looking for ways, places that he can save.

[7:45]

My question to the Premier remains: what are you thinking of doing that will be structural in terms of encouraging young people getting back to work so that next year, in 1998, we sit here and we say: "You know, there are 21,000 more young people at work. There are ample job opportunities for them out there." What is the government looking at doing to change the direction of young people, of youth employment, so that we in fact watch the trend go up instead of continuing to watch it go down?

The hon. House Leader said to us: "You know, there are times when there are peaks and valleys." We all know there are cycles. The problem right now is that this government's policies have dug a trench, and it's in danger of becoming an abyss.

What is the Premier going to do? What is the government going to do to make the structural changes that are required to assure that young people have the opportunity to find work and gainful employment in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, we could engage in a discussion of statistics, but the member is correct: the fact that the unemployment rate for young people has gone down almost a full two percentage points, I think, in the last month really doesn't give comfort to the very large number of young people who are unemployed.

It's a commitment I made, not just during the election but since I became Premier, to take on the responsibility as Minister Responsible for Youth -- that we would deal as best we could in a small, open economy like British Columbia with youth unemployment. That's why we have the Guarantee for Youth; that's why we froze tuition fees; that's why we have the largest youth employment program in Canada -- the largest in B.C. history; that's why we've taken all these measures.

But I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is correct: there are some structural questions about unemployment that have to be dealt with. One of the things I've done is form a Business Advisory Committee on Youth Employment chaired by Paul Lee, whom the members may know -- former CEO of Electronic Arts, now general manager of Electronic Arts -- a very accomplished, successful, young business person in British Columbia. The committee -- a very blue-chip committee, in my view -- consists of. . . . Jerry Lampert sits on that committee; Bob Fairweather from the Vancouver Board of Trade sits on that committee. We have representatives of bankers on that committee -- private sector people all. Paul Lee put that committee together. They're meeting monthly -- intensive work -- giving advice to the government.

I've told the committee that while we might not accept all the advice, we want to see that committee come up with significant structural changes that they might recommend to government, which would enable us to move forward.

There are clearly challenges for youth unemployment which are significant and debilitating for young people, bad for the economy in Canada and specifically for British Columbia. While we have made some strides and created over 10,000 jobs for young people -- which is very significant, better than anywhere else in Canada -- unemployment is still too high. Structural changes may well be required to deal with that. We have a committee of private sector business people giving advice to government on that. I agree with the member that structural changes are the kinds of things we should be looking at. We will be looking at that, and I look forward to the committee's recommendation to government some time in the next few months. Hopefully, it will help form the basis for both budget-making and policy-making in government in the years ahead.

G. Campbell: I want to pursue that a little bit, because we have had a number of business committees that have been struck, with probably many of the same people that were sitting on them in the past. I can recall when the former Premier stood up and informed us all that a business committee had come together. He told us that they had created a debt management plan and that it was the best thing since sliced bread. In fact, last year the Premier said in his estimates that the debt management plan was going to be met and that they were going to keep on striving to put that into place. What happened to the debt management plan was that it was thrown in the wastepaper basket when the government clearly didn't have the will or the expertise or the knowledge on how to implement that.

The issue is not that you've got an excellent group of people who are providing advice. The real issue is what kind of mind-set the Premier and the government have in accepting that advice. What is the Premier thinking about how he 

[ Page 6541 ]

would change things? It's not just how the business community is thinking. The business community, for example, was very clear. They were thinking for the last number of years that they should not have sectoral bargaining. The Premier thinks sectoral bargaining is good, and it's close to his heart. The question is: what does the Premier think? What are the directions the Premier will take to try and reduce this incredible fact that there are 21,000 fewer young people at work in B.C. today? There are 21,000 fewer job opportunities in British Columbia today, in July of 1997, than there were in January of 1997 for the young people of this province. What will the Premier do? What is he thinking of doing? What would he like to do? It's not just saying to this committee: "Why don't you just tell me some ideas?" The Premier has thought about these things; he's the Minister Responsible for Youth. What does the Premier think he should do to reduce this?

We know that the business community thinks you've got to reduce regulation. We know the business community thinks you've got to reduce taxes. We know the business community thinks it's time for the Premier and the government to talk to the small businesses of British Columbia who create the jobs -- 90 percent of the new jobs. We know that over the last few months, that's exactly the group that's been ignored by the government. So if that's the group that's being ignored, how are we going to move forward so that we don't have these kinds of really disastrous statistics in terms of the next generation of British Columbians who are looking for work?

Hon. G. Clark: It's pretty straightforward, what we're doing about youth unemployment -- which is more than any jurisdiction in Canada. We started the environment youth teams to give young people who are not in school a chance to get a job and get into the workforce. We brought in a Student Summer Works program to give students a chance at a job. We brought in a new program, First Job in Science and Technology. We reduced the subsidy this year, and it's still oversubscribed. It gives young people their first job in science and technology, because we have graduates who are going begging at the same time as there are jobs available.

We brought in a youth business and entrepreneurship program to try to give young people the opportunity to start their own business. It's a huge success, with 60 businesses now started up directly as a result of those training programs. We partnered it this year with a mentoring program, which starts in the fall, with business people in British Columbia giving their time to help young people start their own business. We work with the banks, because they have a new program for youth unemployment for young entrepreneurs trying to start a new business. We have a Crown initiative to try to get Crown corporations to be good corporate citizens and create jobs for young people. We have the Job Start program to give a training subsidy for businesses to get young people into the workforce in a cost-effective way. The subsidy is for two months, and the company has to agree to hire them for four months.

We started a business advisory committee to look at structural problems of unemployment and to make recommendations on how we can deal specifically with it. We're bringing in soon a tax credit program for the film industry -- we're already number one in Canada. We can grow more jobs in that sector with indigenous production, and we have a very exciting plan for the fall and next year, leading to more jobs in that sector. In the jobs and timber accord, we now have a working group of government and business on a tax credit program to employ young people in the forest sector -- again, dealing with the structural impediments to jobs for young people.

We have done a significant amount. Is it enough? The answer is clearly no. Clearly unemployment is still too high. Clearly we have more work to do, but we are working very hard on it with innovative new programs with the private sector, and we've had some significant success. We're not satisfied with it. We need to do better. We will do better.

G. Campbell: Again we're hearing about dealing with the surface of this problem. The fact is that the superficial dealing with the problem, in terms of subsidies and returns and saying, "We'll take some money, and we might give you a little bit of money back; maybe we'll do 75 percent, or maybe we'll do 25 percent. . . ." For all of that, there are 21,000 fewer jobs available to young people today than there were in January of this year.

What the Premier is responding to is not a structural change. In fact, what the Premier is saying to us just now with that answer is: "Well, I'm not going to make any structural changes; I'll keep on seeing what I can do just hither and yon." That does not work. Talk to some of these people. Talk to some of these young people in the universities; talk to some of the young people who are graduating from high school and are looking for opportunities. Talk to the young people in Terrace and ask them what they are looking for in terms of their future. They don't look; they can't look. There aren't enough government programs. There aren't enough government subsidies to provide for those jobs.

When you look at this matter, it seems to me that what we have do is say: "What are the fundamental changes that we're going to make? How could we actually. . . ?" Wouldn't it be great if the small business community was getting up in the morning and going out and saying: "Boy, how can I hire someone to help me?" Isn't that a preferable situation to one where they say, "How can we lay someone off"? and then the government says, "How can we encourage you or pay you to try and keep the person on that you were going to lay off?" and there's all that kind of loss and friction in the economy? Why won't we look at something fundamental in terms of how we hire young people, reduce the regulatory burden that we're placing on people and reduce the incredible tax load that we're putting on small businesses, so that they do have a chance to flourish -- not because the government says, "We will allow you to flourish," but because we encourage all of them to flourish?

I guess the challenge is -- and I want to come back to the Premier on this: is the government willing to do anything fundamental? There wasn't one fundamental change in approach that was itemized by the Premier then. Are you willing to do anything fundamental, so that next year at this time we will not have the kind of exceptional job losses that we've had for the young people of this province?

In June of 1996, 13.9 percent of the young people in this province were unemployed. In June of 1997, 16.1 percent of the young people of this province were unemployed. That's staggering. That's like a lost generation of young people who are looking for help. What we should be doing is saying, "How can we encourage those businesses; how can we encourage them to actually hire young people again?" instead of saying: "How can we encourage them to see if they will apply for a government program, which may in fact result in a job?" Why not say we want to hire lots of people? Maybe we 

[ Page 6542 ]

should look at the whole science and technology industry and think about how we can encourage them to hire people without a subsidy. That's the issue that I'd like the Premier to address: what are we willing to do that will encourage the creation of jobs in this province that won't cost subsidies to the taxpayers and that actually ignites the spirit of free enterprise, so that they're going out and hiring young people again?

Hon. G. Clark: We have not simply been engaging in subsidies. First of all, we've been engaging in training initiatives in partnership with the private sector. Secondly, we cut income taxes in this province by 2 percent a year ago and by 2 percent again recently -- a 4 percent cut in income tax. We cut the small business income tax rate by 10 percent. We have the lowest small business income tax rate now in British Columbia in ten years. We have made fundamental structural changes.

We just recently did a report by Peat Marwick showing us to have lower corporate taxes on business than any jurisdiction on the U.S. west side. We have the lowest business taxes, compared with Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado or virtually any of the states on the western side of the U.S. We have lower business taxes consistently. We have cut them further for small business -- a 9 percent small business income tax rate.

I was in the chamber on that side of the House when the then Social Credit minister raised the small business tax rate by 10 percent. He made the argument that they must do that for equity in the tax system because of the increase in income taxes. We've now reduced. . . . The income tax rate for small business is now lower today than it was in 1987. We've cut corporate income tax for small businesses. And we cut personal income tax by 4 percent in the last two years.

The program the member refers to is not structural change. Bringing in a tax credit to employ young people in the forest sector would be a significant structural change. Bringing in a tax credit to employ people in the film industry is a significant structural change -- reducing taxes for those people. So we are engaging in a variety of programs, some of which are subsidy programs, some of which are training programs, some of which involve freezing tuition fees.

We've cut taxes for everybody in British Columbia and cut taxes for small business in the last two years by a significant amount. Any statistics across Canada will show that we are extremely competitive on the tax side for businesses. In fact, we are significantly lower than any of our competing states south of us. The members, if they do any work on that, will see that. That is one of the reasons why Canada is doing extremely well by world standards in terms of attracting investment-creating jobs.

Can we do better? The answer is yes. Can we do better in British Columbia? The answer is yes. But we have made significant strides with some significant structural changes. In my view, we should do more, which is why we have a series of initiatives underway to look at ways that we can make further structural changes to create jobs for young people.

[8:00]

But, you know, surprisingly, I was sitting here when the Premier was the Minister of Finance and he raised the small business tax in British Columbia. Only a member of the NDP would raise the small business tax and then try and get credit for reducing it to where it was when he started raising it. The fact of the matter is that small businesses in British Columbia have been hit with successive tax increases, successive fee increases -- in fact, billions of dollars of tax increases and fee increases -- since this government took office. There is no question that this tax regime has hurt small business.

Let's decide who you might go and talk to. Talk to your neighbourhood hobby store, your neighbourhood shoemaker.

An Hon. Member: Ice cream man.

G. Campbell: Your neighbourhood ice. . . . I don't care who you go to. They're not going to tell you: "You know, one of the things I feel really happy about in B.C. is that my taxes are so incredibly low. Boy, it's good up here. You know, I was just in Washington talking to a guy, and he said: 'Boy, my taxes are way up. You're so lucky in British Columbia.' "

If that was the case, hon. Premier, two things would be apparent there. First, just so we're clear, you wouldn't have 21,000 fewer young people employed today than you did in January -- 21,000 fewer job opportunities. I know that's tough, but you've got to understand that.

The second thing that would happen is that this province would be attracting incredible private sector investment, not more and more public debt. I wonder where British Columbia ranks in terms of private sector investment. Does anyone have any idea on that side of the House? Out of the six largest provinces in Canada, do you know where British Columbia ranks in 1997? It's last, dead last. In terms of per capita investment in this province, per capita business investment has been going down and down in this province, when you take out residential development, which is generated by population growth. The fact of the matter is that private sector investment has gone down in this province, per capita. Private sector investment is the way you create jobs. Private sector investment is the way you create small businesses, which create 90 percent of the jobs.

I am staggered that the Premier thinks those small businesses are in such great shape. I mean, we just sat here, and the government passed a piece of legislation which dumped multimillions of dollars of additional costs onto small businesses across the province in their property tax bills. They did that without consultation. So let me ask the Premier this. Has the Premier sat down with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and said to them: "Could you tell me how I might be able to encourage more of you to create more jobs in the province?"

Hon. G. Clark: You know, listening to the members opposite, it tells me again why they're on that side of the House. Listen to them. They think the only reason business invests is because of our tax rate, that it's the only variable -- oh, sorry, and regulations. If we get rid of the minimum wage and give a tax break to the wealthy and to business, the province will be wonderful. It would be heaven for the Liberal Party. Listen, you're drinking your own bathwater. We have the lowest business taxes on the west side of North America. 

[ Page 6543 ]

These are not opinions, these are factual questions easily researched. Instead of drinking your own bathwater and simply saying, "Oh, it's terrible, the taxes are too high here," look just south of the border and do the comparison.

Are small business people struggling? Yes. I'm not saying that everything's rosy and wonderful and that people are making record profits. Clearly no business person wants to pay any tax -- in fact, no citizen wants to pay any tax. I don't want to pay any tax. That's natural; we understand that. I understand that people are concerned about the tax rate. That's why we cut small business taxes by 10 percent. That's why we cut taxes on individuals by 4 percent: 2 percent a year for two years.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Listen, hon. Chair, listen to the members opposite. We are making progress, prudent and measured progress to cut taxes while protecting services. The Liberals stand in the House every day and want us to spend more money. They want us to spend more money on welfare, more money on recovery and more money on programs for business. They want us to cut government revenue by giving tax breaks to big business, tax breaks to small business and tax breaks to the rich. Instead, we have cut taxes on small business and on individuals, and we've brought in the largest single tax break for the working poor in the history of Canada, in the B.C. Benefits program. That's over $250 million right into the pockets of the working poor that they spend in small businesses. They spend that money right back into the economy; they don't save a penny of it. It's a significant tax break for low-income working people, a tax break for everybody and a tax break for small business.

We're not perfect. We need to do better. Clearly we're struggling, but this almost bizarre ideological view -- which we never heard from Social Credit or from other previous governments in the history of this province -- that we should get rid of the minimum wage and cut taxes on business and that everything would be wonderful in British Columbia is so simplistic. That's why they'll always be on that side of the House.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members!

G. Campbell: The bizarre ideology is an ideology that ignores the fact that there are 21,000 fewer young people at work now than there were in January of 1997. The bizarre ideology is an ideology that doesn't seem to care and isn't willing to learn, when 62 percent of the young people are participating in the labour force. That's the lowest level it has been in 20 years, and we get that kind of discussion from the Premier.

The issue here is. . . . The question I will ask the Premier requires a yes-or-no answer. Has the Premier ever sat down with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and said: "What is it that the government should do to create an environment where you want to hire young people?" Has the Premier ever done that?

Hon. G. Clark: I've met with the coalition of small businesses and discussed the fact that we were cutting taxes for small business and asked them to support that initiative. I was pleased when we made the announcement that they were broadly supportive.

G. Campbell: To the Premier again: has he ever sat down with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and said to them: "Could you tell me what you would have us do so that we could create an environment that would encourage you to hire more young people in the province of British Columbia?" Has he ever done that?

Hon. G. Clark: I misunderstood the question. The coalition of small business I have not sat down with. . . . I was thinking of Suromitra Sanatani's organization, which isn't the coalition. I don't know; there's a bunch of groups in it. Sorry, I haven't met with it. The group that involves. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I know it's a shock to the members opposite, but I don't really worry about interest groups in British Columbia too much; I try to meet with everybody. I know that members opposite meet with them all the time to plot strategy and to raise money, but I don't worry about it. I have not met with the coalition of small business and I have no plans to do so.

The Chair: Might I remind everyone that we are on the Premier's estimates with respect to youth.

G. Campbell: The Premier has just told us that he doesn't worry about interest groups. That's fine; that's laudable. Congratulations. Let's accept that at face value.

Does the Premier worry about the youth of the province of British Columbia? Does the Premier worry that there were 21,000 lost jobs for young people between January and July? Maybe the Premier could just. . . . This is a simpler question: how does the Premier think we create jobs in British Columbia? How does he think we could create jobs? Let's start there: what's the way to create the jobs?

Hon. G. Clark: Just to clarify, I have met with the Federation of Independent Business but not the coalition of small business, because the coalition is a relatively recent group. And, as I say, I have no plans to meet with them, either. I say I have no plans to meet with the coalition of small business, but I will meet with individual constituent groups of them, and I have met with probably all or most of them over the last few years. I would be happy to meet with any of them. But I've not met with the coalition as a group, and I have no plans to do so.

With respect to youth unemployment, I'm clearly concerned about that. They're not an interest group; they represent British Columbians. The member keeps referring to statistics. It's clear that the unemployment rate amongst young people has gone down by 2 percentage points in one month in British Columbia -- to 14.7 percent from 16.7 percent. But 14.7 percent is still too high, and we have a series of programs to deal with that. We have to look at structural change to do so, and that's what we're engaged in doing.

Rather than having simply ideological rhetoric from the other side, they should give some advice as to what we should do. Any time we can get the Liberal Party on record supporting the elimination of the minimum wage and tax cuts, I'm happy, because it further divorces them from the mainstream in British Columbia.

G. Campbell: It's amazing to me that the Premier looks upon the Coalition of B.C. Businesses as being sort of a new group. They've been around for five years, they've been wor-

[ Page 6544 ]

ried about what's happening for five years, they've tried to communicate with the government for five years, and now at least we have it on the record that the Premier has no interest in meeting with them as a coalition. What better way to actually find out how you might create jobs for young people than to ask the people that create them?

Interjection.

G. Campbell: They are. Small businesses create jobs.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: Okay, we now know that anybody that has a suggestion might be a politician, as opposed to trying to think about what we're going to do with employment and hiring young people. I mean, it's exactly that attitude that has led to the problem we have today.

It's exactly that attitude that has meant there were 21,000 lost jobs for young people in the province between January and July of this year. It's exactly that attitude that has meant there were 10,000 lost jobs in the economy between January and May of this year. It's exactly that attitude that has led to British Columbia, the best province in the country to invest in, being in fact in last place in terms of private sector investment. If the Premier doesn't think that has a negative impact on job creation, we're all in serious difficulty.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: We are in serious difficulty. You're right.

The Premier has a number of advisers who advise him about the economy, and one of the things the advisers have told him is that Alberta actually has an economic strategy and had taken initiatives as it headed into an election. Now, what they have is a strong economy, and we do not have that in British Columbia today. What they have is low debt, and they have a free-market and competitive-business approach. Maybe I should ask the Premier if he thinks that a free-market competitive-business approach is the way we can create jobs in British Columbia. Let's start there.

[8:15]

G. Campbell: The boys clap. That's a good thing.

Your advisers have said that it was important to create a stable investment climate in British Columbia. Can the Premier tell us how he feels Bill 44 created a stable investment climate when the entire business community was opposed to it? The entire business community said they were opposed to it and continue to be opposed to it, and the Premier still holds it up as a hammer for next spring's session. How does that create a stable investment climate in British Columbia?

The Chair: I would remind the member that we are on the Premier's estimates for the Ministry Responsible for Youth.

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 44 did cause a lot of concern in the business community, so we're not proceeding with it, and we're going through a process of discussing any potential changes. It's my view that it was a very modest change that would make some significant progress toward fairness in certain sectors of the community, but others disagreed, so we have gone back to engage in consultation. Truly, the way to build investor confidence in British Columbia, in part, is for the government to always be listening to all British Columbians and responding to their concerns, which is why we're doing that. That's why we took a step back from the legislation and engaged in the process.

G. Campbell: You see, the problem is that the Premier says one thing and then he does another, and that creates an unstable business environment in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Campbell: The Premier has just told us he has no intention of meeting with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, who have had grave concerns with regard to this. The Premier announced that he was going to consult and then didn't consult with those small businesses. The challenge, I think, is for the Premier to understand that it is small business that creates job opportunities. It is small business that creates opportunities for young people to find employment, regardless of where they live in the province.

I think the issue we have to deal with is that when the Premier's own advisers are telling him to do something and he does the exact opposite, that obviously creates an unstable investment environment. You don't go from being number one as a province in Canada in private sector investment to being in last place of the major provinces without doing something wrong. In terms of private sector investment, out of the six largest provinces in Canada, British Columbia is last. We are last. Our people are last, and their challenge is that it's the government that has provided that barrier; the government is providing that barrier.

Can the Premier tell us what the government has done to increase opportunities for B.C. resources -- to truly increase them so we have more investment in them? We had an announcement this spring about a new charter for mining. We know that in 1997, we have the lowest level of investment in exploration in the mining industry in British Columbia that we've had since 1971. That is not the way to create jobs. That is not the way to create opportunity or create an industry.

So again I have to come back. . . . I'll close this section with this: because of this government's policies over the last six months, we have 21,000 fewer jobs in this province available for B.C.'s youth. The Premier has told us tonight that he intends to do nothing fundamental about that, just as he said last year: "We're going to put all these programs together." And the government failed miserably to provide young people with true job opportunities, true choices. This year he's saying: "We're a lot worse than we were last year, but you know, we'll just keep doing more of what we're doing, and somehow we'll get a different result." We won't get a different result.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Television ads don't create jobs. An investment climate that reduces regulatory overload, that reduces people's taxes, that encourages free enterprise, that encourages people to invest in the young people of this province. . . . That's what will create the kind of job opportunities that young people need. The Premier is not willing to meet with the Coalition of 

[ Page 6545 ]

B.C. Businesses. I guess I have to ask the Premier once again: are there any initiatives that the government intends to undertake where the government itself will start to deal with those structural concerns which have driven young people's jobs out of the marketplace -- not just last year and not just this year, but if we don't do something, for good?

Hon. G. Clark: It's interesting, hon. Chair, because members of the Liberal Party, including just before the dinner break, were talking about all the programs that we're engaged in: environment youth teams, Student Summer Works, First Job in Science and Technology, youth business and entrepreneurship training. I thought the Liberals were asking for more money to be spent on those programs. That's what we were hearing: there should be more money spent on Student Summer Works and more money on all these programs. Now the leader comes in and says: "These are all garbage; don't do any of those. Just cut taxes on business and everything would be wonderful." Clearly the leader of the party should talk to his colleagues, because they took a different position before dinner than he's taking after dinner. But I guess that's not unusual.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm hearing heckling. If the members opposite are opposed to all of these programs, I'd like to hear that so we can tell the 10,000 young people who are working in these initiatives that the Liberals are opposed to that.

There is no simplistic answer to youth unemployment. These initiatives are part of a broad-range government strategy and are important, and in and of themselves create 10,000 or 12,000 jobs for young people -- a good step. I would hope the Liberals opposite would support that. If they don't, that's fine. There's 12,000 more young people working because of those initiatives.

Do we need structural change? Yes, we do. We've engaged in a series of initiatives to do that. What's the single biggest driver of capital investment in British Columbia? The forest industry is the single biggest driver. We've just engaged the forest industry in a year-long strategy designed to cut regulations and save money, to deal with their concerns about the market-sensitive nature of the stumpage. . .industry. We're going to see significant capital investment returning to that sector as the markets recover and as these policies take place. We have in fact already announced a new LVL plant in Golden, a direct result of government initiatives. We have announced a co-gen plant at Elk Falls, a direct result of government initiatives. Over the course of the next year, as a result of the jobs and timber accord, we will be making announcement after announcement with the private sector on investments in British Columbia to create jobs.

So aside from all the specific programs to create jobs -- which now we know the Liberals are opposed to -- we also have made fundamental changes in forestry. We're working on a plan with the mining industry to make changes. We've worked on a plan with the tourism industry to give the private sector more influence on development. We're working on a plan with the film industry to dramatically increase investment in film in British Columbia.

Clearly this government is an activist government when it comes to youth employment, and we don't take a simplistic approach that simply cutting taxes, getting rid of the minimum wage and cutting regulation will create jobs for young people.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, order, please. It's not possible for either side to hear themselves, never mind the other side. So I encourage a little more quiet, a little more order.

G. Campbell: I was interested to hear that the Premier feels they are an activist government. Unfortunately, they're actively driving job opportunities out of the economy for the young people of British Columbia.

I'm surprised that the Premier would go back to the so-called jobs accord, because we know what the jobs accord is. Actually, it's interesting, because the Northern Forest Products Association really highlights, I think, the Premier's last few words about that when it says: "The political flavour of this accord and the apparent intention of government to advertise and promote it aggressively could lead to exaggeration and misinterpretation of the industry's commitment and our precondition that the accord hinges on the industry's economic viability." "Exaggeration" is right. Travel up and down the province, travel to the resource communities of the province, and what you'll find many times -- I guess I got two or three of them when I was in Williams Lake and 100 Mile House -- is a little message to the people of those communities called "A Dance with Deception: The Jobs and Timber Accord." Not surprisingly, it has a picture of the Premier on it.

Hon. Chair, we know what this government has done to the forest industry in British Columbia. It has brought it to its knees, and 5,500 British Columbians who used to work in the forest industry no longer do so. The Premier himself last year told us that there were 110,000 jobs in the forest industry, and this year he tells us there are 85,000. That's a phenomenal drop in the number of people that are employed. So which one of those situations is right? Again, I want to be really clear about this. The 21,000 young people that don't have jobs today are people that are missing out on something that they deserve in this province, and this government has created that problem for them.

We sit today in a province that used to be a province where our resource communities flourished. I was in the airport in Terrace on Sunday night, and a family was waiting there to pick up one of their sons. There was a husband, a wife and three kids, and the man came up to me and said: "You know, I've just lost my job in the forest industry. I've only got $5,000 to provide for my rent, my food, my family. I don't know where I'm going to find a job in the future." And that's just one. It's not a statistic; it's a family, and there are six people there.

Go across the northwest of this province -- and I would challenge any of those members of the House who are sitting there smirking to themselves about that -- and talk to those families about what's happened as a result of this government's policies, and tell them that the best way to deal with the forest industry in the province is to run a bunch of phony ads on television telling them they're dealing with it. They're not dealing with it; the industry itself says that they're not dealing with it. As a result of that, it's not just our young people who are unemployed. We're losing jobs across the province in community after community. Go to Prince Rupert or Terrace or Hazelton or Smithers or Prince George or Williams Lake or 100 Mile House.

I was in 100 Mile House the other day. What is the Premier's brilliant accord going to do there? Seventy-five people are going to lose their jobs. Guess what: they don't count. Those 75 families don't make any difference to the 

[ Page 6546 ]

Premier's fancy accord. It doesn't show up well on television to show 75 families out of work, wondering where they're going to go next to make money to be able to pay for their kids, to buy their food and to pay for their homes. But if that same company, which is laying 75 families off, hires two people, the Premier says: "I've made two jobs in the forest industry." It's absolute garbage to say that.

The problem is that it has a huge negative impact on the people of this province. When you look at that, I think it is clear that we need to have a change in the way the government approaches the economy. We need to have a change, where the government is seen as a government that encourages private sector investment and that actually encourages young people to be employed. You know what? I would say -- and I'm the first to admit that not one member in this chamber has all the answers to all the problems. . . . Wouldn't it be great if we actually went out and talked to the people who actually create those jobs, who actually want to go and strive to give those young people the opportunity they need?

So I guess I'm not surprised, I am. . . .

An Hon. Member: Disappointed.

G. Campbell: Thank you. I'm very disappointed that the Premier is not even willing to talk to the people and the organizations that might be able to give the government some idea of where to go. And I'm very disappointed that instead of dealing with the fact that there are 21,000 more young people unemployed just six months after January of 1997 -- 21,000 jobs have been lost for youth in this province -- he tries to paper it over and pretend that it's okay. It is not all right for those young people; it's not all right for British Columbia.

I'd like to move to another area of concern that I think many people have. It's one that we canvassed last year during the Premier's estimates. It has to do with parliamentary reform, legislative reform in British Columbia. It has to do with remembering why we're here and finding new ways that we can deal with this, so that we in fact can respond to the needs of the people of this province. I believe that if we had the kind of parliamentary reform we need, it would be far easier for the people of the northwest, the Kootenays, Vancouver Island or the Cariboo to actually participate and share with us what they really believe is happening in their lives as a result of whatever government policy is out there -- to actually reach out to those citizens and say: "These are ways that you can participate and tell us some of the solutions that you may come up with."

[8:30]

It is a report that is not. . . . I think this is critical. It may not be a report that's unanimous, but it is a report that clearly puts together the best thoughts of Members of the Legislative Assembly on how we can move forward and take steps forward. I believe we could find that in many other areas of endeavour that are equally important to the Nisga'a agreement and the whole question of how we deal with the aboriginal issues in British Columbia. So I guess I would start by saying we took a small step last year. I would like to hear if the Premier has any thoughts about how we may be able to move forward.

I particularly believe it would be worthwhile for us as a Legislature to look at having a fixed legislative calendar, which would put, I understand, more discipline on the opposition side of the House. I think that's something we could look for. It would also put more constraints around the government side of the House. But it would be a situation where the people of British Columbia would know what's taking place, would have an opportunity to contribute, participate and feel that government was actually listening to their concerns.

I want to give you two examples. I don't believe there's anyone in this House who doesn't believe we have two incredibly critical services that we provide in this province: education and health care. Frankly, I'm staggered that since I was elected three years ago, not once have either of those committees met. Not once have we as a Legislature sat in a committee, an all-party committee, searching for the solutions to the problems we face. I believe it is important that we find new mechanisms that would encourage everyone in this House to participate in that.

I'm interested in whether the Premier has over the last year had any further thoughts about how we could improve the quality of the Legislative calendar, how we could make sure that the public has more access to what is taking place in the Legislature of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm disappointed, of course, that we didn't get a chance to meet on this subject, because the Leader of the Opposition knows that I also feel strongly there's a need for parliamentary reform. We have made some incremental progress. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that we've had some parliamentary committees meet, more than at any time. I've been here for almost 12 years, and there is more use of members who are not in cabinet than at any time in those 12 years, whether it's parliamentary committees like the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, which met more frequently than any parliamentary committee in British Columbia history and produced very good work, while not a consensus. . . .

Secondly, there are smaller committees. For example, the committee that reviewed the Motor Carrier Commission involved a member of the opposition and a member of the government side. This was not a parliamentary committee. It was a committee that the minister put together of her own volition, approved by the cabinet, to make recommendations. It had consensus with respect to that. Both members from both parties worked very hard to seek that.

So I think my position is very clear. We have to keep working at involving members from all parties and members who are not in cabinet in decision-making in this chamber. There is just simply too much talent on all sides of the House outside of cabinet to not make use of them to help make government policy. And I'm open to any and all suggestions that members of the opposition may have with respect to that.

There were some complaints on our side that, because we had quite a few committees going at the same time, there was a workload question for members from time to time. If we could find a way to reduce the time spent in this House in relatively meaningless debates -- and I don't mean that in a pejorative way for any members -- in ritualistic debates, and 

[ Page 6547 ]

then free up some time for serious deliberations by committees. . . . I give an example to members, for those of you who. . . . I apologize for sounding like too much of a veteran, but having been here for 12 years to see the estimates process now go double -- and I think now triple this year -- the length of time that it used to when I first came to this House. . . .

The House didn't always sit on Wednesday. In fact, the standing order is that it's an optional day. Wednesday is supposed to be a committee day, for cabinet and for members of the House to meet in committee. Unfortunately, in the last six years I don't think there has been a Wednesday yet that we have adjourned for committee work. That is ridiculous, but it is impossible to take the Wednesday off when members of the House are consuming hours and days and weeks of time on estimates debates which have not, frankly, improved the quality either of the government's performance or of the opposition's performance in this chamber.

So if we can find a way that the chamber can be used in shorter but perhaps sharper debate on important issues, we could then have the optional sitting day, not sit in the chamber but sit to consider members' business -- business of members who are not in cabinet and who give advice to the government and to the public about positions. I've been an advocate of this for some time. We have made some very tentative steps from formal committees to informal committees, where the critic and a member of the government side met on the Motor Carrier Commission, and we have allowed six committees to sit outside of session -- again, as of today, a record. So we've made some modest progress but clearly, in my judgment, not enough, and I would very much be interested in doing more. Unfortunately, we haven't had a very good committee system that works with respect to getting all members of the House to agree on changes which we could implement in a civilized fashion.

F. Gingell: We sat in this House 15 months ago, and the Premier of the province, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, made the commitment to this House that the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations would meet and actually do some work, that the Crown Corporations. . . . I'll let the minister get quickly briefed by the Government House Leader. As a matter of fact, the Government House Leader and I entered into a discussion at this time last year, at which time we agreed that the Public Accounts Committee would sit intersessionally at the end of the 1996 session and that the Crown Corporations Committee would sit intersessionally after the 1997 session.

I got to the point this year, after having pleaded for the Public Accounts Committee to continue sitting. . . . And I'm pleased that the Government House Leader allowed that to happen, because we have a lot of work; there are a lot of reports coming forward. The government does take notice of what the Public Accounts Committee does, and I think that is worthwhile.

The Premier of this province made a very clear commitment that he was going to create a Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations that would meet and that would deal with all the issues relating to Crown corporations. Resolutions were put forward today to allow committees to sit on the issues of freedom of information, on the appointment of a police commissioner and on allowing the committee on forestry, energy or whatever to sit and deal with the business plan of Forest Renewal B.C., which is required by legislation. I was disappointed and surprised that the government didn't also come forward with a motion that would allow the Crown Corporations Committee to sit and deal with the issues that surely all of us, on all sides of the House, want to deal with: the efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy of Crown corporations.

I don't believe the decision for that committee not to sit was made in a vacuum. I would be interested in a response from the Premier as to why he reneged on his promise to allow that committee to sit intersessionally and deal with all the issues that relate to Crown corporations and the issues that have to do with the citizens of this province.

Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct. Last year, for the first time in the history of B.C., we discussed allowing Public Accounts to sit between sessions. At the time we had the discussion, I said that because of other business for members, we would have either the Public Accounts Committee sit or the Crown Corporations Committee. At that time, we said it would be the Public Accounts Committee, and we would try to do Crown Corporations after this session.

My understanding -- and that's why I talked to the House Leader -- was that the Public Accounts Committee would be sitting again between sessions. If the member is now suggesting that he thinks it's appropriate that the Crown Corporations Committee sit between sessions instead of Public Accounts, then I will take that very seriously.

As I said earlier -- and I'm not trying to use this in debate here -- I did try to meet with the Leader of the Opposition. We went back and forth for a while, but we weren't able to connect -- his schedule's very busy and so is mine -- to talk about some of these very questions, so I have not dealt specifically with that issue. Now that the member has raised it, I'm quite prepared to allow the Crown Corporations Committee to sit between sessions, if Public Accounts does not. If that's the wish of the opposition, we can do that.

F. Gingell: I would like to suggest to the Premier that the Public Accounts Committee is presently dealing with an issue at the request of the Minister of Finance. We have an issue in front of us that is important in the Ministry of Finance and important to the government. The minister would really like the Public Accounts Committee to consider the issue of the entity, a somewhat complex issue about what the financial statement should include.

Besides that issue, the Public Accounts Committee has a whole series of reports prepared by the auditor general that we really should deal with. It would be a mistake for us not to deal with those issues on Tuesday mornings from eight to 9:30. I commend members from both sides of the House for turning up very early and getting on with their work. The process carries on. The Premier really shouldn't consider, I would suggest, that you do one or the other.

Originally, I agree, there was a discussion about who would sit when. I would suggest to the Premier that the decision for Public Accounts to continue sitting intersessionally is to deal with an issue that the Minister of Finance and the government would like the committee to make recommendations on: what is the entity? It's a rather complex subject, a lot more complex than any of us realized when we were first given this assignment, and we accepted it willingly.

This government talks about accountability. How do we create a process by which. . . ?

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, the Minister of Transportation and Highways has some thoughts.

[ Page 6548 ]

Hon. L. Boone: You're changing your mind.

F. Gingell: No, I'm not changing my mind, not at all. If you don't want us to sit, that's fine. I will have a nice, easy fall and not have to deal with this issue, and you won't have the advantage of a recommendation from the committee.

But surely this government recognizes that accountability to the public is a big issue. You cannot cut off accountability issues related to Crown corporations, which are a big part of government organizations. This Premier suggested it would sit for sure. Because this government has asked the Public Accounts Committee to deal with some side issues which a year and four months ago were not considered to be important and are considered to be now, both committees should sit.

[8:45]

I would suggest to you that suggesting that the Public Accounts Committee or the Crown Corporations Committee sit is a terrible mistake. You should allow them both to sit. We on the Public Accounts Committee have a job to do that's no more important than the job that the Crown Corporations Committee needs to do. The chief minister of the province, the Premier, will be better served if he has advice from the Crown Corporations Committee, which will look into the issues of the role that B.C. Hydro plays in delivering services to the province and in socioeconomic issues that relate to the province, and it is only in a select standing committee that you'll get real issues dealt with.

Estimates is not the process that works, and I know the Premier agrees with that. I would strongly encourage him to bring forward another motion before this House rises that allows the Crown Corporations Committee to sit, so he will live up to the commitment that he made to this House and the people of British Columbia 15 months ago.

Hon. G. Clark: I take the member's comments very seriously, and even though it's late in the session, I'll consider again the possibility of both sitting. I want to note for the record that the member has consistently said that both committees should meet, and it's been my decision earlier in our discussion, about a year ago, that we could really have only one meet at any given time, given the busyness of the schedule for members and other committees that were meeting.

We decided at that time that Public Accounts and Crowns would be this year, and I'll accept responsibility for that. But again, in my discussions with our House Leader, when I was asked that Public Accounts would meet this session, I automatically assumed that meant that there was an arrangement where that would be the committee that would meet intersessionally.

Now, the member is saying that may have inadvertently happened, but it wasn't a conscious decision; we didn't have that discussion. It's a bit late in the session for me to change that, however, so I'm being very upfront. Members -- and I'm speaking now for members in my caucus -- have a variety of things planned for the fall and a variety of committees, different kinds of things the government is pursuing -- some of which I hope involve opposition members, some of which don't. So we're planning out what to do. It was decided this year that we would have -- again, in some ways decided by default -- the Public Accounts Committee meeting intersessionally. That would consume some members' time, etc., and that would be what we would do.

As I said earlier, I was looking at further changes in consultation with the opposition leader. Unfortunately, we couldn't arrange an appropriate time to do that. So the things moved along. It's now very late in the session.

But to reiterate, I have no problem with the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations meeting. Not only meeting -- I agree completely with the member that we can get better public policy and deal with some of the issues. . . . The Public Accounts Committee is a good example of that, where the work of the committee is of significant value to the government -- not always; we don't always agree with it. But it has thoughtful input on some very important questions for public accountability.

I think the Crown Corporations Committee, if it's managed in the same spirit, could be very useful. I've said that repeatedly; I'm prepared to do it. I thought, by having the Public Accounts Committee meeting, that we weren't going to do it this year, by agreement. You're now reminding me that that's not the case or is inadvertently the case, so I will take another look at it. But I'm afraid it may be a bit late this year to do it.

Not to beat a horse here, but if we could manage the House business better and have Wednesdays free, then we could have the Crown Corporations Committee and others meeting, debating and discussing either annual reports of various Crowns or setting up policy review guidelines -- all of the things that would enhance public accountability, which I think we need in this province for Crown corporations.

It shouldn't just be left to the intersession. Committees should not just be left to between sessions. Committees should be meeting and doing often more interesting and, in some cases, more important and valuable business -- in some ways non-partisan, sometimes partisan business -- that improves decision-making and accountability for the government and the public, rather than spending so much time in the chamber dealing with things which I don't think necessarily enhance accountability or decision-making. It's just my general view that we should try to use committees during the session -- again not to say we've got anywhere near what we should be doing.

But we're certainly doing a lot more today than when I first entered the chamber. Committees are meeting all the time on different things while the House is sitting, whether it's the conflict-of-interest commissioner or other committee meetings. So it's fair to say we are making progress. The member is suggesting we're not making enough progress, and I agree with that.

F. Gingell: I would like to suggest to the Premier that he's not living up to his commitment. Seriously, if you don't want the public, you know. . . . If the issue is Public Accounts or Crown Corporations, I'm in the embarrassing position that a year ago I made a deal with the Chairman of the Crown Corporations Committee that we would meet and they wouldn't, because we had a whole agenda of issues in front of us. We have a whole agenda of issues in front of us now, and to that is added a project that the government has asked us to deal with specifically and make recommendations.

I'm sure that with the authority I have to make substitutions on committees -- and I'm sure the Premier has the same 

[ Page 6549 ]

authority to make substitutions on the government side on committees -- we can work out a group of people, members of this Legislature, who will not duplicate on the issues dealing with freedom of information, appointing a police commissioner, the Forest Renewal business plan or the public accounts, so that we can have a committee made up of members from both sides of this House who will not be involved in these other projects, who can sensibly and thoughtfully deal with the issues related to Crown corporations.

We have time for me to work out who will sit on those committees so they won't have double duty or triple duty. The government can do the same thing. The Premier can instruct the Government House Leader to bring forward a motion to this House, which this side of the House will support, to have the Crown Corporations Committee sit. Two things will happen. First of all, the people of British Columbia will be well served by that happening; and second, for a change you'll have met one of your promises.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm quite prepared to take a look at it. My problem is -- and it has just been sort of highlighted by the member -- that there are more committees meeting out of session than at any time since I came to this chamber as a MLA -- whether it's freedom of information or the police complaints commissioner or Forests or any of the other committees. It's my view that we've reached a stage with members -- and this is after talking to my caucus; it's not really my personal view, but my caucus's view -- that there's a difficulty in terms of planning the agenda for meetings this fall. If the member is saying -- and I almost heard him say -- that he is prepared to defer some Public Accounts Committee meetings, which was our original deal, in order to have the Crown Corporations Committee meet, I think that is probably a necessary precondition to doing it. I just think we're too busy to do all of them. It's probably not fruitful, really, to make these discussions too long in here. I'd be happy to take a look at it again and see if we can't accommodate. I'm not backing away from my view that the Crown Corporations Committee is a good idea and that we should endeavour to have it sit not just when the House is sitting but sit intersessionally.

F. Gingell: If the choice is the Public Accounts Committee or the Crown Corporations Committee meeting intersessionally, then I would be embarrassed for the Public Accounts Committee to sit. We made a commitment to the government earlier that we would sit after the 1995-96 session and the Crown Corporations Committee would sit after 1996-97. I believe truthfully that the reason the government made the decision for the Public Accounts Committee to sit this session was purely and simply because this government had some issues relating to the financial statements and would appreciate the advice of the Public Accounts Committee in arriving at a decision as to what you will do.

The Public Accounts Committee is happy to do that, but not at the cost of the Premier breaking another promise that the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations would sit. So if it's a question of either-or, then clearly it would be inappropriate for me to push for the Public Accounts Committee to sit. I think that's a mistake, and I'm sorry that the Premier thinks it is an either-or situation. As I said earlier, I can work out an assignment from the opposition benches that will not require undue commitment from members of the opposition to serve on committees.

G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, I have a number of issues to raise with regard to legislative reform, but I believe the independent members have a number of questions they would like to raise in the Premier's estimates, as well, so I will yield to them.

R. Neufeld: I would like to ask some questions of the Premier. I know it's not correct to comment that the Premier is not here, but he has gone for a few minutes. Maybe a brief five-minute recess would be in order with the Chair, to wait for the Premier to come back.

The Chair: Hon. member, as you're no doubt aware, any minister of the executive council can respond to any questions on estimates. Proceed, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: I guess I have some difficulty as to whether someone else from the executive council can answer the questions or not. I don't think that is what the issue is about. These are, as I understand, the Premier's estimates. The Premier should be in the House to answer some questions. If there's something more pressing outside the House at the present time, I suggest that we either sit or I can stand for 15 minutes and ask a non-existent question, if that's what we want to do in the House. I just can't imagine, at 9 o'clock at night, why we'd want to engage in this kind of dialogue. I don't think it does anything for any one of us.

[9:00]

R. Neufeld: Obviously, I guess we can carry on with the questioning. The issues surrounding parliamentary reform. . . . I listened intently to the issues that both the Opposition Leader and the Premier brought forward on parliamentary reform, and I would say, as an independent member -- not one of either the government or the opposition -- that we have an opportunity at the present time and in this parliament to work towards a workable parliamentary calendar. I think there are some things happening here that would expedite that in a hurry.

It would mean striking a committee, of course, but we have a member for Peace River South who was elected at the same time the Premier was -- in 1986 -- and is very knowledgable about parliamentary reform and has some good ideas. He would be a good person to chair a committee of government and opposition to bring back to the government some ideas about how we can go about parliamentary reform. I think that on the government side of the House at the present time, they want parliamentary reform as much as we do on the opposition side. I think that the way we are today -- so close -- that is possible.

We have the opportunity to bring in a not-so-partisan person as the Chair, neither from the government and nor from the official opposition, to try and broker some kind of ideas, some suggestions, that wouldn't be binding on government, but that would go to government in the form of a report so they could look at it. I think we should seriously look at that; I think it's a good idea. I think it's one that would bode well for the whole House and make us look a little more responsible in our duties. I wonder what the Premier thinks of that as a suggestion.

Hon. G. Clark: I just want to get clear what the member is saying. Is he saying that we should have an informal committee looking at parliamentary reform in British Columbia, and it should be chaired by someone other than a member of the House?

[ Page 6550 ]

R. Neufeld: No. The chair would be the member for Peace River South, who is neither a member of the official opposition nor a member of government. That's what I'm saying. I think that because of the respect that the member for Peace River South has within the House and around the province, it would be a good process if that person were to chair a committee made up of government and opposition members and bring forward some suggestions to the minister.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll be happy to take that into consideration. As the member knows -- as all members know -- I have a great deal of respect for the member for Peace River South. He's been here as long as I, and there are not very many of us who could say that. He's been in government and in opposition, so he does have, I think, lots of useful ideas.

I have to say, though, that for the House to work, there needs to be a trust in all members of the House in making it work. So while I might respect, and all members respect, the former leader of the Reform Party in this debate, it needs goodwill from members to make it work, and unfortunately, that's what's been absent. While the member for Peace River South would be helpful, I guess, in trying to bridge that -- and, as I say, I'll take it under advisement -- really, at the end of the day, it can't work unless all the members themselves sit down and try to work this out.

Every time I've broached this subject with members of the opposition, it has been rebuffed in some fashion. A long list of demands is produced, we get into a debate, and we can't reach amicable arrangements. It's a tragedy, frankly, because I don't know any other chamber in the Commonwealth that operates this way. When we deal with anything to do with the members who aren't in cabinet. . . . Remember, this is what is very significant: this isn't dealing with cabinet ministers. Cabinet can deal with itself; the executive council can deal with itself. This is for the members of all parties who aren't in cabinet, and it's a travesty that those members have not been able to sit down and collectively try to come to some agreement.

I will keep trying. I take your advice seriously with respect to the member for Peace River South, but unless there's some indication of the willingness of all members to try to work to resolve this. . . . It's not a kind of arbitration process. It's not a process that can be arrived at through beating each other up and trying to come to it. It has to come from members with goodwill.

If we want a parliamentary calendar, which I've been on record as supporting for some time, then we have to drop the partisanship and sit down and talk about how to make this place more civilized and work better. Not all members have been able to drop the partisanship, and that's why we don't have a parliamentary calendar. We have, really, an archaic way of doing the public's business here in British Columbia. It works reasonably well for keeping the government accountable, in my view, and we spend a lot of time in the chamber, but it's more expensive, more tiring and less effective for members.

For the government -- the executive council -- it makes no difference. For members, it is a very cumbersome process that, most importantly, doesn't use the talents of members who aren't in cabinet to contribute to decision-making in British Columbia from all parties. That's something I would very much like to see, and we have not been able to get there. I'll take your comments under advisement, and I'd be happy to try again -- although I tried again just a few weeks ago and was unsuccessful.

R. Neufeld: I'm saddened that that's what is happening in our House, because I don't think it serves British Columbians well with some of the things that have happened. I don't mean just this session; I mean in previous sessions. As a newcomer to the House, I think there are areas that we could certainly work at to make this House more responsible to the people who elect us and put us in here.

I agree with the Premier that there has to be trust. There has to be a good working relationship, and I think that's why I suggested to the Premier that we use one of the independent members of the House to try to bring some kind of settlement to those issues -- for the betterment of us and those who are coming in the future, and for the people of British Columbia -- so that we would have a better House.

That was the idea of my suggestion, and I hope that somehow, between the Premier. . . . I've listened to him, and it will be interesting to hear comments from the Leader of the Official Opposition tonight or tomorrow on the same issue, putting on the public record how his party feels about trying to get together to work out a parliamentary calendar. I hope it can be done. However it's done, I just hope it can be done.

I want to deal briefly with a few issues from my constituency, and this goes back to almost a year ago. It was August 13 when the Premier and I stood in the House during his estimates in 1996 and discussed issues in my constituency. One of them specifically, and one that I've always talked about and will never stop talking about, is the condition of our roads and our infrastructure in the northeast.

It's sad, it's disturbing, and it's getting worse. It's not getting better. That's not to say I don't appreciate the effort the Minister of Transportation and Highways has taken this year to funnel an extra $3 million into the constituencies of Peace River North and Peace River South. I think that a lot of people don't understand what $3 million means when you're talking about 5,000 or 6,000 kilometres of road. Now, there's as much gravel road in my constituency. . . . In fact, there's more gravel road than stretches from Victoria all the way to Fort St. John. It is huge, and that's the part that people can't seem to understand down here. Like I say, I'm not disputing the $3 million; I appreciate it. But it's like sprinkling four rocks on 2,000 miles of road; it just doesn't work. It's not going to alleviate the problems that we've had in the northeast and that we're continuing to experience.

Now, contrary to what was spoken about before about jobs, the northeast is doing well. The oil and gas industry is doing well in the northeast, and the forest industry is doing well. So obviously it encourages an awful lot more traffic on our roads, heavy traffic.

I've said this since I arrived in this House in 1992: as we continue to increase traffic, as we continue to decrease maintenance and rehabilitation, we're going to at some point in time end up with nothing. I guess it was demonstrated to me this spring that we have arrived at nothing. When we start pulling school buses -- and this is the government that talks about concern about education and health care; it's at the top of their priorities. . . . We've seen in the northeast school buses being pulled with four-wheel-drive tractors to get children to school and home. We've seen elderly people phone into the Highways district office to talk about their roads being in such bad shape that they can't get to town to see their doctor, and we have it documented where one lady was told to go buy a four-wheel-drive. This is a lady that is, I believe, over 65 years old being told to get a four-wheel-drive, so that she can get to town to see the doctor. Those are just two issues amongst hundreds.

[ Page 6551 ]

It's not just in my constituency. In the constituency of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, they were laying planks on the road to drive the school buses. That's how bad the north has deteriorated; it's deteriorated dramatically. Like I said, the north is contributing hugely. It is busy, it is working, there is low unemployment, and it's contributing dramatically to the coffers of the province of British Columbia. And yet we can't get the money back there.

I went through this same issue with the Premier last time, and I want to read out of Hansard just a couple of the Premier's remarks. He's talking about the people in my constituency:

"What they don't understand is if the government doesn't have its priorities right. If the government is spending money where they think it's not acceptable, if the government is stonewalling and just stalling and not dealing with the concerns, that just deepens the sense of alienation."

Now, other than the $3 million that was given, over and above what the annual allotment was, nothing more has gone into the roads in Peace River North to alleviate those concerns. I want to know what kind of response the Premier will give me tonight, a year later, that I can take back to the people in Peace River North to let them maybe even start to think that the government cares, that we're really going to address this issue.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I want to commend the member for once again raising a very important issue for his constituents, and I think it's probably the fortieth or fiftieth time this session the member has raised these questions. Good members, of course, do that for their constituencies, from all sides. As the member knows, the member's comments are not new to me. The member knows, as I said last year, how sympathetic we are to his claim.

I hope all members of the House appreciate that the Minister of Transportation and Highways has put additional resources into the north. She would be the first and I'll be the second to acknowledge that it's not enough to deal with the challenge. But having a member from the north, at least -- or the middle of British Columbia for you, member -- should give the member some comfort that she is extremely aware and reminds us always of the poor conditions, particularly in resource communities, in the north.

It's also true that it's a part of the province which is generating enormous wealth for all of us. That wealth is taken out of the region and spent in other parts of British Columbia. So we have an obligation to reinvest.

I am looking forward to a trip to the member's constituency in the fall of this year. I hope, in both Peace River North and Peace River South, to again talk to people. I've met with that member's constituents on Fair Share and some other concerns they have about making sure they get access to the resources. Because of the peculiarities of urban development and industrial development, there's a mismatch there which sometimes disadvantages the communities themselves, because they don't have the tax base that they do in other parts of B.C. So that's a problem. We have made some steps towards improving that. Members up there, including this MLA, are indicating it's not enough. Again, I am very sympathetic to that discussion.

[9:15]

But having said all that, I agree with the member that his particular constituency in that particular region of British Columbia needs some special attention. We are planning a northern economic summit in the fall. I think the member is aware of that. If he's not, we'll make sure of it. I hope the member would consider coming to that. It will be a government event, but it will be one in which we genuinely want to look at economic development in the north of British Columbia. There are significant opportunities.

But those opportunities won't happen without infrastructure. I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is that there will be a consensus from people in the north that this is the one thing the government should be doing to promote economic development: dealing with the chronic underfunding of infrastructure which inhibits that economic growth and even generating more jobs and more wealth for B.C.

So we're going to be working on this. I'll be there personally. We will have a summit looking at it. We'll be looking at a variety of ways to create jobs. Of course, the member will again continue to remind us that we need to invest more. We have invested a little bit more this year, again, relative to the rest of the province. More needs to be done. We're going to work hard to make that happen.

R. Neufeld: Again I appreciate the response, the same as I did last year. I want to bring to the minister's attention that in the Transportation Financing Authority, the Premier told me last year that money was tight, fiscal problems were on the horizon, and it was going to be hard to spend any money.

But I want to remind the Premier that last year the TFA spent $400 million all on southern B.C. -- maybe a little in the Okanagan. It was $400 million, and nothing came north out of that $400 million. Then there was an extra $100 million spent out of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways budget for rehabilitation -- some of which came north; I have to and will admit that.

But out of the $400 million. . . . That's the part I'm trying to get through to the Premier. I'm afraid that what I'll do is see the '97-98 TFA budget again, and I will see that there's another $400 million or $500 million all spent on Vancouver and Vancouver Island again. That's the fiscal framework that we're talking about. All we're asking for in the north is even a small portion of that $400 million to $500 million on a yearly basis so that we can start fixing up our infrastructure.

The Premier talks about having to deal with Vancouver and the lower mainland to keep our competitive advantage. Well, this leads me to my next question about our competitive advantage. The Premier talked earlier about the competitive advantage we have against the U.S. The constituency that I represent borders on Alberta; that's where we have to deal with our competitive advantage. What happens to us in the northeast is that through higher taxes -- not lower taxes, but higher taxes, more taxes, more regulation -- to be able to compete with Alberta companies is almost impossible. Just for the record, Alberta doesn't have a 7 percent sales tax. That's one of the inhibitors. That's always been there, but it's one of the inhibitors. It doesn't have a 7 percent tax on labour for all 

[ Page 6552 ]

equipment. British Columbia does, initiated by your government -- in fact, by you and your Minister of Finance. And that is a big issue in the northeast.

A luxury tax on vehicles. . . . That might sound good down here in Vancouver. People that can afford to drive a $30,000 or $35,000 vehicle should be paying 10 percent sales tax. I suggest to the minister that if you want to do that, go ahead. Do it in Vancouver for the Saab drivers, all those people that have the expensive cars and the expensive 4-by-4s to drive on all the pavement. But don't penalize people in the north. That's what you're doing: you're making it uncompetitive. It's difficult to compete with those folks from Alberta who pay no tax on their 4-by-4s or working vehicles in comparison to someone from British Columbia that's paying 10 percent. That's a competitive disadvantage.

There are all kinds of them. I could list them for a long time here, and the Premier's aware of it. We have some problems in the northeast. When equipment comes from Alberta to compete against us, it has not been beat over the roads like in the northeast. It doesn't face the high ICBC cost and all the other costs that go along with it. To deal with that issue, I've asked a number of your ministers -- the Minister of Employment and Investment, the Minister of Finance -- to send some people from Victoria to the northeast to do a competitive advantage study so we can finally get all the issues on the table so that we can deal with them in a rational way. You can't make the decisions without good information. That's the only way you're going to have a good decision made. What I'm asking the Premier -- because both the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Minister of Finance have turned me down, I'm going to try the top guy on the stand -- is if he will think seriously about sending some people, the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Employment and Investment, to the northeast to study some of the problems we're facing in the northeast in competitive advantage and disadvantage vis-�-vis Alberta.

I'm not saying everything's perfect in Alberta; I'm not putting that on the table at all. I'm saying that our folks -- our men and women that have jobs in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson -- all compete against those folks from Grande Prairie, Beaverlodge and Hythe. Now we have a competitive disadvantage, and a big one. Somehow, rather than seeing what we've witnessed here with the last five to six major companies talking about moving out of the northeast -- still operating in the northeast but moving their head offices to Alberta. . . . I can't get the government to go and look at the issue to see what we can do. I think it's a sad day in British Columbia when we just say: "We don't care what happens in the northeast. We don't care what happens to those men and women and their jobs." Those are the good-paying jobs. Those are the jobs that pay $70,000 to $100,000 a year. Those are the kinds of jobs we need, not the ones that are at the $25,000 level. So what we should be doing is looking at saving those kinds of jobs instead of trying to replace them with low-paying jobs. I don't think that works. It's certainly not working for the people in the northeast.

The only thing I can think of that can happen is that the Premier commit tonight to send a team of people to the north to look at how we can deal with these issues. You can in fact change the Employment Standards Act up there. It's going to have a negative effect. I'm not going to stand here and say that people shouldn't be paid decent wages. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that there is a very competitive advantage to help people from Alberta over British Columbia, and somehow we have to deal with it.

If the Premier is serious about his economic summit and his jobs strategy for the north -- not just for Prince Rupert and the northwest but for the northeast, too, because there's a mountain range that goes through there -- then I think he should seriously look at going up there and not wait until the summit and then some kind of recommendation. I don't think one will even come out of that. I think this is something that the Premier should take on himself and send someone up there to see why we're losing all this tax money -- and we are. Millions are going to Alberta coffers that should be coming to British Columbia because people are living in British Columbia and getting their services in British Columbia. If there's one thing I can get from the Premier tonight, it is some kind of a commitment that we'll work together to that end, to be able to do that.

Hon. G. Clark: I think the member makes a very compelling case, and I understand entirely. Many British Columbians forget that there is a part of B.C. east of the Rockies. That's a pretty high mountain range, and there are very unique considerations up there. In addition to the concerns the member has about competitive advantage, I've long been of the view, as well, that we don't do enough even on the other side of the debate, on the auditing side. There are Alberta companies doing business in British Columbia -- which we welcome -- but they may get their equipment repaired in Alberta, or they do other things. That is something which is subject to British Columbia tax. Again, it's not because we want to be mean-spirited or tax them, but we have to have a level playing field with respect to doing business in British Columbia.

I will talk to the ministers you mentioned about this, because I know the Minister of Employment and Investment has raised this question with me. So I'm a bit surprised that he's answered that he's not interested in proceeding. I think it is important that we demonstrate where the advantages and disadvantages are with British Columbia vis-�-vis our competitors, including Alberta. We shouldn't be afraid of that. It may be hard to compete in some areas with Alberta, but there are other areas where we can compete.

In fact, the good British Columbians in your part of the world are competing and investing in British Columbia and creating jobs in spite of some competitive disadvantages. So my sense of the people of the northeast is that they don't necessarily expect us to equalize with Alberta. If they wanted to be equalized with Alberta, they would probably be in Alberta by now. But if we could make some progress towards dealing with some of their concerns, then I think they'd see that government is trying to listen. That's what we'd like to do. So in order to make some progress, we need this kind of baseline information.

I don't know if it's necessary to send people up there and all that. But I do think it's very important that we get the kind of baseline information on our comparisons with Alberta and what we can do, either coming out of the summit or from working with people in the northeast and with the member to try to deal in small or big ways with our disadvantages vis-�-vis Alberta for that part of British Columbia in particular. I mean, in all of British Columbia we're concerned about competition not just with Alberta but with the rest of Canada and the world. But that particular and unique part of British Columbia is -- if I can say it this way -- in a very vulnerable position vis-�-vis Alberta because of the close proximity and the easy access and the competition they face from Alberta-based companies, which don't face some of the challenges that British Columbians do. So I'm sympathetic to what the member requests. I will raise it with my ministers. I think it's very 

[ Page 6553 ]

legitimate that we work on solving areas where we have disadvantages with respect to our good neighbours in Alberta. I know full well that when the member speaks in the House, he represents very well his constituents who daily have to deal with the different structures in B.C. and Alberta. For many of us in Vancouver or Victoria, it's a long way away. We deal with our own circumstances here in B.C. It's a reality for businesses and people in the northeast. They can see right next door, literally a few minutes away, the differences in some of the tax structures which make it more advantageous to do business in Alberta than in B.C. Clearly that's not what we want. Clearly we have to continue to work, if we can, to find ways to keep our companies competitive, keep investment in B.C. and keep jobs in B.C.

R. Neufeld: Really, that is the truth. We have the entrepreneurial ability in the northeast; we have the qualified labour of men and women that can do the work. We have the willingness of people to invest.

[9:30]

I dare say that that's part of the problem today. It's not all with just your government increasing some of the costs; it's with the Alberta government reducing some of the onerous taxes that they had and those kinds of things that make us farther apart. I'm appreciative of the Premier saying that we'll work with the ministers responsible and start to do something.

I have one last question of the Premier, and it deals with the Tatshenshini and what took place there. I know that last year I asked the Premier about some issues surrounding the Tatshenshini, because I have some constituents that used to mine in the Tatshenshini. I think it was in 1993 that it was made a park. We're now in 1997. Well over a year ago the government cut a deal with Royal Oak; in fact, the Premier -- last estimates, we went through this -- was quite pleased with what took place.

Well, I can tell the Premier that we still have not dealt with the smaller operators. There are still people out there that are waiting for your government to deal with the issues, to deal with their mining interests. I find it absolutely amazing that we would, a year ago, work out some kind of settlement with the large company and that the little companies that really always provide the work -- it doesn't matter where you are in British Columbia; they provide the employment -- are left dangling in the wind.

Now, last year the Premier said:

"I know there were some minor claims involved, and I expected them to be settled expeditiously after the major one was essentially settled. Now that the member has raised it, I will undertake to see if I can expedite the situation. If it's as the member outlined, then obviously government should be responding more quickly."

But here we are, another year later, and what have we got? We've got the same people -- no disrespect to the member from Esquimalt, either. . . . But we've still got people that have small mining interests in the Tatshenshini that still haven't had their claims settled. I just wonder what the Premier has to say, a year later, on this issue and how we're going to deal with it.

Hon. G. Clark: After you raised it last year, I did have staff pursue what was holding up the settlement. I got back from the lawyers who have the file in the Attorney General's ministry that it's just a matter of negotiations.

The people handling this for the government deal with compensation questions all the time. That's their job -- they negotiate. Unfortunately, the advice I got back was that they have simply been unable to reach an agreement. Part of the challenge is that in the deal we did with Royal Oak, there's a part of it for compensation and a part of it for mine development. We are very conscious and very explicit about what we did with Royal Oak, and so is Royal Oak.

Unfortunately, some other people look at it and say that the compensation for Royal Oak was all of the deal, when, in fact, a small part was for compensation and the other part was to expedite the new mines at Kemess South and at Red Mountain. It's there where I can see -- I'm trying to put myself in the place of a small claim holder -- why there are obvious areas for debate about the extent of the compensation and how that would therefore apply to their claims.

I'm just saying this by way of explanation. I'm sympathetic to the small claim holder, and I can say exactly the same thing I said last year. Last year I raised it with the Attorney General's ministry, and they assured me that they were on the file and they simply hadn't consummated a deal. I will raise it again with the staff. I really would prefer, obviously, that this be tidied up.

The government put aside, by the way. . . . I have to be careful because they're negotiating, but let me put it this way: within the budget of British Columbia, there is the ability to settle claims, and so we have that. In other words, it's not the government's financial situation, not the government's negotiating strategy or anything, to delay the settlement.

We are ready, willing and able to make a settlement, but the lawyers acting on our behalf clearly have instructions to settle in a matter consistent with other settlements in British Columbia, and so far, the people representing the mining claims don't agree with that valuation, and so they're still working away at it.

G. Wilson: Very briefly, I'd like to read this for the Premier and then ask a question. The reading goes as follows: "It seems to me that the whole of Lynn Canal cannot belong to the Americans, according to a proper interpretation of the 1825 treaty, but they are in possession, the language of the treaty is ambiguous and therefore the decision may go against it, and if it does, it will find we reconciled in advance." So wrote Prime Minister Laurier to Joseph Pope, the Canadian Undersecretary of State for External Affairs in 1903, and he sold out British Columbia's interest in the Alaska boundary dispute. They've been selling out our interests ever since.

I want to talk about fish with the Premier. I want to talk about what we're going to do about this, because it seems to 

[ Page 6554 ]

me that if we look at the history of British Columbia's relationship with Ottawa and start to view how the history has evolved, Ottawa, back in 1903 with Laurier, was arguing that they couldn't do anything about it because, essentially, Britain had all the power. We didn't even have the power to enforce treaties at that point. In fact, in another interesting letter, he writes saying he often regrets that "we do not have in our hands the treaty-making power that would enable us to dispose of our own affairs," something I think British Columbia might, by comparison, be arguing today.

The fact is that we have had a longstanding grievance over the Alaska boundary dispute, and the fact is that Ottawa has consistently -- over history, over time -- let British Columbia's interests fall secondary to the larger interests of the nation. As a result of that, we find ourselves now in a situation where we are really handcuffed in our ability to force the Alaskans to either respect the principles of a treaty that they claim has now expired. . . . But at least the principles are in place, even though the act has expired. We find ourselves having to somehow embarrass Ottawa into helping this part of the country.

I'm curious to hear from the Premier, who took a rather bold step on the news, and I'd like to know what the update on that is. The Premier has also taken a rather bold step with respect to the rhetoric of war on the salmon treaty issue, which some people think perhaps was crossing some lines. I'd like to hear from the Premier on that.

But my first question is this: what does the Premier see as the route that can now be taken with Ottawa in order for Ottawa to recognize that it has an obligation to the people of British Columbia -- not to apologize for our actions to the Americans, but to stand up for the principles and the rights of British Columbia fishers? What is the next step that the Premier has in his package of proposals?

Hon. G. Clark: I think the short answer is that we have to maintain the course we're on and ensure that they can't betray the interests of British Columbia as they have in the past. The best way of doing that is with the people of British Columbia. In other words, notwithstanding that we've not resolved this and notwithstanding that we have some challenges or differences of opinion with Ottawa, I think the reason we have this on the agenda is because British Columbians overwhelmingly feel that action must be taken to deal with this dispute. That has sometimes been absent in the past, or it has not had leadership either from this chamber or from a broad section of British Columbians. There have been isolated disputes. Alaska is a long way away. There are not that many people there and not that many people in B.C. historically, and so it's been hard to move it on the agenda. I think the people of British Columbia understand this one -- they understand it broadly, at least -- and they know that Ottawa needs to stand up for British Columbia. They may not agree entirely with the tactics I have pursued, and they may not agree with the tactics Ottawa has pursued -- in fact, I suggest probably most of them don't -- but they know that this is an important issue symbolically, spiritually and economically for British Columbia.

I think a very important step we should not overlook is that as we move forward in this debate and discussion towards resolution, we must keep up the pressure on Ottawa to represent our interests effectively. Again, while that pressure hasn't borne the kind of fruit I would like in B.C., I think it has got British Columbians quite resolutely of the view that Ottawa must take action. I think that's perhaps more significant today than it has been in any of the other disputes we've seen, and it's one that I think can lead to greater prospects.

Now, we do have some challenges ahead in staying the course. One is on the Nanoose question. That challenge is significant if Canada decides to side with the United States against British Columbia or takes the extraordinary action of expropriating in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. These are both interesting constitutional questions, but I think they are very challenging indeed, because they open up a debate in British Columbia, which I don't think is one that is healthy in Canada today -- in other words, Ottawa deciding consciously to intervene in an area where British Columbia asserts and, I think, has clear legal title or at least legal responsibility with respect to the seabed. I intend to stay the course and keep the pressure on both in Ottawa and, more importantly, in the United States and try to work as much as we can with Canada to resolve it.

I think that's probably the best answer to date as we move along. There will be other steps we'll need to take and should take, but I think that the ball is very much in Ottawa's court here. I think that if British Columbians stand strong on this question, they will be reluctant at the very least to intervene against our interests. I think that would be very destructive for national unity, and it would be very destructive for British Columbia-Canada relations.

G. Wilson: I see you've got some hawks down at this end of your caucus that applaud that.

It is interesting when one looks at. . . . I guess I'm sort of constrained in my ability to comment on the papers that have been prepared on the unity question until they're formally released. But let me say that the documentation by John Munro makes it quite clear that on Alaska and the fisheries issue, this Premier is one in a whole series of Premiers who have had to fight this issue over and over and over again with Ottawa, and that Ottawa has consistently and repeatedly sold us down the drain. When it comes to the issue of national unity, the one thing that is going to be clear is that this is not unique and not new -- that this has been a product of our history. Despite that, British Columbians have generally held together and fought on this question.

But my question to the Premier more specifically, on the Nanoose issue, is that. . . . It would seem, and I agree, that the federal government moving into areas of provincial jurisdiction and supremacy is not wise, although this would not be the first time in our history that they've done it. Nevertheless, it is not a wise thing for them to do.

It strikes me that there are one of two actions that can be taken. If we stand strong in resolve on Nanoose, there will be those people in Nanoose who, quite legitimately, are going to lose employment. They're going to turn around and say: "What has my job, which I am now about to lose, got to do with winning a battle over salmon with the Alaskans? Why is it that the Premier saw fit to sacrifice my job and the employment I have in Nanoose, in what clearly is going to be a difficult" -- to use the Premier's vernacular -- "war to win?"

So I wonder if the Premier might talk to the people of Nanoose through this member, to give them some assurance that those concerns are being heard and dealt with.

[9:45]

[ Page 6555 ]

There is and should be a transition strategy to ensure that those people are kept whole and do have jobs in the event that Nanoose closes. I gave the workers an assurance then, and I give it now, that I'm ready, willing and able to work with them on any kind of transition strategy for employment.

To my view, the federal government should do that. They have, of course, closed CFB Chilliwack and laid off over a thousand people in the military without sort of blinking an eye. This is about 60 people -- a very small number, relatively speaking. The federal government has a process of. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: There are 11 or 12 people who are American civilians who I don't count as part of this equation. My view generally, philosophically, is that they shouldn't pay the price, either. But that's up to their national government.

The Canadian government has a transition plan and protection for workers in the defence department, in the event of redundancy or elimination of jobs. I don't know if that's good enough; it may well be not good enough. But they have certain provisions in their collective agreements in the public service of Canada, which have some protection for workers. I would like to work with the federal government in trying to ensure that all those people are placed in jobs in the federal or provincial civil service. There may be some bridging requirements. There may be some ability to work with them on that. It may be difficult to do it in that location at this time, but all of those things merit consideration.

I don't shy away from the responsibility that I have, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, to be responsive to those workers and try to deal with their concerns. We are looking at strategies around the Nanoose area and what we could do as government to try to create some jobs that would be displaced as a result of that. Of course, there are other groups, like Nanoose Conversion Campaign and others, that suggest there are other job opportunities in the area that might in fact create more jobs than the numbers we have today.

These are real people with real lives; I understand that. I don't take these decisions lightly. I strongly believe that we have an obligation to work with them to achieve the minimum disruption possible from the closure of that base. That's a commitment I've made to them personally. I have no hesitation making it again publicly.

G. Wilson: I guess there's a potential cost component there, which should be a concern to all of us. Not only has the Alaskan overfishing cost us in terms of revenue coming into the province because of lost fish and lost revenue to fishers, but if we have to now start paying to essentially deal with the Premier's strategy on Nanoose, that's an additional cost to the issue.

I'd like to turn my attention briefly, if I can, to what the Premier meant when he indicated that the province might be prepared to provide some form of legal assistance to fishers who may find themselves charged by Americans in an American action as a result of their blockading of the ferry. I'm reluctant to take at face value what I've read in the media. I know that the Premier would obviously understand the very serious nature of the government entering into any kind of financial assistance plan in terms of the complicity that may be charged against the government. So I wonder if the Premier might actually clarify exactly what was meant by that, so that we have it on the record.

Hon. G. Clark: It's really very simple. It's just to ensure that the Canadian citizens involved have an adequate legal defence. It's not to judge their guilt or innocence. There's been a lot of talk about them breaking the law and the like. That's not at all the case. There was an injunction; the injunction was obeyed. So there's now a debate which will be heard, and people have a right to a defence.

I feel very strongly about this, and I don't have any compunction about it in terms of any of this debate that comes up about: "Well, this sets a precedent." People have rights that are conferred to them by their citizenship. When you leave Canada and go to another part of the world and you get into trouble in that part of the world, in many cases, if not all cases, the rights you have as a citizen of the world are only granted to you by your citizenship, by the country of your origin. So Canada routinely defends people and tries to help people who get into trouble anywhere in the world. In fact, it is often the case that Canada tries to extradite convicted criminals from other parts of the world to Canada. So they're back in Canada, and we take responsibility for our citizens. This is a kind of unwritten -- if not written -- rule. Countries stand up for their citizens in disputes in or with foreign powers, and I think that's something which everybody understands, in international relations, in international business. It's not suggesting that Canadians do no wrong internationally; it's not suggesting that Canadians do no wrong in Canada. But you defend your citizens to the best of your ability.

The United States passed a motion in their Senate in very dramatic language condemning Canada and saying that they will stand up for their citizens, including the citizens that were on that ferry. We shouldn't be surprised by that; we expect that. The United States said they will stand up for their citizens. Their citizens are stealing our fish. They won't say that, because they are defending their citizens. They will always defend them. I believe Canada must defend our citizens. And if that means ensuring that our citizens have adequate legal representation in a dispute with the Alaska government coming to British Columbia, using provincial courts to try to go after our fishermen when they caused the problem in the first place, I suggest we should be defending them. Anytime a citizen of Canada, anytime a citizen of British Columbia. . . . Some people would argue: "Well, isn't this a dangerous precedent?" I say: "It is a precedent." Anytime a citizen is in a dispute with a foreign power that has acted illegally, we should defend them. That's what I say to anybody who asks. I have no hesitation in saying that.

By the way, Canada, to my knowledge, has always defended Canadian citizens. This is the very first time I've seen where they have chosen not to defend not necessarily their actions but them as citizens, to ensure that they have adequate representation in fighting with a foreign power. I don't believe there's another example of that, and I don't believe there's another example of the Prime Minister of our country not at least saying something sympathetic to the people of British Columbia who are engaged in this dispute.

It does not mean that the government of Canada or the Premier of British Columbia condones or defends the actions they've taken. It simply means we understand why they've taken that action in the face of foreign piracy or theft of our fish, and it seems to me that that requires the governments, then, to ensure that we do everything we can to protect our citizens in the face of that foreign threat.

[ Page 6556 ]

G. Wilson: This is an interesting question, because I guess that if one deals. . . . First of all, let me state categorically that I am as frustrated because of the nature of my riding. . . . It has many, many fishers who are directly suffering and whose families are suffering as a result of actions taken by U.S. fishers. So I am absolutely sympathetic with the frustration and the concerns of fishers in British Columbia. There's been a long history of this dispute, as I've already outlined.

But I'm more interested in the question of principle and the matter of whether or not, if a commercial enterprise that runs a vessel or even a state enterprise that runs a vessel is blocked from exit from our country, and that enterprise decides that they're going to seek for some kind of damages against it. . . . If this is a precedent that is set that suggests that the province is going to then look after its interests, would that also apply to an American private forest holder who, on private forest land, was prevented from going ahead and logging as a result of people who blockaded the roads and violated statutes -- both, presumably, international trade regulations and provincial regulations?

Clearly, if we're dealing with a situation where the state selects whether or not it's prepared to go ahead and assist in legal costs on these matters, we are going to enter into a very complicated set of rules as to when, yes, it applies and when, no, it doesn't apply. That's my concern with this matter. I'm not suggesting for a second that the frustration that we see in British Columbia fishers is not justified; I think it is. And people do resort from time to time to civil disobedience. My concern is if the state comes in and effectively finances it. . . .

So my question to the Premier is: how much money does the Premier anticipate this is likely to cost the province? Is there an estimate on how long this case is likely to go and what those costs are likely to be? And where does the Premier feel that he'll be able to find that money to pay these costs?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, first of all, there's a big difference between a dispute involving a private company and the people in British Columbia and one involving the state of Alaska. This is an Alaska state government using their tax resources to come down to British Columbia and go after fishermen, in this case. It's a very big difference between that and a private forest company that's been blockaded in British Columbia. This is a state-driven action against us.

I ask members on the opposite side, who apparently don't agree with this: do you not think they should have adequate legal representation in the face of the resources of a state government going after citizens of British Columbia, who were acting -- whether we agree with them or not -- out of frustration with the fact that that state has been acting illegally with respect to the fishery and stealing fish from British Columbia? I think it's that simple.

So what will it cost us? In this case, I don't know. A few thousand dollars -- it won't be enormous. We haven't got the bill yet.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Maybe more, because there are lawyers involved. But we will pay for that to make sure they have good legal representation. We don't think the precedent is likely to cost anything in the future. If you go back 30 years, there would not have been a case like this precedent which would call for money from the taxpayers. And if you go ahead, it's not likely to do that again.

However, I say I'm not afraid of the precedent, because if a foreign state is going after our citizens for something they did which was caused as a result of their own actions, then I think we would look again at giving them assistance to ensure they get adequate legal representation.

G. Wilson: I'm tempted to say that the member from Esquimalt is looking for an expanded role in government. Perhaps there's a challenge. He's a member of the bar. He could go ahead and fight the case.

My question is whether or not there is an annual Premiers' conference coming up within a matter of a week or so. The agenda of that annual Premiers' conference is fairly well established and fairly well structured. However, it would seem to me that one of the cards that British Columbia has been able to play from time to time through its history, when we have had difficulty getting Ottawa to take our concerns seriously, is to build some allies among the other provincial Premiers. My question to the Premier is: has the Premier been in communication with other Premiers across Canada with respect to our degree of frustration? We have Premier Tobin who is used to fighting foreign fish wars. I wonder if the Premier has sought other Premiers as allies and whether or not there is likely to be time at the annual Premiers' conference to have those allies start to apply the necessary pressure to get Ottawa to live up to its obligation and responsibilities.

Hon. G. Clark: I have not been in recent conversation with other Premiers with respect to this dispute, other than the Premier of the Yukon. Obviously the Western Premiers Conference was here not that long ago, and I had a discussion at that time and had broad support.

[10:00]

I'll just say one thing with respect to Premier Tobin. When he was Fisheries minister, there was a blockade of a ferry in Alaska. I'm advised that he said something very similar to what I said. He said that if he were a fisherman, he would be on the boat, as well. I didn't hear many British Columbians opposed to that at that time. Similarly, his actions with respect to Spain were dramatic -- and supported by British Columbians -- and unconventional to say the least with respect to dealing with international law and international questions. He was right then on both counts. I'm convinced that if he were still the Minister of Fisheries, we would have had a salmon treaty several years ago, because he was prepared to use the government to stand up for Canadian interests. For that, he 

[ Page 6557 ]

was loudly applauded by all Canadians and ultimately promoted by the people of Newfoundland to be the Premier of that province.

With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report incredible progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:04 p.m.

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