[ Page 7205 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today in the members' gallery we have a special and distinguished visitor from Trinidad and Tobago. His Excellency Robert Sabga is the High Commissioner to Canada for Trinidad and Tobago, and he is accompanied by Stephen Kangal, a counsellor at the high commission in Ottawa. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: On behalf of the official opposition, it's a pleasure for me also to welcome His Excellency Robert Sabga, the High Commissioner of Trinidad and Tobago, to the House today, along with his counsellor, Stephen Kangal. Trinidad and Tobago is a very special country for me, as my wife is from Trinidad, and our oldest daughter was born in Trinidad. I'd ask the House to make these distinguished guests welcome in the House.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have two introductions. Firstly, we have 70-plus grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my constituency, along with their teacher Mr. Ron Boulding. I would like the House to make them welcome, please.

As well, there are several lawyers from the ministry who are touring the building, learning the process of how this particular building and the people in it function. Those lawyers -- David Bush, Heidi Hughes, Wendy McKittrick, Karen Mill, Neena Sharma, Judith Payne, Stephanie Weinhold, Dorothy Wong -- are present in the gallery today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Last fall at the APEC conference, the province of British Columbia signed a memorandum of understanding with the Commission on Higher Education of the Republic of the Philippines. Today we are joined in the galleries by some other special visitors from the Philippines. We are joined by the Secretary of Education for the Philippines, Erlinda Pefianco. She is accompanied by her daughter Isabel Martin and by Ron Compton from ARA Consulting. Would the House please join me in making them most welcome.

G. Plant: We have in the gallery today some British Columbians who are committed to making our streets and highways safer and to making our justice system fairer. I'm pleased to introduce the incoming president of the Trial Lawyers Association, David Klein; the outgoing president, David Montague; Carla Terzariol; and also, representing the Traffic Safety Coalition, Mr. Gordon Adair. I hope that the House will make these people welcome.

W. Hartley: In the precincts today, visiting from my constituency of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, we have Malkit Purewal and his son Gary. Mal is the president of the Fraser Valley Agricultural and Growers Association. They are here today with a number of agriculturists, meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Please welcome them.

J. Sawicki: I would like to introduce a delegation that is here from the municipality of Santo André, S\tao Paulo metropolitan area, in Brazil. With us today are the mayor, Celso Daniel; the director of planning, Mr. Irineu Bagnariolli Jr.; the professor of architecture and planning with the University of S\tao Paulo, Dr. Erminia Maricato; and Mr. Jeroen Klink, the policy adviser to the mayor. They are accompanied by Peter Boothroyd, a professor at the Centre for Human Settlements at UBC, and Erika DeCastro.

I want to say that this delegation is here to work out the last details of a partnership-in-technology-transfer project through CIDA to help build sustainable communities in Brazil on a watershed management model. I hope that the House will join me in making them very welcome and in wishing them well in their endeavours.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three constituents of Kootenay visiting the House. They are John Konkin, Brian Beresford and Bruce Macneill. They are all three involved in the forest industry in the riding of Kootenay, and I would ask that the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: This morning I had the pleasure of doing a tour of Royal Roads University. During my tour, I had the opportunity of meeting with some students taking entrepreneurial management, the future of our great province. The students were John Fleming from Richmond, Aaron Miller from White Rock and Bryan Matthews from Summerland. I'd ask this House to please make them welcome.

J. Smallwood: I was just advised of a memorable event this weekend. I understand that the member for Prince George-Mount Robson celebrated a birthday. I would like the whole House to join us in sending Lola a happy birthday wish.

The Speaker: Any further introductions? Thank you very much, members.

Oral Questions

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

Will the Minister of Agriculture stand up in the House today, do the honourable thing and proclaim himself in accord with the comments of those commissioners who said that this government has improperly tried to influence that commission?

Hon. C. Evans: Thank you, hon. member, for the opportunity. You know, it takes a whole lot of courage to take a position and stick with it. A weak and cowardly position is to start one place and move all over the map according to what day it is, what year it is or what the polls say or what the press says.

There are two people in this House with the right that goes with courage and conviction to ask these kinds of ques-

[ Page 7206 ]

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui on his first supplementary.

M. de Jong: I can think of a lot of responses, hon. member, but let me use the response that the member of the Agricultural Land Commission used. That is that this minister is out of line -- period.

The minister will know that the Premier's own guidelines say that a minister may not contact or make representation to a commissioner hearing a case or that may reasonably be expected to hear a case. This minister did just that. He tried to politically interfere with a process that's supposed to be independent. Will he stand here and do the honourable thing and resign his office?

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, will it have more meaning if I point at the hon. member as I deliver my answer?

There has been a lot of controversy on the matter of this issue as it's moved from the board to a declaration of the provincial interest. The people on this side of the House have attempted to work that out, with honesty and integrity, with the community. Meanwhile, the people on the other side, including the guy who's pointing his finger. . . . He's sitting there alongside the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who said in July last year: "I think it's a tremendous failure that Cathy McGregor couldn't even get cabinet to listen to the people of Kamloops" -- and declare it in the provincial interest. What do you think now, hon. member? He's sitting next to his leader, who said. . . .

[2:15]

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson wrote to our government and said: "I write to confirm my support for referral. . .and due consideration of the issue of provincial interest." Hon. Speaker, that side of the House was crying for this thing to be declared in the provincial interest. And when it is, after considerable agonizing, they come in here and try to somehow colour the process as if there was some kind of interference.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take it easy, everyone. Just take it easy. Hon. members, we won't proceed until there is order in the chamber.

I recognize the member for Matsqui for a second supplementary.

M. de Jong: How pathetic! Gus Horn is a member of the Agricultural Land Commission. He said that it was so clear what the government wanted -- what would have made life easiest for them politically. That's the message that this minister delivered to the Agricultural Land Commission. That's the pressure he brought to bear. That's how he tried to influence this independent commission.

The Speaker: Your question.

M. de Jong: Will the minister stand here today and say that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Horn were lying? And if he won't say that, will he do the honourable thing -- you've still got a chance, minister -- and resign his office?

Hon. C. Evans: I will not say that those people were lying. I think those are fine people. I disagree with their opinion, but they are not liars. They are not bad people, and they don't change their position according to what they think is popular. It's okay if you attack me, because I do this work, but I don't really think it's okay to be dragging other people in here and changing their words and changing what you think they said.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. C. Evans: The chair of the Land Commission, Kirk Miller, is on the record, in a CBC interview, as denying that he was bullied. He says that he has no problem with MLAs or their staff trying to serve their constituents. If the chair of the commission, who the minister talks to all the time. . . . The previous minister talked to him all the time, and the minister before that and the minister before that. If the chair of the commission says that he wasn't bullied, then where is the proof that the hon. member is talking about? Besides waving his hand and pointing and shouting. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. Evans: . . .and raising his voice, where is the proof that there was any pressure on those folks?

C. Clark: In his report on the Six Mile project, Murray Rankin said it is the intent of the Agricultural Land Commission Act "to confer upon a quasi-judicial tribunal the authority to safeguard the relatively scarce agricultural land base of the province." What this minister has done is pressure a quasi-judicial body to skew its decision in favour of what is politically important to the government. That is what this minister has done.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

C. Clark: Doesn't the minister understand that it is wrong to pressure a quasi-judicial body and that it is his duty to uphold the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. C. Evans: I really like that question. It's a good question, hon. member. Yes, this minister understands and takes incredibly seriously (1) my job as the person primarily responsible for protecting agriculture and agricultural land and (2) the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission.

A whole lot of what's been going on -- and the buck stops here; you're right to ask me -- for me over the course of the last two years, affected not least by the public statements of the people to your left and your right, hon. member, is trying to decide what in fact the provincial interest is. What would be the moment when it was invoked for the first time? How would it be defined? What would the impact on the Land Commission and the land reserve be in future? What does it mean when the opposition, who is paid to oppose, tells me to invoke the provincial interest?

[ Page 7207 ]

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on her first supplementary.

C. Clark: I'll tell the minister what's in the provincial interest. What's in the provincial interest is a government that respects the law; what's in the provincial interest is a government that respects the independence of quasi-judicial bodies. That is what is in the provincial interest.

The Speaker: And your question, hon. member.

C. Clark: Clearly there are members of the commission who agree with me on that. Mr. Taylor said what disturbs him is that the public might get the impression that everything is hunky-dory, and that is just not the case. He called on the government to call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this absolutely disgraceful situation. Will the minister call a public inquiry and then resign and await the outcome of that public inquiry?

Hon. C. Evans: David Taylor is a good person and a good commissioner. David Taylor is saying that the light of day needs to expose how decisions are made in British Columbia. This part of the discussion I'm really proud of. For the first time in history, a decision on an agricultural land issue went not over to the other wing of this building in private but has been made with the full light of day -- 600 people went and made submissions. I took that decision to invoke the. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. C. Evans: I took that decision and the process that led to it and went first, on January 30 of this year, to the B.C. Fruit Growers convention in the hometown of six or eight of you over there, and you watched while I explained that decision to 300 or 400 people whose livelihoods depend on it. That's the light of day.

Next we went to this party's convention, where 600 people debated it. Lastly, hon. Speaker, I went to the editorial board of the Vancouver Sun and spent 90 minutes laying it out so that everybody could read about it. There is no process more public than that. . .except the debates of that caucus -- split down the middle on the subject of the land reserve -- which nobody has ever seen or will ever hear unless one of you stands up and talks about it in here.

G. Plant: There is something very fundamental that this minister and this government don't get: no decision, no matter how difficult, is ever an excuse for breaking the rules. The rule is clear: you do not contact the commissioner to try to influence his decision. The commissioner was called at home; he was called on the weekends; he was called at night. If he is a brave man and says he wasn't influenced, that's not the issue. The issue is: why did this minister break the rules? I put that question to him directly now.

Hon. C. Evans: It's a very, very serious question. The rules say that a minister cannot attempt to affect the outcome of a quasi-judicial process by interfering. Every Minister of Agriculture is in contact with the chair of the Land Commission -- a civil servant -- some would say on a daily basis when there are issues of public policy to be determined by the two of them.

Yes, I talk to the chair, and sometimes he phones me. Between us, we worked through the last year while those people were demanding that we invoke the provincial interest, which we'd never done and had to construct an understanding of -- how to do it and how it would go, and what the effect would be on the commission, on the future of farming in B.C. and on the future of farmland. That is my job. Seeing this process through with integrity is my job. Far from apologizing for it, I believe that is the work I'm supposed to do.

Standing Order 35 Motion

The citizens of five northern and rural communities have been without hospital services for almost 13 weeks. On April 25, 1998, a concrete proposal was made, offering to immediately resume hospital services in exchange for an agreement by the provincial government to implement the results of binding arbitration by a mutually agreed-upon arbitrator. No response to the offer has come forward. It is urgent that this House give clear direction to the government in this matter. The timing of this debate is critical; an immediate solution to the restoration of health care in northern and rural communities is at hand.

I therefore move the following motion: that pursuant to standing order 35, the House do now adjourn in order to deal with a definite matter of urgent public importance -- namely, the northern and rural health care crisis and the call for binding arbitration.

[2:30]

I might say, hon. Speaker, that we have had one question on this matter. I think the member for Peace River South brought it up in question period, and that was the first and only time that I think this matter has been brought up in question period. I think there was perhaps a supplementary from the opposition party pursuant to the matter being raised by the member for Peace River South.

This matter has been ongoing since the fall of 1997, and it has been part of the public debate. It is a very serious matter. It has the full attention of the Minister of Health, and the discussions have been ongoing for almost nine months now. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition chooses this opportunity to grandstand in this fashion, but there is nothing pursuant to standing order 35 that justifies this debate.

[ Page 7208 ]

Secondly, the issue is the offer that's before the government. That is the urgent issue. What is emergent here is that this House must give the government and the minister clear direction to deal with that offer to solve the problem, so that people in the north can get health care working for them again. That is why this issue is so emergent and necessary for debate.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. members for their contribution to the issue. I will reserve a decision and get back to you as soon as I can.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT

[That this House continue to pressure the Government of Canada to undertake a broad public consultation on the Multilateral agreement on investment and be it further resolved that this Legislature urges the federal Liberal government to ensure that Canadian medicare and social services are fully excluded from the provisions of the MAI and to refuse to sign any version of this agreement which compromises the ability of British Columbians to manage and conserve their natural resources as they see fit or the power of the province to lever jobs and economic benefits for the residents of British Columbia;

That the government of Canada not sign the draft multilateral agreement on investment or agree to lock in any part of the existing text at the OECD ministerial council meeting taking place today, April 27, through April 28 in Paris, France;

That the government of Canada suspend its participation in the MAI negotiations until the Canadian public have been thoroughly consulted, through parliamentary hearings in all regions of the country; and

That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia establish a special committee to examine, inquire into and make recommendations respecting all aspects of the Multilateral agreement on investment.]

I recognize, to begin the debate, the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. [Applause.] I haven't said anything, and I'm already getting applause.

I rise today to speak on the multilateral agreement on investment -- on what is happening with the federal government, on what is happening in Paris and on what we feel as a government feel needs to take place over the next few weeks, months and days ahead.

The federal government is currently negotiating an agreement in Ottawa with 29 other nations of the OECD on the multilateral agreement on investment, which amounts to be a bill of rights for capital at a time when: (1) an agreement is not necessary, and (2) it is doing so without consulting Canadians.

Over the last number of years we have seen globalization like we've never seen it before. We have seen numerous trade agreements. We've seen a North American free trade agreement; we've seen ongoing agreements being negotiated on a hemispheric basis -- not just here within Canada but around the world. Many of these agreements are extremely controversial, in part because they impinge not only on national sovereignty but also on areas of provincial jurisdiction.

We had an election in this country around the North American free trade agreement a number of years ago. It was a debate that took place in every living room across the country, in every province. All political parties were involved, the public was informed and involved, and a decision was made. The ramifications of that agreement are still being examined, still being judged, but one thing became clear. Once that was over, it was: "Don't wait to see what's happening; let's move on to the next agreement." What has been happening over the last couple of years is that backroom negotiations have been taking place to try and address this MAI -- or, as it's known, a bill of rights for capital.

It would have a tremendous impact here in British Columbia on a host of areas that currently fall under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has said that nothing is happening, that they won't sign a deal unless it's the right deal. But we've seen in the past what that means -- that that's not necessarily the right deal in the eyes of the public. We saw that when the federal Liberals regained power in Ottawa. They had promised, up to the election, that they would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and the fact is, is that they didn't. We're being told now that they won't sign an agreement that infringes on areas around health care and culture. But if we get what happened before, we'll get a deal that's bad for the province and bad for the country.

The restrictions on MAI will affect a whole host of areas, and I want to touch on some of them. It will affect job creation, tying the hands of the province to allocate resources to generate jobs in different parts of the province -- whether they be in the Kootenays or in the north -- to try and allow economic development in partnership with the province. Resource management and conservation can all be affected under the MAI, where foreign corporations have to have preferential treatment. One of the issues that has been addressed is that they can sue for compensation for environmental rules and regulations that have been put in place to protect our environment here. But they're not the same as those in other jurisdictions -- let's say, in the United States or wherever. We can find our own measures, which we put in place here, challenged by corporations from outside of British Columbia. That's not acceptable to the people of this province.

Health care and social services. One of the key fundamental concerns of Canadians in the debate on the North American free trade agreement was that health care must not be on the table. In fact, we went so far as to add an addendum, which the United States still does not officially recognize, concerning health care in this country. Yet we're told by the federal government today that what they're willing to accept in the MAI is the wording in the North American Free Trade

[ Page 7209 ]

This agreement has been negotiated behind closed doors. The federal government has refused to come clean with the people of this country and this province on exactly what it means. I'll give two examples. Shortly after becoming minister, I attended the interprovincial trade ministers' meeting in Ottawa where the issue of discussion was the MAI. The concerns of various provinces were addressed -- and what we needed to do. The fact is that there is no consensus amongst the provinces. British Columbia has its concerns and is opposed to an agreement-in-principle; Prince Edward Island is opposed to the deal; Alberta is concerned around areas of resource industries, particularly oil and gas and the impact it will have on them. So it was agreed that we had to go out and hold public hearings and that the federal government needed to be communicating with the people of this country, letting them know what it's about and what their position is. To date, hon. Speaker, nothing has happened. There have been no hearings anywhere -- none whatsoever.

During the recent federal by-election in Port Moody-Coquitlam, we had the Minister of Finance come out to the riding. His statements could be duplicitous at best. He said: "What's the big deal about the MAI? We haven't discussed it at caucus yet." Well, he was probably telling the truth. Sure, they hadn't discussed it at caucus, but what he didn't say was that they had, sure as heck, discussed it at cabinet. They've definitely discussed the issue at cabinet. The cabinet gave the green light for a fast track. He didn't bother to tell that to the public and British Columbians and Canadians.

The question is: what has the federal government got to hide? Why will they not have public hearings across the country? Why will they not have public hearings here in British Columbia?

It's not just here in B.C. and Canada. It's increasingly large numbers of individuals and groups in nations throughout the OECD. Issues of culture are on the table in France. Yet when the prime motivation of the United States is to go forward and say that culture must be on the table, it's a deal-breaker for the Americans. In the United States there is increasing opposition to an agreement that few Americans know very much about. Increasingly, they're asking the question: do we need this agreement -- which is a bill of rights for corporations -- when, in fact, of the 29 OECD countries, not one of them is a bad place to invest. Their investments are safe. A British Columbian's investments are secure in France or Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands, Norway or the United States. An American's investments are secure, as are a Belgian's, a German's or someone from France. Investments are secure here in Canada. There's stability; there isn't turmoil, as there is in the rest of the world. As the federal ministers will tell you, that's where agreements are really needed.

We need to have a full and public set of hearings. That's why we are saying that we need an all-party committee to go out into British Columbia, to talk to British Columbians, to fully examine the impact of the MAI on the province and on areas of provincial jurisdiction and to report back to this House and make recommendations.

We have to do what the federal government should have been doing and isn't doing. We have to make sure that the public is informed and that the public is able to judge this agreement and to realize the dangers inherent in it. I ask all members of this House to support the resolution and I look forward to hearing from members.

I now to move Motion 43 standing on the order paper in my name.

G. Campbell: It's interesting to hear the minister speak about openness, about including the public, about the importance of sharing information and about the federal government's failure to meet its obligations, because that's exactly what British Columbians have been saying with regard to the way this government has managed other treaties -- the aboriginal treaties that we're working on.

I want to tell the minister that I agree that we should have open, public hearings. I agree that the federal government has failed to inform the public about all of the facts that are involved with regard to the multilateral agreement on investment. That is a failure which has allowed a number of fear-mongering statements to penetrate the public consciousness. It is something that we must, I believe, arrest. The way to do that is to have a full, open and public debate.

[2:45]

First, let me start by being very clear about a couple of things. We do believe that people should be treated equally and that corporations should be treated equally. We believe that if we are going to be a small and open economy, it is critical that we encourage outside investment. The Premier has just been down to Hollywood, encouraging outside investment. The Premier is saying that he wants to encourage corporations in this province to invest in this province.

If we're going to be a small and an open economy in this province, we are going to have to make sure that people are treated equally. But let me be very clear about this: if this agreement would in any way jeopardize our health care, our social services, our cultural industries, we would be opposed to it. If this agreement in any way abrogates the rights of the provincial government and the authorities of the provincial government to make decisions, we would be opposed to it. I think the critical matter here is to bring these issues forward so that we can indeed discover what is truly involved with regard to this agreement.

One of the things that I think is implied in the minister's motion is that people in British Columbia want to have a sense of certainty. They want to have a sense of equality with regard to the signing of any treaty, whether it's the multilateral agreement on investment or treaties with our aboriginal communities across this province. I agree with that. I think we do need certainty, and I think this government could show real leadership to the federal government if, when they were dealing with treaties, they were in fact open, accountable and encouraging people across the province to come together and understand the public policy issues at stake.

Let's remember that investment is a very critical part of our economy, not just in British Columbia but in Canada. It has been suggested that every $1 billion of foreign investment in this country generates approximately 45,000 jobs for Canadians. That obviously would have the same kind of impact on the British Columbia economy. We want to be sure that investment works for the public good, and we can be. Currently,

[ Page 7210 ]

One of the things that I think is most interesting about this is that as we've listened to the debate that has taken place across this country, what you notice is that it's been, really, a very one-sided debate. It's a debate that's been fuelled by fear. I think that one of the critical things that we have do. . . . One of the ways to deal with those fears and anxieties is to assure that British Columbians and Canadians alike have all of the information available so we can deal with these questions: get them on the table and hear a concrete and positive response and then let the public make their choices. Let the public decide. So we join with this provincial government in advocating that the government of Canada have full, regional and open parliamentary committee meetings across the country, including in the province of British Columbia with regard to this issue.

One of the critical messages that we ourselves have to reflect on here in this Legislature is: why is there a need for a special committee? Every year in the House we appoint select standing committees made up of members of the Legislature to deal with these issues -- not at the last minute, as we're having to deal with this today; not at the time when the federal government is dealing with this issue at the OECD in Paris. I understand from their comments that this has now been put very far onto the backburner; I understand there is now no deadline for an agreement. There is, I think, some question as to whether or not the OECD will even carry on with that in the longer term. I think it's a little late for the government to be showing up, but given that it has and given that it has raised these concerns, and given that we may believe that these concerns are legitimate, it seems to me that the true way that we should be dealing with this is through our select standing committees.

We have a Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. There's really nothing more important to our economic development than investment in the province of British Columbia. There's really nothing more important that a committee on economic development, science, labour, training and technology could deal with. We want to be known as a jurisdiction that encourages investment; we want to be known as a jurisdiction that treats all investors equally and aboveboard; we want to be known as a jurisdiction that encourages business activity, so we have more jobs in the province. All of those things are critical. It seems to me that the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology is a far more appropriate vehicle for us to move forward with.

Let me reiterate. We agree with the idea of open, accountable, public debate and discussion. We would like to see that take place with regard to MAI as well as with regard to other treaties that this province is involved with. We agree with the issue that says we will protect B.C.'s right to make B.C.'s decisions. We agree with the issue that says that if there is any threat to our health care, education or cultural industries, the multilateral agreement on investment should not go forward and should not be supported by Canada. But we believe that the way for us to move forward and include the Legislature in an appropriate manner would be to have the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology host these hearings.

Therefore I'm going to move that the motion of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to establish a special committee be amended to read: "That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia direct the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology to examine, inquire into and make recommendations respecting all aspects of the multilateral agreement on investment."

The Speaker: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rising on a point of order?

G. Wilson: I would take guidance from the Chair as to which motion we're debating and which motion we've just amended. My understanding is that we were debating Motion 43. The substance of the amendment I think speaks to Motion 42. If you could please direct us as to which motion we're amending and which we're debating, I'd appreciate it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps just to clarify for the member, at the bottom of Motion 43, the last paragraph states: "That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia establish a special committee to examine, inquire into. . . ." The amendment refers to that paragraph and replaces "special committee" with the standing committee that would normally deal with these matters as a matter of course.

The Speaker: The member is satisfied with that response? Motion 43 has the proposed amendment attached to it now. The debate continues, and I recognize the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

On the amendment.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, before I really get to the brunt of the amendment, I'd like to express my surprise at seeing this particular motion come to the House today, the 27th of April. We are, of course, aware of the fact that today they also had a meeting in Paris, where the 29 nations that make up the OECD got together to deal with the MAI. The reason that I'm really surprised to see this motion is that if the minister had been willing or able to learn from many of the discussions that have been going on in the province and in the country on the whole issue of the multilateral agreement on investment, the minister would have known that all parties have very clearly indicated for the last couple of months that today there would be no signing of any agreement.

To a large extent, the reason that there is no signing of any agreement contemplated today -- and no signing has been done today -- is because of what Canada has put down during the participation in the discussions on the elements that will ultimately make up the multilateral agreement on investment. In a sense, I feel that the minister is fishing behind the net in coming forward with motions that relate to issues that, in fairness, are not happening at all. I want to express that surprise to start off.

One of the points that the minister raised is that the MAI has so far been discussed, if it has been discussed, behind closed doors. He has very much expressed his dislike for that process. His lack of knowledge of what MAI really stands for is clearly reflected by not having listened to the debates that have been going on. The minister also noted earlier, in his introduction of his motion, that he attended a meeting in February with the other ministers of employment and investment in Ottawa. It was February 19, I believe. It should be

[ Page 7211 ]

The Speaker: This debate is on the amendment about whether the committee should be made up one way or the other way, as opposed to the substantive issue of the MAI itself. I encourage you to debate that. If you choose not to, that's okay too, because you'll get to speak again when the main motion is on the floor.

T. Nebbeling: Okay, Madam Speaker. I felt that. . . .

The Speaker: On the point about which committee would be better.

T. Nebbeling: That's what I'm talking about. I was getting to that particular point by illustrating that a committee is indeed necessary. A committee is necessary because so far the messages that this government should have used to establish a position on the MAI have clearly not been heard.

I will second the motion, as presented by the leader of my party, to establish a committee, not by creating a new body but by using the existing committee made up of all parties of this House. I believe it is capable of getting out the message that the minister intends to spread through the committee forum.

[3:00]

YEAS -- 32
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	Reid	Coell
Chong	Whittred	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Reitsma	J. Wilson	McKinnon
Krueger	Masi	Dalton
Barisoff	van Dongen	Symons
Thorpe	Hansen	Stephens
Coleman	Hawkins	Hogg
Nebbeling		Weisbeck

NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Janssen	Giesbrecht	Doyle
Kasper	Bowbrick	Sawicki
Smallwood	Sihota	Hartley
Waddell	Farnworth	Ramsey
Lovick	MacPhail	Dosanjh
Miller	Petter	Priddy
	G. Wilson

The Speaker: On the main motion, Motion 43, I recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who might wish to wait just a moment before he begins, while members find their way to their various meetings.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to ask leave of the House, if I may, to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I thank my colleagues in the House. It's with real pleasure that I introduce two constituents of mine who are also friends and who are very active in the Council of Canadians. In fact, Bill Abram is the president of the Council of Canadians in the Cowichan Valley. They're here, of course, to listen to this debate today; it's an issue that they, amongst many others, are very concerned about. I ask my colleagues in the House to make them very welcome.

T. Nebbeling: Now I'd like to speak on the main Motion 43 as presented by the Minister of Employment and Investment.

MAI has been on the front of many people's minds for quite a long time now, and I was really surprised to hear the minister say that as minister, he had very little knowledge about what MAI really was all about and that with his ignorance of the MAI bill and its intent, he also felt that the rest of the province had been kept in the dark about the details. It surprises me. The press has spent a considerable amount of time looking at the integrated parts of what was being discussed by the 29 nations making up the OECD. One thing that has disturbed me more than anything else over the last four or five months is the fact that whenever the government has spoken on MAI, they never seem to have really spoken on the. . . .

The federal government has shared information with the provincial government, but they seem to have been set on a track of speaking only the viewpoints of a number of people representing a number of organizations. These are the same people who, at the time that the North America Free Trade Agreement -- the NAFTA deal -- was being discussed, opposed it with almost the same types of arguments that we now have heard for the last four or five months when we talk about MAI. It is really disturbing, because ultimately the government, through its message, should foremost give the facts to the people. That is so fundamental. They should not just take a bunch of reasons to oppose MAI without looking at whether there is really validity, really truth to these arguments.

During his introduction today, when the minister speaks about the fact that we have to go on the road and get the truth to the people of this province as to how the multilateral agreement on investment will have an impact on their lives, I think it is going to be extremely important for me to be constantly monitoring how the government will portray that message. Are they going to speak on the reservations that the Canadian government has made in detail? Or are they going to speak on how the Institute for Policy Alternatives sees how MAI will materialize and how it will impact the lives of British Columbians?

Again today, the minister used some arguments, some illustrations and some examples to show why he believes it so important that we go out and let the people know what it is all about. There is nothing wrong with giving the MAI a broad exposure. I have always felt that as government we too often fail to present details of issues that are of interest as a whole to people living in this province. The meagreness, so to speak, of what we provide the people of this province in general when it comes to background on bills and issues that we are discussing. . . . So I am a strong supporter of the idea that we go out

[ Page 7212 ]

But like I said before, I'm also going to be very cognizant of the fact that these arguments, which will be shared by this government with the people of this province, are going to be based on the true facts. When I hear the minister talk today about the threat to the provincial jurisdiction, and when we look at all the reservations with it that the federal government has made in discussing this at the OECD, I cannot see where the government is so fundamentally set in believing that the provincial jurisdiction is undermined. Many scholars, many experts, have looked at this whole issue, and they've said no, it is not true. I cannot see how this government, with the little knowledge they claim to have on the whole MAI -- they claim it has been discussed behind closed doors by the federal government -- can say that when at the same time the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs in Alberta spoke at a meeting that this minister attended, about the fact that:

"Alberta has taken a great interest in the negotiations leading to the multilateral agreement on investment, since they were launched by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 1995. From the outset Alberta has pressed for provincial participation with the federal government, because of the potential effect on the area of provincial jurisdiction. Alberta wanted to make sure that provincial interests were accurately and fully reflected in the Canadian position in the negotiations, and we have been very active with the federal negotiator, to that end, over the last two years."

[3:15]

What other trade agreements have done -- like NAFTA or any other of the trade agreements Canada has been involved with -- is create more jobs. It's not only that overseas investors can come to this province or to Canada and invest, but Canadians can go abroad and invest and work on fairly reasonable bases, which in certain countries might not be there today. Canada today has invested $170 billion abroad. What this agreement is potentially doing -- I have not been sold on it completely, but the potential is there -- is, indeed, making sure that a Canadian company, when working abroad, has the full protection of the law and cannot be manipulated. That is potentially a good thing, but we need the answers for it. For the NDP government to say today that it will kill job opportunities is fundamentally wrong.

Health care was mentioned again today by the minister. It should be noted that the federal minister of economic development has repeatedly stated and given in writing an unconditional commitment that there will be in no way, shape or form the potential for an attack -- be it on health care, be it on our social services. For the government here in British Columbia to stand up and try to fearmonger and try to get people all worked up over health care being under attack. . . . It is fundamentally not true. One of the main reasons that today in the OECD's meeting no signatures were put on a piece of paper that would have made the MAI a reality is that Canada has introduced a large number of reservations to protect the well-being of not only this country but also this province. As long as these reservations are not entrenched, I'm glad Canada will not sign. Why does the government not give that message to the public of British Columbia? I think it would be much more constructive. It would be more helpful, and it would certainly be more honest.

Another element of the minister's motion is the -- what I find surprising -- request to ask the federal government to exclude itself from any further deliberation on the MAI. Now, I don't know if the minister has really thought this one through. First of all, the question was asked last year: should Canada participate in debating the MAI? And last year the minister then responsible for employment and investment categorically stated here in the House that yes, we should be at the table. He said there were obvious reasons why that should be the case. To see the new minister today with a total reversal of that position is kind of surprising, and I don't think it has been thought through very well. This minister is basically saying that of the 29 countries that make up the OECD, we are the only country that is going to stand aside; we're not going to participate. We are going to let the other 28 countries make the decisions and set rules and regulations that if one day we want to be part of, we had no input into.

I'd like to compare it a little bit to what happened in Europe over the last couple of years. You are well aware that Europe, with its Common Market -- what is now called the EEC, the European Economic Community. . . . When this started about 20 years ago with the Benelux, which was three countries that started a trade pact -- Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. . . . At that time, the trade pact was based on natural resources; other countries were asked to join, and there was very little interest. The Benelux was basically on its own for a couple of years. Then other countries began to realize that there was something good happening there, and a number of other countries joined, and it became the European Common Market. There were nine countries in total making up the European Common Market, and these nine countries started to talk amongst themselves about free trade, currency issues and employment issues..

Then there were a number of other European countries that said: "No. We don't really want to belong to this. This is not going anywhere." One of the countries that held out the longest was Sweden. So the European Common Market became the EEC, the European Economic Community. Suddenly the countries that didn't think they wanted to be part of the programs that were discussed for the EEC started to realize that they were standing on the outside, that a fair

[ Page 7213 ]

So in the last couple of years we have seen countries like Denmark and Sweden suddenly knocking on the door and saying: "Hey, we want to get in." And guess what: they are in. But they are in with the conditions that were set by the original nine countries. The Swedes didn't like it. They had a referendum on it and said: "We don't like this part of the agreement, and we don't like that part of the agreement, but for economic reasons, we can't stay on the outside any longer." Sweden is now part of the European Community. There are elements in the rules and the regulations that they really don't like, but they have to live with it.

That's one example where, by excluding yourself from a process, you also abandon your right of input. You also give up your right to have input and your viewpoint reflected in the ultimate, final decision that is made. For the minister to today stand up and come up with a motion that includes that exclusion, or requests that the government of Canada get out of the meeting room and let the other 28 nations decide how trade will happen in the future, is to me very outlandish, very unproductive and very dangerous. The 28 remaining nations may very well decide that today when the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development gets together to look at all the issues, part of the discussion is about 50 or 60 reservations that Canada has made. Guess what: if Canada no longer participates, the reservations are gone. And yes, then there would be a threat to jobs and yes, there would be a threat to health. So I really feel that either the minister hasn't thought through what he has done by putting this motion on the table, or the minister has another plan that I cannot fathom. Whatever that would be, it could never be in the interests of this province. And that's ultimately what we are all looking out for.

I'd like to conclude by also making an amendment to the minister's motion. The amendment reads as follows:

[That the statement "That the Government of Canada suspend its participation in the MAI negotiations until the Canadian public have been thoroughly consulted through parliamentary hearings in all regions of the country" be amended to read: "That the Government of Canada consult the Canadian public through parliamentary hearings in all regions of the country".]

On the amendment.

C. Hansen: I am on the list to speak later on the main motion, and I wish to reserve that right to speak later.

The Speaker: You would do that anyway. We deal with one piece of business, and then it is all wide open again for the next order of business. At this point, it's specifically to the amendment.

C. Hansen: I do have some comments specifically relating to this amendment that I do want to put on the record at this time. I certainly want to speak in favour of the amendment put forward by my colleague. On May 23 last year a resolution was put before this House on this very subject by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I spoke to that motion at that time and congratulated the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for bringing the subject of the MAI forward to this House. It was really the first time that anyone had raised it in this chamber. At that time we acknowledged that a lot of questions were brought forward.

But I did take exception to that motion that was put forward last year, because it too called for the federal government to withdraw from the negotiating table. I feel very strongly that that would be the wrong thing for government to do. Certainly we have some very profound questions about the MAI, which I will address when I speak to the main motion, but nothing is accomplished if we simply remove ourselves from the negotiating table. There are many questions that need to be asked. There are many areas in the MAI that Canada has a very strong interest in -- a unique interest probably unlike the other 28 countries that are at the negotiating table. For us to withdraw from that negotiation would be the wrong thing to do. It would be totally counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve, which is the protection of Canadian and British Columbian interests when it comes to the negotiation of an international treaty of this nature. At that time last May, I moved an amendment that basically said that this government, this Legislature, should urge the federal government not to sign an agreement until such time as there were proper consultations, rather than saying that we should withdraw from negotiations. And the debate on that motion took us up to adjournment on May 23, 1997.

We had an opportunity to debate this issue fully last year, and this government chose not to call that resolution for debate again in this chamber during that last session of the Legislature. That was a mistake, because now almost a year has passed, and a lot more questions have been asked, and there are very few answers coming from the federal government.

Last year, after that motion was adjourned by my colleague from Chilliwack, this government chose never to call that motion again for debate during that last session.

We came up to June 9, the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. The current minister was on the government back bench at that time, but the current Minister of Energy and Mines was the Minister of Employment and Investment then. I asked some very specific questions about the MAI and the negotiations and the importance of us being at the negotiating table. Let me just read back into the record what was said during those estimates debates. I asked the Minister of Employment and Investment if he felt that there was an opportunity to influence the negotiations that were taking place. If we found issues that were not in British Columbia's best interest, was there an opportunity for us to have an impact on those negotiations at the negotiating table? The Minister of Employment and Investment at the time answered: "I do believe it is possible internally in Canada to have some influence on the position taken by our federal government while they're at the table. Whether or not. . .our federal government has the ability to have some influence. . .internationally. . . . It's a significant player. I'm sure its voice would be heard."

So I came back and asked the minister a very specific question: was the minister of the opinion that it is better for Canada to be at that negotiating table or to withdraw from that negotiating table? I don't think I could have put the question more succinctly, hon. Speaker. The minister's response was: "I believe that they should stay at the table. . .if only to understand what's happening there, what's being proposed" -- and to protect our interest.

[3:30]

[ Page 7214 ]

The Speaker: That's fine, hon. member. Any further debate on the amendment? I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: I too rise to support the amendment. I very much believe -- and I think most British Columbians do -- that anything worth doing is worth doing right. In particular, when our country, ergo our province, is engaged in a negotiation of this significance, it's important to remain represented at the table. Canada is an international player in virtually every area of concern to people around the world, and this is an area of huge concern. Canada has stood for human rights, protection of the downtrodden and improvement in the status of underprivileged people around the world. How are we served by withdrawing from the table when something this important is being discussed?

It only makes sense to have the benefit of public consultation -- real public consultation. It equips the country and certainly the province with a real snapshot of public opinion and Canadians' concerns, and I've heard many. Canadians are tremendously concerned about the multilateral agreement on investment, and I want to see those concerns voiced to the negotiators who represent Canadians and Canada at this table. That won't happen if the negotiators have withdrawn. There would be no point.

I wonder why the government has called this debate today. As my colleagues have mentioned, there has been plenty of opportunity over the last months, and we've tried to have this debate before. So what's the reason for calling the debate today? Could it be crude political opportunism -- a government that feels so much on the ropes that it's trying to distract public attention from the sorrowful state of British Columbia's economy? Is there a chance that the government is so ashamed of itself and its cabinet ministers' behaviour. . . ?

The Speaker: Hon. member, on the amendment, please.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am speaking to the amendment. I'm speaking to the question of why British Columbia would urge Canada to withdraw from the negotiating table on the multilateral agreement on investment, which is the substance of my colleague's amendment, of course. He and I don't believe, and the official opposition does not accept, that Canada should withdraw from those negotiations -- not at all. We say we should empower our negotiators with information from the public -- Canadians' concerns -- and ensure that all of Canada's interests are adequately represented at that table, not walk away from it. There are indications that there is not going to be any movement on the MAI in the negotiations in Paris, so there is no need to take any such precipitous or foolish action, in my view. I think this is simply cynical political timing, trying to withdraw from the process in order to distract British Columbians from the real issues in B.C. right now.

Now, we agree with the government that these negotiations should not be going on in secret, just as we feel that many similar negotiations in other areas and on other issues should not be going on in secret around British Columbia. In particular, our leader raised the example of the aboriginal treaty negotiations. There should be much more public consultation, many more open processes involving British Columbians and Canadians. British Columbia should not do so much in secret. Closed-door meetings and backroom deals are not the way to conduct business for British Columbians or for Canadians. We have an intelligent and informed electorate who want to be heard, who want to be represented at tables such as this one.

So we don't go for sneaky backroom deals, not at the MAI table. Frankly, I don't think that's what our federal government is going to allow to happen. We certainly don't accept them here in British Columbia, either, on the many issues where those processes are going ahead in secret. It only leads to public cynicism and to a downgrading of public confidence in the government and in the role that we as representatives play for British Columbians and for Canadians.

The issue of the credibility of the current government of British Columbia also looms very large on this issue. It is, after all, a negotiation on an international agreement on investment. Who is qualified to speak on investment in Canada? I think that more and more, as we close this millennium, people look to results and measure governments, measure leadership, measure managers, measure everyone who presumes to make decisions on behalf of other people by their results. Who has the results in Canada? Who would British Columbians feel are best equipped to speak for them?

A survey was published today, Madam Speaker. It was a survey of money managers, who are responsible for $140 billion in investment and assets. It says the results show that Canadian money managers feel that British Columbia and Quebec have, by far, the most negative business climates in Canada. In fact, only 3 percent said British Columbia has a positive climate for business, while 73 percent said that about Alberta and 81 percent about Ontario.

So I don't think British Columbia has much credibility when it comes to speaking about issues concerning investment, with this government at the helm. This is the government that took us from first to worst in terms of economic performance in Canada -- a shameful record. This is the government that stood in the path of an agreement on interprovincial trade, again a tremendously negative performance with regard to investment in British Columbia.

This is the government which, faced with the Delgamuukw decision -- one of the most important decisions ever rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada -- has chosen not to act in a decisive way, not to take a public and strong position on that decision, which is, again, tremendously important to investment in British Columbia. Rather, it appoints the former Speaker as both Labour minister and Aboriginal Affairs minister and allows him to say that the highest priority of this government and therefore of British Columbia is to introduce changes to the Labour Code of all things -- another move that will be tremendously negative to investment in British Columbia. So this government doesn't speak with authority. It's blown its. . . .

The Speaker: On the amendment, hon. member.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, I seek to make it clear why, in my opinion and the opinion of my colleagues and constituents, it's not in order for the present government, the NDP government of the province of British

[ Page 7215 ]

The moves this government has made with regard to investment, particularly the Labour Code amendments if they're brought in, are further major nails in the coffin of British Columbia's economy. I don't think that we should put our heads up in this way on this issue and make such a foolish admonition to the senior level of government with credibility lacking the way it is in British Columbia. As long as we're at the table, we can prevent -- or at least try to -- those things we do not agree with.

If we lose our voice, if we foolishly throw away our opportunity to speak, we have no further control over what goes on at that table -- and, of course, trade is tremendously important to Canada and to British Columbia. So why would we do that? I wonder if this current Minister of Employment and Investment was even aware when he drafted this amendment that he was flatly contradicting the previous Minister of Employment and Investment -- so lately departed from our midst in that role -- when he said on June 9, 1997, that he believed they should stay at the table. We believe, too, that the negotiators for Canada should stay at the table, and that's exactly what my colleague's amendment says.

This motion, in my mind, is typical of this government's flamboyant and unproductive Hollywood style of attempting to provide leadership for the province of B.C. It reminds me of the phony fish war, of the ill-advised backing of the Alaska ferry blockade, of the jobs and timber accord -- there was no such thing as an accord, in that nothing was on paper; it was all smoke and mirrors -- and of the recent interceding in the teachers' negotiations, which is an assault on collective bargaining and, again, destructive to labour peace and to the economy of British Columbia.

We're not happy with the process that has gone on with the multilateral agreement on investment thus far. We believe the public should have been informed all along. The public should have had the opportunity to speak, but that can still happen. I don't understand why this government would vote against our leader's amendment to consult the people of British Columbia through the existing processes of the Legislature and would rather try and create another committee unnecessarily, except that it's just one more attempt to seize the podium to try and make a grand statement. It's contrary to the best interests of Canadians and British Columbians.

If it comes down to a question of credibility between the federal government and this NDP provincial government, then the Premier loses hands down. Canada created 363,000 new full-time jobs in 1997; British Columbia went backwards. We're back in the dust with Prince Edward Island. We have no right to lecture the federal government on withdrawing from negotiations on investment of all things.

The Premier is a tiny figure on these issues, compared to the people he's presuming to admonish in Ottawa, with 30 years of integrity versus a history in the last seven years in British Columbia of the destruction of investment and of the economy, and a government here that indulges in wild exaggeration on its goals versus a federal government that continually understates its goals and has delivered a balanced budget and begun to get rid of the national debt. Now, that is something that encourages investment and, once again, it is an indication of where the credibility lies in this debate.

B.C. would look extremely foolish putting this position forward, and that is contrary to our best interests. The international investment community does not suffer fools. This would just be another row of bricks on the big wall that this government has built around British Columbia, keeping out investment, and it's tremendously ill-advised.

Another Biblical parallel. The Lord said to get the beam out of one's own eye before one tries to deal with a sliver in someone else's. Let's not presume to admonish the people who have established credibility when British Columbia in its current administration has none. Trade is essential to British Columbia and Canada and to investment. Our lack of credibility in the eyes of investors is the reason that British Columbia is hurting so terribly economically.

We should not run away from these negotiations. We should stay and negotiate and represent the people of British Columbia and Canada, armed with public opinion that we can obtain only through legitimate consultation processes, which are very different from what we've seen in the various areas where they've been tried by this government over recent years. People continually tell me, when they've been involved in those consultative processes, that they have a strong sense that the government always knew what it was going to do. It only went through the motions, the pretence, of having a consultative process in order to try and give itself some legitimacy when it does the arbitrary thing that it always wanted to do. Indeed, often it announces its decision before the consultation is actually even complete. That's happened in my own constituency.

So I think we should stay. I support my colleague's amendment that the government of Canada should not be asked to suspend its negotiations or to withdraw from the table. I think that once again, today, this NDP government has opposed public consultation, and the reason for that is that this NDP government obviously does not believe in public consultation. I obviously speak in favour of the amendment, and I would ask that the government side of the House reconsider that particular portion of this resolution.

[3:45]

[ Page 7216 ]

G. Wilson: On the surface, the amendment certainly seems to make a lot of sense if it weren't for the fact that it's based on a fundamental misassumption -- or the assumption is wrong. The government of Canada isn't negotiating the MAI; the MAI is being negotiated by the OECD. To the extent that the government of Canada is involved, it is involved by consultation with people who are there representing Canadian business interests and concerns. I'm amazed, frankly, at the extent to which there seems to be a lack of understanding of exactly what is going on with respect to MAI negotiation.

The amendment is simply saying that if we were to withdraw. . . . I've heard commentary here that somehow Canadians would no longer be informed about what's going on at the table. This agreement has been negotiated since May of 1995. This is not new; this is long-term. If the government were to suspend its participation in the MAI negotiation, it would not stop the continued movement toward what is becoming a greater degree of open access by corporate entry into various countries -- OECD countries in this case. Furthermore, it would not in any way inhibit the ability for Canadian business to continue to participate in those discussions. So the amendment to the motion is specious.

What it does say -- and this would be my interpretation -- is that the government of Canada, which is not mandated to negotiate on behalf of Canadians what will become completely unfettered access into Canadian resources and into many aspects of Canadian sovereignty. . . . We will no longer require of that federal government a mandate to actually go out and talk to Canadians to find out what Canadians think about it.

It seems to me that to allow this motion to stand as it is requires that the federal government -- and it's noteworthy that they have a constitutional obligation to this province to do so -- go out and actually consult with Canadians and get a mandate to decide whether or not Canada wishes to participate in the OECD agreements. That's what it says. All those who would argue that by saying that Canada should suspend its participation somehow makes Canadians look foolish. . . . I think they look a little foolish, to be honest, because they clearly don't understand what's going on in these negotiations. I think it is incumbent upon the federal government to undertake to consult broadly, by region. . . .

I participated in the Ottawa presentations. I flew to Ottawa. I made a representation back in November of last year with respect to the MAI. I'll tell you, it's a very onerous, expensive and difficult thing to have to go to the capital, as a western Canadian, a British Columbian, to make representation to a committee that only wanted to hear from those they selected. That's what they called broad consultation.

If the amendment were to pass, what it would essentially say is: "It's business as usual, folks in Ottawa." As members of the B.C. Liberal Party and cousins to the federal Liberal Party, maybe that's what they want to do. Certainly those. . . .

Interjections.

G. Wilson: I think the member for Vancouver-Quilchena has strong Liberal credentials, and I admire him for them. I freely admit mine. I have very strong Liberal credentials. I've been a small-l liberal all my life. I'll tell you that I'm ashamed, frankly, at the degree to which the federal Liberal government seems to hold in contempt Canadians' rights to have an understanding and knowledge of what their government is doing on their behalf, and therefore I would not support this amendment.

I think the people of Canada have to send a strong message to the federal government that if they are going to continue to participate with respect to the consultation process of OECD negotiations -- not government negotiations -- then they better talk to Canadians first and mandate themselves with the views and concerns of the people they purport to represent. That is why I would not support the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hadn't intended to get up on the amendment, but I heard the comments by the member for Surrey-Whalley and the comments from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and I think they missed the point. Perhaps we may disagree. I think we probably agree on what the federal government should be doing, for the most part. I think where we disagree is on whether or not we feel that the government absenting itself, as the original government motion read, would be putting the interests of British Columbia and Canadians forward or backward. That's where we disagree.

I agree with almost everything the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said -- almost everything. I agree with him that the federal government absenting itself or their representatives from the negotiations of the OECD would not stop the negotiations. That's what he said, and I agree with him on that. I also agree with him that it would not stop progress toward the deal. In fact, I would use those very arguments that the member made to argue that Canada should stay there at the negotiating table. We should be there.

An Hon. Member: It's not the government.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says that it's not the government. I understand that it's not the government; it is the representatives.

Canada carries immense weight around the world on international issues. Canada is a widely respected country. Many people around this globe look to Canada for direction on a whole range of issues, and that's why it's important that we be at the table. That's why it's important that Canadian delegates be there talking about this issue.

Let's look at what was just in the paper today and in the last week. As the MAI has sort of gone off the rails, as the path toward the ratification of this agreement has hit turbulence, it's been France and Canada primarily that have been raising concerns about culture and about the other issues.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says it's been the people of Canada. It's also been. . . . I've seen quotes on this from politicians of all parties at the federal level that would indicate the willingness, the desire and, in fact, the need to protect Canadian culture, Canadian content, etc. If Canada absents itself from the whole debate around MAI and the whole discussion around it, that considerable voice that stood with France on a whole bunch of these concerns raised by the members opposite and the member to my left would have been gone. France would have stood alone.

[ Page 7217 ]

We in this House all agree that the federal government should be out there talking to people. They should be going out of their way to consult Canadians right across this country about this issue, and they should be coming to us. As the member said, we shouldn't all have to fly to Ottawa to do it. We all agree on that. What this amendment to the motion does is say it's smarter for Canada to be there, raising these concerns, talking about these concerns, protecting Canadian culture, protecting health care, protecting social services, protecting education -- the very things that the members are worried about. It's better for Canada to be there, wielding our considerable power and influence internationally.

Now, that's where we disagree, apparently. We all agree on the goal; we disagree on what the impact would be. I believe that being there is better and that it's smarter. It allows you to be inside, and I think the facts of the last month or two have proven that case. I believe firmly that France wouldn't have had nearly the clout it had in dealing with this issue if Canada hadn't stood with it.

I think the amendment to the motion is a wise one. It's a rational one; it's a reasoned one and will go a long way to ensuring that the voices of Canadians -- once the federal government comes and talks to us -- are represented at the table. If we're not there, our voices are mute. We present to the committee. We present to the federal government, and they go back to Ottawa and write a report. They sit on it, and it goes nowhere.

If you're there participating in the discussions and the negotiations, you can take the voice of Canadians and say: "Look. This is what our people are thinking. This is what our people are saying." It is clearly to the advantage of Canadians to have our voices heard not just by the people in Ottawa but by the people in Paris as well. That's why this amendment to the motion is so critical.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the opportunity to get into this debate on the amendment, if I may. I hadn't actually planned to insert myself in the debate at this point, but I think it is crucial that we speak to this amendment. It would be my hope that the Legislature defeats the amendment. I don't in any way underestimate the intent of the opposition, nor do I criticize the opposition for this amendment, but I do want to bring to the attention of the Legislature why it is so important that the government stop the meetings on the multilateral agreement on investment -- completely stop the negotiations until the Canadian public has had an opportunity. . . .

I want to speak to it in the context of an issue that's very close to my heart and our government's heart. That's the issue of public health as it's affected by tobacco. Someone might say: "Well, what does that have to do with the MAI, and why is it in any way affected by the MAI?" Well, it is simply to say that the consequences of the multilateral agreement on investment hurt public health. It would effectively stop governments from banning tobacco advertising or from introducing plain packaging of cigarettes or, in effect, not even allow our government to do what we plan on doing, which is to label the ingredient content of tobacco.

Under the MAI, brand names and trademarks are considered intellectual property, one of many kinds of investments the MAI is designed to protect. The MAI gives corporations a money-back guarantee on investments like trademarks. Before a government takes any measures which expropriate the use of a trademark or a cigarette brand name, for instance, it has to be prepared to show that the proposed measure is in the public interest, show that the proposed measure is not discriminatory and show that the proposed measure is lawful.

Here's the really important issue: the government must compensate the cigarette company for their lost use of the trademark. It is a bizarre consequence of the MAI that, to me, is key. This is a very complicated issue. I actually appreciate those who are focusing in on the issue of the MAI, rather than extraneous debate that literally has nothing to do with this issue. But here is the key in terms of public health: the MAI protects cigarette companies from our bringing in good public health policy through law, and even if we do bring in a law, we then have to compensate the cigarette companies for their perceived loss. What does that mean to our government, or indeed even to the government of Canada? Banning cigarette advertising would become too expensive for any small government.

I know that there are those that would doubt this and think that we're raising this debate to an hysterical level. This is the position of the World Health Organization; this is not a matter that our government has examined and brought for our own benefit. The World Health Organization met with me recently and is very concerned about the consequences of the MAI on anybody's ability to bring about good public health law in the area of tobacco use.

The MAI would consider that banning tobacco brand names from race cars is an expropriation of trademark rights. Any government wanting to protect kids from tobacco company marketing through race cars would have to pay the cigarette companies for the lost use of their trademarks. Trademarks like Rothmans, Benson and Hedges, Marlboro and Camel are amongst those most valuable in the world. The compensation required would be in the tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of dollars. Plain packaging of cigarettes would also be an expropriation of cigarette company trademark rights.

The Speaker: Hon. Minister, I'm having a little trouble connecting this to the amendment. I'd appreciate it if you could stick to the amendment.

[4:00]

I am close to my conclusion. My position here is simply this: the public needs to know about the consequences of this deal, these privately held discussions. They need to know the consequences at this level. I don't believe I've heard a public discussion around the consequences from a public health

[ Page 7218 ]

I just want to conclude by saying that one sensible proposal to reduce the appeal of cigarettes is to put them in ordinary packages. This is not a revolutionary concept; many governments are talking about plain packaging for cigarettes so they don't have any image or brand name associated with them. In 1994 our federal government was actively considering plain packaging of cigarettes, and the studies showed that they would almost certainly lead to fewer kids smoking. The tobacco industry -- this is a real case -- used the NAFTA to fight back. Carla Hills, the former U.S. trade negotiator, was brought into a House of Commons committee by the tobacco industry to threaten trade action if plain packaging proceeded. The North American Free Trade Agreement contains investment protection provisions almost identical to those proposed under the multilateral agreement on investment. So after the government looked at the compensation it would have had to pay. . . .

T. Nebbeling: Point of order.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, would you take your seat, please. On what point of order, member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi?

T. Nebbeling: I think I've been very lenient listening to arguments that have nothing to do with the amendment to the motion. I really feel that the Chair should stop this now. It is just another example of how misinformation enters the public. The arguments made by the minister as far as health and tobacco are not as she presented them in her little submission. Nevertheless, I think she should stick to the amendment.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his point, and I'm sure the minister, in her conclusions, will take that into account.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm actually dismayed about the position of the opposition parties. This is not a partisan issue that I'm talking about here. This is a public health issue, and it's very important that we have these discussions. We are talking about this in the context of the effect it will have on the Canadian public and whether the government should continue to be involved in discussions before the public knows the consequences. I am actually truly dismayed that anyone would suggest that this isn't an important issue or that it be characterized as misinformation. It is quite amazing that it is being characterized as misinformation.

Just to conclude on that matter, after the government looked into a real-life example that's identical -- the compensation issues under NAFTA are identical to the MAI; it would have had to pay cigarette companies for plain packaging -- they ditched the proposal. So here is a real-life example of what the consequences could be, not only from a taxpayer point of view, but also from a public health point of view. I would sincerely urge all of us who are concerned, who are perhaps having trouble absorbing the full consequences of the multilateral agreement on investment, to at least turn our minds to what we need to do to protect the public health -- of our kids particularly, who are the target of the tobacco industry. Let's ask the government to withhold any discussions and conduct our public hearings. British Columbia will be there in full force.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 33
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	Reid	Coell
Chong	Whittred	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Weisgerber	Reitsma	J. Wilson
McKinnon	Krueger	Masi
Dalton	Barisoff	van Dongen
Symons	Thorpe	Hansen
Stephens	Coleman	Weisbeck
Hawkins	Hogg	Nebbeling

NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Hartley	Sihota	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Janssen
	G. Wilson

On the main motion.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to be able to rise and speak to the main motion. Where possible, I'm going to try to limit my remarks to the facts of the matter, and I hope that I have the facts correct. Without a doubt, there is an enormous amount of misinformation among the general public about what the MAI is all about and what its impact is likely to be. Because it is an agreement being negotiated by the OECD and because it's been underway since May of 1995, with the original target date of May 1997, a tremendous amount of distrust currently resides in many people in Canada who have been following this debate, at least in the last number of months. They were unaware that their government was, at least peripherally, participating by way of consultation with negotiations that involved a number of key Canadians with respect to the proposition of the MAI.

[4:15]

The issue with the MAI is whether or not it's desirable, in the context of globalized trade, to allow corporations that are foreign to a particular country to be treated as domestics. That means: should we give them equal rights or a corporate bill of rights within our country, in order for them to be able to access our resource base and expand their investments?

On the surface, I hear what many members of the Liberal Party are saying: that we have to encourage investment into

[ Page 7219 ]

Should we as Canadians allow unfettered access, the unfettered right, for capitalist ventures to come into this country and be able to access our resource base and repatriate -- to take out -- their profit? Their assets will be deemed as part of that repatriated right. That flies in the face of every single thing that Canadians held dear in the making of Canada. Canada is a country that was built on resisting global forces through a mercantile process that took place in a colonial era with the English and the French when they dominated Canada and came here for one reason only: to extract its resources and take off.

We were a staples economy, and we are still largely a staples economy. We are, in British Columbia, still a staples economy. That is why, when the Asian economy collapses, we suffer here because of the loss to our resource base, which is primary extractive: our forest industry. And what this says is that the international corporate entity that looks at Canada as an enormous base of resource wealth should have unfettered access to that resource base, should be able to maximize its profit, to expatriate it and take it out, and that government should be restricted in their ability to put in place laws that protect domestic investment, protect domestic labour, protect utilities and put in place Crown corporate entities that make sure that the interests of our citizens are protected first.

Now, I am not anti-free trade. I'm not. I think the globalized economy is a fact of life. I understand, I think to a reasonable degree, exactly how it works. But I also understand the clear distinction between what is in the interest of a corporate board of directors and what is in the interest of this particular assembly. The corporate boards of directors have as their mandate to make money for their shareholders. Profit is their game. I don't have a problem with that at all. I think that's their mandate, and I think many of them do very well at it. In fact, the ten largest multinational corporations in the world today have a greater GDP than this country has. I don't for a moment try to diminish what it is that they're doing, but the mandate of this Legislature and the mandate of the House of Commons is the well-being of the people.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Corporate entities look after profit; governments look after people. If we are going to effectively look after people, we must not have our hands tied in our ability to do that because a corporate enterprise comes along and decides that they are going to have, through negotiations through the OECD, an opportunity to be able to fetter federal and provincial legislatures from protecting the very people we are mandated to protect: the people. So it seems to me that when we see an agreement such the MAI come along and we start to understand the ramifications of what is in the agreement. . . .

I would strongly, strongly urge the members of this Legislative Assembly who have not read the latest text to read it, because I hear a lot of misinformation in this chamber about what is and is not in this agreement. Read the text of the agreement. Not all of it is bad; actually, some of it will help Canadian investments abroad. We might look at those aspects of this agreement to say: "You know what? I think there are some areas here in which Canadians can benefit."

But where the sections are bad -- and there are some sections in here that are extremely bad -- we find that they speak to the very right of government to be able to govern. For the first time, it provides the right for international corporations, treated as domestic, to sue governments and to have compensation from governments if we pass laws in the interests of our people -- the people who elect us -- that fail to support the interests of the corporation. That's what this is all about, and this is why this is so dangerous. I guess it is really is a matter of whether or not you think it's important for the parliamentary democratic process to continue along. We might argue that in these negotiations, most of those who sit at the table. . . . This is why I had so much of a problem with this last amendment: the government isn't at the table. It's not like the Canadian government is sitting there. It's not like NAFTA or the FTA in that sense, because what this does is build on NAFTA and the FTA.

If the government wanted to cut free trade, the Prime Minister would do what he did down in Chile, he would do what he did with Israel, and he would do what he's been doing all over South America: set up a continental free trade agreement. Now, I'll tell you what: Canadians don't have a clue what's in any of that, either. They haven't come out and shown to us what they're doing. They didn't debate it in the last federal election.

I guess it's a question of whether or not we think that the executive branch of government should be empowered beyond the legislative branch of government so that the executive branch can, by international agreement, essentially fetter the right of the legislative branch -- that is, those of us here who are legislators -- to pass laws to protect the rights and interests of our citizens. It's whether or not we as British Columbians should allow the federal government to enter into and sign an agreement that quite frankly will bind this Legislative Assembly, at least in practice, in our ability to pass laws.

When I went back to Ottawa. . . . And I would point out that I first raised this matter in the Legislative Assembly on April 8, 1997, over a year ago, in a question that I put to the Premier about the MAI, at which point the Premier said that he wasn't familiar with the content of the document. In fact, very few on the other side of the House knew what was in it. Most people didn't even know what the MAI was all about. The only reason I knew was because I had the agreement brown-enveloped to me by somebody saying: "What do you think?" I read it and was horrified at the time. It's been considerably amended since, because the public, the Canadian people -- not government -- have stood up and said: "You know what? We've got this information." I put it on the Internet; others put it on the Internet. There is now an international network on the Internet that deals with the MAI. I'll tell you, the public are informed.

The first group to come out in opposition was the governors of the western United States, who said: "Hey, hey, what's going on here? This is a violation of states' rights." The next group to come out were the people in France and the European countries, who were saying: "Hold on a second. We don't like what's in here with respect to a whole host of things around which culture is a large component." Then we saw in

[ Page 7220 ]

To be sure, the NDP had an interest in it. They were the most receptive to talking about it. The Bloc thought it was interesting but really not a gut issue. The Liberals wanted nothing to do with it. The Reform Party weren't sure where they were going on the matter because, you know, they're pro-free traders, and they weren't too sure what they were going to do with this issue. The Conservatives didn't even want to talk about free trade for fear it would raise the spectre of times past, and they didn't want to have anything to do with that. Yet that was the time, hon. Speaker, that Canadians should have been broadly consulted -- in the last election. They weren't and they haven't been since.

When I went back to Ottawa, I decided that I would focus on two issues. I'm going to just talk to those two issues give reasons why I'm going to support this motion today. The first is that within the context of the Canadian constitution, the federal government cannot bind this Legislative Assembly with respect to an international agreement on trade that limits our ability to exercise our sovereign right over that which we have guaranteed jurisdictional authority. It cannot do that. You know, when I put that to the parliamentary committee, there wasn't one member on that committee -- including the Clerks who were there and other lawyers who were sitting around -- who disagreed. Why? Because there is ample case law in Canada that says that I am correct. They can't do it. In order for it to affect this Legislative Assembly, this House would have to pass enabling legislation that would allow this agreement to take effect.

The problem is, as the Minister of Health has just correctly pointed out, not all matters that affect British Columbians fall within the legislative purview of the province. The matter of health and the federal statutes regulating it is one example. So where you have competing interests, provincial and federal, and the federal government is a signature to this agreement, we are bound by it de facto. If we pass a law in this province at the legislative level that violates this agreement, the court grievance will be against the signature of the federal government, which will then seek restitution against us. Let's not forget that they hold control over the transfer of dollars to this province. Even though by constitution they can't do it -- and I would even argue that the case law is very clear that they can't do it -- in effect, the powers of the federal government are enormous in this matter.

The second issue I want to raise about this, and the reason why this motion needs to be passed today, is because of the increased power that the court of law is exhibiting over the legislative supremacy of lawmaking. This is a very, very important issue, because it speaks to the question of provincial Crown lands and jurisdictions on Crown lands -- particularly in light of aboriginal treaty negotiations which, as we all know, are being dealt with at the federal level right now. You know, when I raised the question of the MAI's impact on the treaty negotiation process and the impact of the federal jurisdictional matter here and of future joint ventures with international companies with self-governing first nations, they hadn't even thought about it. They said: "Oh gee, yeah. Wow." Do you know what? There are a lot of complicated problems here.

[4:30]

We have to be ahead of the game here. We can't be constantly running behind, trying to grab the tail of a federal government that is taking us in a direction that maybe Canadians don't want to go. We have an obligation to British Columbians -- a responsibility to speak out on behalf of those people who elect us -- to say: "Just a second. We need to slow this process down, because there are big implications for what's coming here that we haven't thought through clearly." Not all are going to be negative; some may well be positive. Many may well be very negative. We had better know the difference between the two, and we had better be very clear on exactly what the language means when we put a signature to this agreement and bind future generations of Canadians to the text of this deal.

What really outrages me is that from 1995 to today, there have been no public hearings across Canada sponsored by any government, which is the reason that I think we ought to go with Motion 43. The reason that I didn't want it to go to a parliamentary committee of this House is that first of all, they infrequently meet. Second, I think we're going to have to have a much broader base of expert resources at those hearings.

I'll tell you why this is important, hon. Speaker. Mark my words today, because I sure hope that we're not here a year from now debating what I'm about to tell you now. The OECD know that they have hit a roadblock. They know that the public, by virtue of the kind of knowledge that is now spread through the Internet -- which is a great way to get to know what's going on, provided you discern what's right and what's wrong and what's accurate and what isn't. . . . The public are very, very well versed in what's going on. There's a groundswell movement, which, frankly, I'm so encouraged by. Canadians are finally being able to read, to understand and to get up to speak. When I went to a speech on the MAI that was given in Courtenay, there were over 300 people in the little town who were interested in this subject. They were overflowing the room; they couldn't even put enough seats in the room. That tells me there's a huge interest. In Vernon the same kind of thing happened. I've been all over the province talking about this.

Mark my word, the reason it is important that we have this committee is not because the MAI will proceed under OECD -- because it probably will not. Members of the Liberal opposition have said that it's all but dead. No, it is not. It's all but finished its course through the OECD, because they know they cannot move that way. That route will take them directly to legislative assemblies where they will have to implement legislation. And trade law will have to be implemented to make this document work.

So what will they do? They will take it to the World Trade Organization. Mark my word today, they will go to the WTO. They will not even have to go through the legislative process.

[ Page 7221 ]

One of the darkest days I've had in this House -- and you know, it's a flick of a moment that most people won't even remember. . . . I remember when my then colleague from Okanagan East got up and passionately debated against the changing of the Mineral Tenure Act. You know what? Many members of this House may not even remember that. This was prior to the last election -- a different Premier, a different minister. The amendment of the Mineral Tenure Act was made. The definition of free miner was changed to eliminate the need for it to be Canadian, and it could now be an American.

The question was: why are we having to amend this Mineral Tenure Act? The answer was: to bring it into line with NAFTA. What does that mean in terms of our potential? It means that our ability to start to move Canadian investment into Canada and to protect Canadians, so that we are owners of our nation and not tenants within it, becomes less and less possible. It's a dark day, hon. Speaker, because what it tells me, even in that tiny little amendment. . . . It was in a miscellaneous statutes act; most people won't even remember it. It changed considerably aspects of law in British Columbia to harmonize it with continental trade law, which is directed, governed and pushed by the United States of America. We're doing that every day.

The assault on the Canadian health industry is something that the minister raised. But I want to digress very briefly in talking about health, because health will be impacted if we don't expressly make sure it is not. I'm encouraged by what I hear from the members opposite on the government side when they talk about the need to make sure we protect universal health care. That's one of the primary concerns in putting this motion in front of the Canadian people today, by way of the debate in the B.C. Legislature. I'm really encouraged by the words of the former Health minister, now the Minister of Finance, when she said that one of the reasons she really wants to push this is because she is absolutely dedicated to universal health care.

Tomorrow a motion comes before the Commons that will guarantee that. I hope we will match that motion with one that is on the order paper in my name today -- a motion that deals with putting in place a proper compensation package for people who are infected with hepatitis C, as the Justice Krever report recommends. If we are really serious about protecting that which is Canadian -- health care is one of them, and this violates it -- then I hope that this motion will come forward for debate on Wednesday and that we'll pass this motion as well, which will put action to the words that we heard today in our efforts to better consult with British Columbians on the MAI. Let's really protect health care by making sure that this motion, which talks about the need to have a broader base of compensation for those people who contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986. . . . Let's make sure that British Columbia will be leaders in this debate, as well, as we are leaders in this debate on MAI by virtue of these two motions before us today. We are debating Motion 43 right now.

Hon. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying two things. There are those out there who will say that the people opposed to MAI are a bunch of freaks who run around and say the sky is falling. They're called Chicken Littles and all kinds of things. They're told that they're out to lunch, and they're so far on the fringe of politics that you shouldn't deal with these people. They're called nut cases; they're called all kinds of things.

I think that's an absolute offence to people who have taken the time to read a document, to think about their country and the future of their families, their children, and who say that we simply don't want to go this route, because we have seen how other countries have suffered at the hands of unfettered access to their resource base. Maybe I am a nut; maybe I am crazy. There are those who say I'm out on the political fringe; I think some of my colleagues, from time to time, say that. But I don't think I'm crazy. I don't think I'm nuts when it comes to this document, because I've taken the time to read it, research it and consult broadly with Canadians right across this country.

I have to tell you that yes, there are people who will tell you there's nothing to worry about. There are people who see that the investment opportunities of Canadians abroad will be greatly enhanced by it. There is some merit, frankly, to their debate. Those debates are not without merit. But the impact, the effect, on Canadians is far greater.

As a result of that, I think we have to pass this motion today. We have to make a little bit of history in Canada by saying that on this day, April 27, British Columbians in this Legislative Assembly stood up, took notice and did something for the people of this province. It's said that we want consultation. We no longer want government to act without mandate. We want to take back our home; we want to take back this country. We want to be owners of this great nation and not tenants within it.

The second point I would make is: for those people who would argue that the MAI is dead, don't believe it to be true. We are on a very interesting path with respect to the evolution of this country. There are those who would argue that the real issue is that of the nation -- Quebec and the rest of us. There are some who would say that we're at a point now where we're becoming swallowed up by the globalized economy. There are others who would say that Canada has never been stronger.

I would say that depending on the choice we make over the next number of years with respect to how we participate in this new globalized economy, either we will entrench Canada as one of the finest, greatest and strongest nations that is currently on the globe or we will allow its disintegration and its absorption into our neighbour to the south. This debate has been raging in Canada from time to time, more than others, since Confederation. This was the very basis for why we built our railway west. This is why we established this great country; this is why we resisted continental influences. This is why we stood up and said that this nation, Canada, means something quite different than the nation to our south and that this nation, Canada, is a nation of people who have compassion, love and a desire to see a community that builds tolerance of all people from various languages, cultures and religions.

This is a country worth fighting for, a country worth being proud of, a country worth standing up and making a stand for. That's what this motion does today. It says that we, as Canadians and as British Columbians in this Legislative Assembly, can stand and make history by finally saying that

[ Page 7222 ]

S. Orcherton: Hon. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion, and I also rise of behalf of my constituents in Victoria-Hillside. I've had a lot of opportunities, as have other members of this House, to talk to people and different organizations around the province on this issue. I have come to the conclusion -- and I want to be very clear for the members in this House -- that the multilateral agreement on investment is bad news for the people of British Columbia and bad news for the people of Canada. It is good news only for foreign investors and transnational corporations. I am opposed to the proposed multilateral agreement on investment.

The government of British Columbia was the first government in Canada to speak against this agreement publicly and the only government to appear before the federal committee in opposition to the MAI. It is my view that if adopted, the MAI would place unacceptable restrictions on the ability of democratically elected governments to act on behalf of citizens at the federal, provincial and local levels. This agreement would extend and entrench one of NAFTA's most troubling features: the unilateral right of corporate investors to challenge a broad range of legislative and regulatory measures -- in short, the ability of those investors to sue governments for enacting legislation, regulation and policy that, while in the best interests of citizens, impinge on the ability of the investor to make a profit.

The local-hire policy in the jobs and timber accord would be at risk, as it contravenes the MAI. Alumax jobs in B.C. -- a huge investment for this province, where Hydro power surpluses are being used as a lever to encourage that investment. . . . Under the MAI, that lever would have to be offered to all corporations considering investment in British Columbia and potentially to all existing corporations currently engaged in business in British Columbia, effectively giving B.C. no advantage to secure investment within our province. Yet they say this agreement is about investment. After all, it is called the multilateral agreement on investment. But what's it really about? I believe it's really about transnational corporations, it's about special rights and privileges for those corporations, and it is about corporate governance. In effect, it is a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations.

[4:45]

There's been some discussion today -- and I think most members are aware, but if not, I want to remind them -- about the fact that while this deal has been slowed down over recent times, this week there's a coming-together of the corporations along with the federal parties. They are holding secret meetings in Paris, and negotiations on the MAI continue. There are some -- sad to say, some in this House -- who say that those negotiations should continue and that negotiations should proceed.

This agreement is about the mobility of capital; it is about how capital moves from one country to another country. It is really and truly, in my view, about the mobility of capital. In a real sense, the effect this agreement would have on the people of Canada and the people of this province is in fact a type of capital punishment that would be inflicted on the people. Yet there are some who say: "Continue to negotiate." I ask: how do we negotiate capital punishment? How do we do that? Do we say that we want the people of this country and of this province to die by lethal injection or by hanging or by other means? Is that how we negotiate the capital punishment that's being inflicted on us through this agreement? We can do better than that. We don't have to continue to negotiate, and that's one of the reasons I support this motion.

As well, they say that if B.C. doesn't agree with a clause, we can take a reservation on that clause. Let me tell you how this works. Some members of this House will recall the negative billing process of the cable companies four years or so ago. They said: "We're going to give you the programs and the channels, and we're going to bill you for them unless you tell us that you don't want them. You get billed unless you state that you don't want them." You know, the same principle applies in the multilateral agreement on investment. It applies to the provincial government unless we take a reservation.

Let me tell you who the bill on the MAI will be paid by. It will be paid by you, hon. Speaker, by me and by future generations of British Columbians; yet British Columbia is not at that table. We are not having meaningful input, yet we are told that the MAI will apply in totality to British Columbia unless we take a reservation. Reservations are temporary solutions designed to secure a deal. They are temporary solutions, and they offer no security for the people of British Columbia. This agreement was scheduled for sign-off in May of this year. As we sit, the country's negotiators continue to cross the t's and dot the i's on this agreement.

Our government should stand clearly opposed to this proposed agreement, and as British Columbians we should continue to argue to protect job creation, resource management and conservation, the environment, health care and social services, culture and Canadian content, and provincial jurisdiction. The federal government should not proceed further with negotiations until they have a clear mandate from the Canadian people. This secret negotiating process has never seen the light of the House of Commons. Why? Is it not required? Let's have public consultation. That's why I'm pleased to stand in support of this motion. It provides an opportunity for the people of British Columbia to receive information from and impart information to the government of British Columbia so we can move forward as a people. We should be arguing to see the current draft text.

Let's talk about labour and environmental standards. What about the rights of provincial jurisdictions? We must take the necessary measures to ensure that provincial rights are protected. This agreement has had no meaningful input from the province of British Columbia -- no input -- yet the federal government is obligated constitutionally to respect

[ Page 7223 ]

I want to leave you with a thought. It's actually a quote the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made last year around this time: "If any semblance of democracy is to be salvaged in Canada, steps must be taken to forestall this surrender to corporate tyranny." As an assembly and as a House, we should think about that. We should think about that as this motion moves forward and out to the people for discussion and debate. Let this day be a step for us to continue to build the balance that has made Canada and British Columbia strong, to stand collectively as a House and to call for full public discussion and debate so that we can shed light on this deal.

I received a copy of correspondence from the Hon. Sergio Marchi to a constituent of mine. The minister responsible for this investment deal at the federal level said in his correspondence: "The government's position has remained the same throughout these negotiations. We will only sign a deal that serves the Canadian interest, and to this end we are continuing to consult with groups across the country on this issue." That letter was dated March 2, 1998. I know of no consultation going on across this country on this issue. I cannot understand what the Hon. Minister Sergio Marchi is talking about when he talks about public consultation. Thank goodness the government of British Columbia spoke up on this issue early and has brought this motion before this assembly to be debated, so that in fact the people of British Columbia can speak out on this issue, can receive information on the issue and can make a valued decision on this multilateral agreement on investment. Through that process, I think the people of British Columbia will see that the multilateral agreement could potentially strike down policies in a wide range of areas which are of great importance to Canadians: the maintenance of medicare and not-for-profit public and social services; the review of foreign takeovers and new foreign investments to make sure that they create jobs and economic activity here in Canada; support for Canadian-based enterprises which support our communities; and support for Canadian artists and cultural industries. These are all in jeopardy under this agreement.

This agreement would allow corporations to challenge government decisions and policies before international panels, but it requires nothing of them in return. This would work to undermine our ability to regulate corporations in the public interest. Some say this is an appropriate approach. This House should know that those panels that are being proposed are not elected. They're not accountable, yet they would provide the final decision on any disputes around the multilateral agreement on investment.

Hon. Speaker, I think that this is a good motion for us to be debating in this House. I would encourage all members from all sides and all parties to support this motion as it moves forward. When it is passed -- I predict that it will, because I think the people of British Columbia require and in fact demand this kind of public hearing process -- I hope that all the members will participate. We do have to stand strong and collectively here in British Columbia. I believe that we've taken an initiative or provided a spark, if you will, that can ignite this issue across the country. It can change this multilateral agreement on investment so that we don't have to move forward on this issue and so that the fundamental tenet and underpinnings of nationhood are not solely and exclusively for profit. We can do better than that as a people. This province, I think, will provide leadership in this country to show that we can do better than that. I urge all members to support this agreement wholeheartedly.

J. Smallwood: Over the last year I've had the opportunity to talk to a great number of people who have expended tremendous amounts of time and energy in trying to find out what the MAI is all about. I've listened to a number of speakers in this House, and I have to admit that I am somewhat disappointed, given the fact that this House has dealt with this issue before. The Liberals, including their leader, have not made it their business to read the latest drafts and ensure that they are informed in the best way for this debate. The member for Richmond East makes the point that she and I debated this during a private member's statement. I agree, and the member made it her business to find out. But the previous speakers -- the Opposition House Leader and others -- have not reflected in their comments knowledge of the current drafts of the MAI nor the understanding of the severe implications that this particular agreement on investment has on the fundamental principles of democracy. In my view, that is what this is about. This is about an attack on democracy, and it is something that people in this House and the citizens of Canada and of any democracy should be very concerned about.

What I'd like to do is talk about one very small aspect of the process the MAI has been through, as well as some of the implications that are perhaps not talked about as much as the impact on business, on jobs and on the ability of governments to govern. I come to this particular issue in perhaps a slightly different way than some of the people in this House, and that is based on my own personal experience. I am one of a very few privileged people to sit at an OECD table. When you think about the number of people in the world who have had the opportunity to sit in this very exclusive club and talk about the business of the people they represent, you begin to paint a picture of the process that is going on in Paris today.

Some years ago I had the opportunity to represent the provincial ministers of social services at the OECD table, alongside the federal minister, to talk about some of the issues with respect to social development. I remember sitting at that table at the time, thinking how incredibly privileged the people were and in some ways incredibly removed from my constituents in Surrey-Whalley. I remember sitting there and wondering whether the people at that table really knew what my constituents were thinking or what their needs were.

This particular table is even that much further removed. If the members of this House can imagine a group of their friends sitting down and talking about their vision of the world and the way they want to conduct the business of the world or influence the world and then actually have it come to fruition, it begins to frame why most of our constituents are having difficulty grappling with the MAI -- or even feeling that they have some control over what is happening at these very distant tables at this very exclusive club.

[5:00]

[ Page 7224 ]

I think that process teaches us a lot. It teaches us a lot about the counterbalance. It teaches us a lot about power and the imbalance in power relationships. It teaches us a lot about how privileged people, in the most well-meaning ways, sometimes forget about the folks they're representing. I don't think these are bad folks. I don't think these are people who are necessarily trying to undermine democracy. I don't believe that their intention is to hurt countries such as Canada. I believe that people who are representing Canada at those tables likely think they're doing the right thing.

But when you look at the process -- the fact that the agreement has not seen the light of day through their initiation; the fact that the very process of developing the agreement has been conducted behind closed doors; the very fact that the agreement disproportionately represents the interests of multinational investors; the fact that the process of dealing with the interests of those investors in this agreement is also dealt with behind closed doors; the fact that the citizenry of the countries in question will not have access to the panels or the tribunals; the fact that those decisions that are made by the international panels will be final; the fact that the very discussion that happened could exclude the country's government that represents them; and the fact that there's not a Hansard in that panel process or documentation like in our civil courts and available to the citizenry -- you begin to get a picture of what they're talking about and how. When people get up and say that this is a fundamental attack on democracy, you begin to see why. As citizens of our country, we're losing the ability to affect the debate and to provide that counterbalance to that exclusive club, to that very powerful interest that isn't necessarily the interest of the citizens of British Columbia or of Canada.

In this process I began to look at a number of the impacts. As people begin to pull the thread, to unravel, to understand what it means on the ground, it becomes incredibly frightening -- the issues around tobacco, health and safety, and the ability of governments to affect and carry out the interests of the citizens that elected them. In our province we've talked about a very activist approach to economic development that has the interests of its citizens as a fundamental key as far as carrying out a social agenda and ensuring jobs, equity and training access to folks that would not necessarily have access if governments weren't standing up for them.

One of the things on the international stage that we need to have on that table. . . . Again I want to make the point that the folks at the table have a very narrow interest and a very narrow perspective on the job that they are doing. What has fallen through the cracks is all the rest of those issues that are of importance to the citizens of British Columbia. I want to speak in particular about the question about international human rights law. It's topical for my constituents at a time when we are dealing with a very high-profile court case with respect to hate laws and the radical Right, or the possibility of the radical Right skinheads physically carrying out their agenda.

What I want to read into the record is some research that was prepared by some students at Harvard Law School under the auspices of the human rights clinical project. What they found out in examining the drafts of the MAI was that the MAI fundamentally conflicts with the goals and objectives of international human rights law.

"International human rights law recognizes the fundamental rights of all individuals and obligates state action to protect individuals from both public and private violators of those rights. The MAI recognizes investor rights -- predominately those of transnational corporations -- with no corresponding obligations, and it restricts a state's ability to protect and promote the rights of individuals.

"International human rights law recognizes the right of people to dispose freely of their natural resources and obligates states to adopt policies guarding the disposition of those resources for the benefit of the general welfare. The MAI, however, limits the ability of states to formulate policy independently and impairs the rights of peoples to enjoy the benefits of their natural resources.

"Human rights law envisions the individual as an active participant in political decisions that affect the enjoyment of his or her rights. The MAI impairs the right of individuals to participate in decisions impacting implementation of social, cultural and economic rights, and it excludes the individuals from the adjudication of disputes regarding disposition of resources and investment.

"Widely ratified treaties. . .encourage the state to provide special protection for regional populations and socially disadvantaged groups in order to ensure real equity among individuals. The MAI contains no provisions recognizing the special needs of such groups and regions and through its measures barring performance requirements precludes a state from effectively promoting the rights of those groups."

For many of us, the more we know about the negotiations in Paris, the more we are committed to this struggle. The fight for democratic rights is often categorized as somehow not a popular movement any longer; it's not fashionable. It's fashionable to get on the train to promote business, to promote jobs -- especially at a time when people are finding it difficult to make ends meet. It's not fashionable to stand up for the environment or for women's rights or for the disabled or for the rights of other disadvantaged groups. But now, more than ever -- and I think this is the thing that I'm most encouraged about with the debate around the MAI -- because this agreement has gone so far over the edge, it has exposed, in my view, the fundamental need to reactivate the debate around democracy and the ability of citizens to hold their governments accountable and to put their agenda and their needs clearly not only on the provincial and the national agenda but on the international agenda as well.

Earlier on in the discussion, there was a motion that directed the government of Canada to stay at the table and, at the same time, bring the debate to the people of Canada. I think that, more than anything, the question around whether or not Canada is at that table or continues to be engaged in the discussion has to do fundamentally with your confidence that Canada is bringing the issues of the people to that table. Again, I want to make the point that the evidence that I have seen has been brought to the fore by dedicated and committed volunteers, people with a broad background and broad expertise -- not by the government of Canada.

Everything I have seen has indicated to me that the government is not representing the interests of Canadians. When the minister, Mr. Marchi, makes the point that it will be in the interest of Canada first before Canada signs and that the reservations that Canada has put forward will protect the interests and the concerns that have been put forward, for

[ Page 7225 ]

In the last number of months, we have seen an increasing attitude of "Don't worry; be happy" not only from the federal government, but now, as I noticed in the Globe and Mail today, from the international tables -- "Don't worry; we're taking care of it; we've heard you; all of your concerns are being dealt with" -- and, in some respect, almost a dampening of expectations of the ability of the table to deliver on the MAI agreement. It's been indicated that the MAI will not be going forward from this particular meeting. Again, for this House, I want to produce evidence that what is happening at the table does not reflect what we are hearing in the popular media.

For the record, speaking of brown envelopes, I have a draft of the ministerial statement that will be coming out of the OECD tables in the next day. The draft of that statement has eight points. The No. 3 point on the draft statement says: "Ministers express their determination to conclude the MAI at the earliest possible date in order to establish a strong multilateral framework of investment rules." It goes on.

So all of the discussion around the success of the popular movements in Canada at ensuring that their issues are dealt with are not being borne out in the documents that are being furthered at the tables. All of the comments with respect to the MAI not being concluded or the work being frustrated in some way by the popular movements in democratic countries are just not borne out by the agreement of the ministers that will come out of Paris.

[5:15]

When we are dealing with such a fundamental question as an agreement such as the multilateral agreement on investment, it begs the question as to why the provinces are not there. If the federal government recognizes the responsibility and the constitutional authority of provinces with respect to questions of resource management -- the list is a long list -- then why has it not formally included the provinces? Why have the provinces not had the ability to have their voices heard? Why is this province, as an example, in a position of having our minister delivering the message very, very early on to the federal government, pointing out that we will not, as a province, be a party to this agreement as long as the rights and responsibilities of this province have not been taken into consideration?

It is with considerable pride that I stand in support of this motion. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done in this province and in Canada. I thank the people who have made it their business to ensure that the debate is furthered in this province. Tremendously committed, community-involved individuals have spent a great deal of time to this point, and they themselves should be congratulated for caring about Canada, about democracy and about this province.

C. Hansen: We are living today, increasingly, in an international world. We often hear about globalization. We hear about international economics. We hear about international exchange of students. We hear about international transportation -- people travelling around the world more freely than they've ever done before in history.

Globalization is something that is a very positive thing for our society, a very positive thing for our world. We often hear rhetoric that talks about globalization in very negative terms. This is not to say that everything to do with globalization does not have negative side effects, but clearly it is incumbent upon us as legislators in British Columbia to put forward positive initiatives, to put forward our concerns regarding the way that globalization is evolving around the world and to ensure that we exert our influence as much as we possibly can -- to mitigate the negative aspects of globalization and to build on the positive sides.

If you look back over the years at the role of Third World countries and their inability to become part of the growing dynamic economy of the world. . . . We look over the past 30 or 40 years at Third World countries who have relied largely on inexpensive labour as ways of at least getting some meagre forms of revenue to come into those countries so that they can build up a standard of living. Too often we've seen cases where that labour has been abused. We see incidents of child labour around the world. We see incidents of wages that are being paid to workers in Third World countries that are, needless to say, totally inadequate.

The only way that we can support Third World countries today is by allowing those Third World countries to become part of an industrializing world. They have to become more a part of an international world. We have today a time when technology is starting to replace the cheapest and most inexpensive labour that we have -- in Third World countries. Today it's not a case of labour versus capital; it's not a case of labour versus investment; it's not a case of workers versus corporations. It's the ability that we have as an international community to put our resources to work so that the standard of living throughout the world can be better tomorrow than it is today.

Hon. Speaker, as we move towards increasing globalization, there is a need for increasing international rules. I am deeply concerned when I hear some people saying that an international agreement that relates to investment is inherently wrong. I'm not putting words in the government members' mouths, because I know that's not what they say. But certainly that is the message we hear from a lot of the commentary that comes out on the MAI.

If we want to assist Third World countries, we can't build walls up around ourselves. I often hear rhetoric coming from socialist ideologues in the world, across Canada and in this province, who basically say that we've got to build up walls around us. We can't have free trade outside of our jurisdictions. We can't open our borders to the flow of goods. We can't open our borders to the flow of investments, because somehow we're not protecting our own citizens in British Columbia. Yet if you look at all of the areas where there has been liberalization of trade, liberalization of the movement of

[ Page 7226 ]

I believe the same thing holds true for investment. If we want to assist Third World countries in this world, we have to ensure that they can obtain technology as cheaply and as inexpensively as possible so that they can put that technology to work with their citizens -- so that they too can have a higher standard of living and start to become more a part of this global economy.

I have some real concerns about the multilateral agreement on investment. Here you've got an agreement on investment that is supposedly to serve the entire world. If it's there to allow investment to go from Canada into a Third World country so that they can raise their standard of living, then that would be a positive side to it. Often when we talk about investment, and certainly when we start looking at some of the propaganda that's been circulated on the whole subject of the MAI, you read about this image of investment as being somehow spread around the world by some big fat-cats smoking cigars and controlling billions of dollars of wealth.

But is that the investment we're talking about? We're talking about investment that is your pension plan. We're talking about money that's in mutual funds. We're talking about investors who are average British Columbians. They're not the big fat-cats who are out there trying to find homes for their pet nest eggs that they're going to haul out of their big vaults in gold bullion. We're talking about investment that flows from nation to nation, which is coming from the average Canadian, the average British Columbian.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

If we have an investment agreement internationally that allows that money to flow from our pension funds in Canada into other parts of the world, to allow them to get technology, then the key is how we reduce risks. If you can lower the risk that's involved in that investment, then you're able to provide that investment and that technology cheaper to those Third World countries than you would if there were no international rules. But that begs the question: is the MAI the rule that we need?

Is that the best formula for protecting the flow of international investment? I have some real doubts about whether the MAI is, but the one thing I have found is that there is an awful lot of misinformation that is coming forward. I have serious reservations about the fact that the OECD, which is an organization of the 29 richest countries in the world, is coming up with an international agreement that is somehow going to be in the best interests of all of the nations of the world. Clearly the announcements that were made today in Paris indicate that the OECD is no longer going to play that front-line role in negotiating this international agreement. I agree with the member for Surrey-Whalley when she says that this initiative is not dead and that the negotiations are going to continue. Therefore it's important that we be a part of it.

But we have to ask ourselves: do we need an international agreement on investment? I say the answer is yes. Do we need an international agreement that excludes from the negotiations most of the countries of the world? I would say no. Today in Paris, as I understand it, we're going to proceed with these types of discussions, with no time lines, to involve all of the countries of the world through the World Trade Organization. That is probably a good initiative, a good direction.

If we look at the last three years that the MAI has been negotiated, I think we have to say that the actions of the federal government in speaking to the interests of Canadians have been a failure. The federal government has failed to answer the concerns of Canadians in so many of these areas. The federal government, for example. . . .

This is a note about the federal government action on the MAI: "The government of Canada has already had a public debate on the MAI." And I thought: it has? It says: "It took place in the House of Commons on February 23 of this year, with participation of all political parties." Well, a one-day debate on this issue in the House of Commons is obviously totally inadequate to address the concerns of British Columbians.

It also goes on to say that the government has held hearings on the MAI through the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Trade last fall, which heard from Canadians all across the country. I think, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast appropriately mentioned, those hearings were held in Ottawa, were not accessible to the majority of Canadians and certainly did very little to address the real concerns that Canadians have about what may be in the MAI.

There is certainly an enormous amount of misinformation that simply has not been addressed by any level of government. I have a document that I gather was put out by the National Union of Public and General Employees just a few weeks back. In it, it has, for example: "Question: what's a six-letter word for 'abolished' after the MAI?" The answer: "Unions." Is that helpful to this debate? I don't think so. "Canadian environmental standards and Canadian cultural protections will be struck down." Well, that's inaccurate. Is that helpful to this debate? No.

It goes on to say: "The MAI would go further than any other trade agreement in protecting business from any environmental concerns or limits." What I understand about the MAI, with all its flaws, is that that is not a true statement and is not helpful to this public debate. There is a lot of misinformation floating around in Canada today, and in British Columbia, about what the MAI is all about. What I've found over this last year is that the federal government has simply not answered those questions to the satisfaction of most Canadians. Certainly there is a need for more dialogue, and we support that.

But as we talk about misinformation, I believe that the Minister of Employment and Investment in this government is part of the problem when it comes to misinformation. We have an article that was in the Vancouver Sun on March 10, which came from our new Minister of Employment and Investment. Just to quote you some of the things from here that I have some real concerns about, it says it would amount to "an unprecedented rollback of provincial constitutional powers." It goes on to say: "It would take away, absolutely prohibit, many of the policy tools that have built our country." It goes on: "If the MAI were fully implemented, our government. . .would no longer be able to negotiate local benefits when we grant investors access to our publicly owned natural resources." I have seen that contradicted specifically.

[5:30]

[ Page 7227 ]

I think the key may be later in this same article from the Minister of Employment and Investment. He says: "Our government is determined to fight the MAI. . . . It is a fight for job creation, social programs, health care, education and Canadian culture." If you go around this province and ask people who is responsible for the absolute failure of job creation in this province, they're not going to blame it on the MAI. They're going to blame it on this government.

If you go around this province to public hearings and get input from British Columbians in all parts of this province, and you ask them who's responsible for the demise of social programs in British Columbia, the public will tell you that it's not the MAI. The public will tell you that it's the policies of the NDP government and their inability to fund the social programs that we need, through a dynamic economy in this province.

He talks here about the fight to protect health care. Again, if you go out in this province, you will find that the public doesn't believe that the MAI is responsible for the denigration of our health care system. The MAI is not responsible for the lengthening wait-lists in British Columbia. The MAI is not responsible for a health care system that is so wrapped up in bureaucratic red tape, with new layers of bureaucracy being imposed. They will tell you that the responsibility for the denigration of our health care system is this NDP government. The minister says it is a fight for education. And again, the biggest threat to education in this province is this government. This government has proven that it can totally destroy the economy, totally destroy the revenues that we need to build schools in this province and to fund the education system that we need. I think it's a classic case of this government trying to deflect blame for some of the fundamental problems it is responsible for.

There are many issues in this province that should go out for public debate. We should be having a debate in this province by our Health Committee. We have a Health Committee of this Legislature that has not sat. This government has not called that Health Committee to sit. It should be meeting with British Columbians. It should be in Vanderhoof and in Prince George to get input from people who are genuinely concerned by the lack of health care in those areas. Somebody suggested to me that when they first saw the MAI, they thought it said MIA: missing in action. I think that's probably a description for the Minister of Health over this last weekend. We need those public debates, and the MAI is clearly one of the debates that we should be encouraging in this province today. We should be seeking that input from British Columbians on what they feel about international investment.

We shouldn't be sending out the kind of rhetoric that the minister is sending out. We shouldn't be trying to just back up the totally inaccurate propaganda that's being spread around by so many organizations in British Columbia. We should be out getting good information. The bottom line is that we need full and total disclosure from the federal government and from the negotiators as to what is in the agreement today, not the MAI agreement as it was drafted two years ago. What is being proposed? What are the Canadian negotiators taking to the table? If they say they are protecting our cultural identity, if they say they are protecting interests for Canadians, how are they doing that? They should be held accountable for that.

The only analogy that I can think of for that kind of cloak of secrecy is the same thing that we see in British Columbia today with aboriginal treaty negotiations, where you've got government negotiators who are supposedly protecting our interests but who won't tell us what the negotiating mandate is. There is an obligation when we have governments negotiating these types of agreements that the public be involved and be informed, and that's as applicable to the MAI as it is to our aboriginal treaty negotiations in this province. For this government to stand up. . . . For ministers to say that somehow the federal government is bad because they are not telling us what is being negotiated and they are not telling us what the negotiating mandate is of the negotiators who are negotiating this agreement in Paris -- what hypocrisy! The same thing applies close to home here when it comes to this government and their inability to let the public in on what the negotiating mandate is when it comes to aboriginal treaty negotiations.

I just want to close by saying what I think the bottom line is. The bottom line is that we should not be afraid of international agreements. We should not be ashamed, and we should not be afraid of taking our rightful place in the world as leaders -- leaders in terms of a global village, leaders in making sure that nations can talk to each other, and that we have agreements that will result in less strife and better standards of living around the world. Those are the kinds of agreements that we should encourage. We should be at those tables, and we should be negotiating for what's right at those tables.

If we have a multilateral agreement on investment that says that our ability as a province, that this Legislature's ability to protect the universality of health care. . . . If that's going into this agreement, then I would oppose that. I believe that this province, this Legislature, has to protect its right and its powers to deliver health care services in British Columbia. If we wind up looking at environmental protection, we need to ensure that there is no agreement signed by the federal government of this country to diminish this province's ability to protect our environment. The same is true for our culture. That's not something that the federal government should negotiate away. It's the same thing with job creation. We need the right to ensure that our citizens have every possible opportunity to get good jobs in British Columbia. We need to make sure that this government, this Legislature, has the power to put in place the job training programs that we need. That's the bottom line for me.

The bottom line is that we have to go to the federal government and speak up for British Columbians, and we have to say that they do not have the right to compromise provincial jurisdictions. I have yet to hear that anything in this negotiation is going to do that. We have a right to demand those answers; we have a right to go to the public and get input; and we have a right to make sure that British Columbia's voice is heard. Only when there is an international agreement that protects our interests should British Columbians be prepared to endorse any initiative by the federal government to sign any such agreement on international investment.

[ Page 7228 ]

But I have to wonder: why today? I'm skeptical about why this debate had to come into the House today. There was no movement on the Paris discussions. I do question the government's motives. I wonder if this debate today was really to detract from the important issues, like health care in the north. There is a crisis brewing up there. There is a crisis in health care, with access to health care for northerners, and this government chose the MAI as a point of debate this afternoon.

I have to question whether this MAI committee that's going to be appointed. . . . I have to wonder: will it ever sit? We have other committees of the Legislature -- we have select standing committees on health and we have select standing committees on education -- that have never convened. They have been appointed, but they've never convened. Frankly, we see another select standing committee of the Legislature that was supposedly out doing consultations and going to recommend suggestions to the House for improvements or whatever. . . . That was the Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I think that's the most recent example of a government appointing a committee, convening the committee and then not letting the committee do its job.

That committee started its hearings, went around the province, held consultations, expended a lot of the members' time, convened out of session, and expended a lot of money. And what happened to that committee? Before the committee had concluded its work, before the committee had finished hearing from people around the province. . . . And I know citizens around the province made some very good presentations to the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy committee. They made written submissions; they made oral submissions; they made very, very well reasoned submissions. Before this committee had a chance to write its report and submit it to the Legislature, guess what happened. Before they had any chance to make their recommendations or file a report to this Legislature, the government decided unilaterally to make changes to the information and privacy commissioner's office and to decrease the budget of that office. How like this government to say one thing and do another.

So I wonder if this committee that the Premier is wanting to appoint and convene will actually even do the work that they promise will be done here. They want wide consultation with the pubic. They want the public to make their feelings known to the Legislature. I wonder if this committee will ever sit, if it will ever get the chance to finish its consultations, or if it will ever get the chance to write a report and actually make recommendations based on what they heard from the people around the province. The most recent example -- which was the freedom-of-information and privacy committee -- never got the chance to do that. It never got the chance to do that, because this government gutted the office of the freedom-of-information and privacy officer and gutted the budget of that office.

I promised to keep my comments brief. I'm very skeptical about whether this government has the right motives for convening this committee, the right motives for calling debate on this issue this afternoon, when we know that there are other pressing issues provincially that are pertinent for discussion in this Legislature. Those are the economy, health care in the north, and jobs for British Columbians, yet we have been spending the last four hours talking about the MAI -- which is probably dead, anyway. But isn't it like this government to call debate on things like this?

I'll end on that note. I'm very skeptical about whether this committee will actually be appointed or ever sit.

[5:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Motion 42 as written on the order paper, standing in the name of the Premier, and I would so move.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to consider:

1. The application of key issues arising out of the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment to British Columbians;

2. The most effective and appropriate means for representing the views and interests of British Columbians on matters relating to the proposed Agreement;

3. The implications for British Columbia and Canada of the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment and on related matters;

4. Representations and expressions of views from individuals and groups from British Columbia or elsewhere;

5. Proposals related to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment brought forward within British Columbia or from elsewhere;

6. Evidence on the issues likely to be subject to further negotiations in the future; and

7. The most effective and appropriate means of enhancing the levels of awareness and knowledge of British Columbians concerning the issues involved.

Further, that the House authorizes the committee to provide opportunities for all citizens of British Columbia to express their views on these matters.

The said Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee; and

(e) to permit television broadcasting of any public hearings the Committee may have;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly; and

That the Special Committee of Selection be empowered to compile the list of Members for the said Committee.]

[ Page 7229 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to take this opportunity to inform the House a couple of days early that we will be sitting on Wednesday.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
MULTICULTURALISM, HUMAN RIGHTS
AND IMMIGRATION

On vote 20: minister's office, $435,000 (continued).

G. Plant: My recollection is that we broke off on Friday discussing adult guardianship. Even if it wasn't then, I know that we had not quite completed our discussion of that. The context of the discussion is the fact that a number of pieces of legislation were enacted approximately four years ago now in some cases, I think. There have been ongoing issues of implementation within government. As I recall, the Attorney General's answer the last time we raised the issue. . . . A primary concern within the government has been costs of implementation. I understand the context in which that challenge would arise.

I apologize if the question is repetitious. Could I ask the Attorney General what his expectations are for implementation. As we stand now, are there any plans?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are two concerns with respect to adult guardianship. One has been the ongoing concern that there has never really been a complete consensus in the communities that would be impacted by this legislation. They have worked hard to arrive at a consensus, and I believe that with the final recommendations coming from Tim Stevenson, who worked with Dr. Hogarth, there is substantial consensus, but there is still not unanimity.

[2:45]

G. Plant: Well, giving the Attorney General the benefit of the doubt with respect to the possibility that something may happen this year, I wonder if he's expressing a faint hope or an actual possibility, or if in fact the reality is that these bills and their implementation are essentially off the calendar for the fiscal year that we're now in.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's out of an abundance of caution that I'm talking about next year -- not next fiscal year; I'm talking about next year, which might be early next year, before the end of this fiscal year. It is a hope, not a faint hope. I'm hoping that it can turn into a reality.

G. Plant: I take it that to the extent that the hope has any foundation in reality, it would mean that there would be an effort to implement those parts of the bill which have little or no cost implications. Is that a fair summary of the process from the minister's perspective?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct, based on Tim Stevenson's recommendations.

G. Plant: I'm sure the minister means the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

G. Plant: The next issue I want to ask about -- briefly, because obviously people will follow the process of the guardianship representation legislation over the course of the next few months -- is the victims-of-crime surcharge levy. I apologize if community justice is not really the right place to discuss this, but on the other hand, the program work that's going to be done and that is being done with the surcharge levy is, generally speaking, sort of community justice work.

I believe a year ago, when the levy was introduced, the government's expectation in terms of revenue from the levy on an annualized basis was something in the order of $11 million. Of course, last year when the levy was introduced, we were already into a fiscal year, so the number projected for the fiscal year just ended was, I think, about $7 million to $7.2 million. I'm told that the expected revenue for the fiscal year just closed -- now that the numbers are starting to come in -- is approximately half of that figure, around $3.5 million. As a starting point, I wonder if the Attorney General could either confirm or correct my numbers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct numbers.

G. Plant: To what does the Attorney General attribute the decline in anticipated revenue from the levy?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that the original estimates were based on about 60,000 photo radar tickets a month, and the tickets are running around 23,000 to 24,000 tickets a month.

G. Plant: The numbers that the Attorney General has just given were tied to the photo radar tickets. Is that correct, or do photo radar tickets simply comprise the majority of the num-

[ Page 7230 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The latter is the answer. The majority of the tickets would be photo radar tickets; it might be about 90 percent. We're just checking the figures.

G. Plant: While that checking is going on, I could follow up on the impact of the reductions on the victims-of-crime perspective, because I think we'll probably come back to the photo radar issue a bit later.

Obviously the decline in income. . . . Let me begin by asking the Attorney General this: does the Attorney General expect that the revenue for the fiscal year that we are now in will be at the reduced level that it has proven to be over the last few months? Or does he forecast an increase or a decrease?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We're hoping that the victim surcharge in '98-99 would be about $7.1 million. The reduced revenue is a result of partial implementation in the last fiscal year as well.

G. Plant: That's right -- at least I understood that to be so; that is, the annualized number was expected to be around $11 million. If that trend were to continue into the fiscal year we are now in, then $11 million would be the number for the whole fiscal year. But the Attorney General is forecasting $7.1 million, and I take it that the major reason for that reduction is the decline in the volume of photo radar tickets. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The fact that the revenue would be about $7.1 million in this fiscal year would not adversely impact the existing services. We would not, however, be able to enhance those services unless we got that added revenue.

G. Plant: That answer actually takes me to the question I was going to ask, which is: what is the impact of the decline in revenue on the program planning for victim services and the neurotrauma fund? Obviously the impact is that there is less money available for these purposes than was thought. How does the Attorney General engage in the planning exercise if, for example, it was done on a cash in, cash out basis? Then, of course, the roller-coaster ride might be a bit bumpy at times. When in the cycle does the Attorney General make the program commitments for the various programs that are being funded by the surcharge?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The core services remain unaffected by the fluctuations. We're committed to them, and we have already provided additional funding to police-based services based on the revenues we're had so far and based on projections. Next, we're hoping, if the numbers are right or better, that we may be able to provide some more assistance to the community-based victim services. So the core programs aren't impacted at all. It is the enhancements that might be.

G. Plant: Would I be correct in assuming, for example, that the number of victim-support caseworkers will remain the same, notwithstanding the change in projected revenue from the surcharge?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I assume that the decisions about funding the community-based programs are probably made after there is some certainty about what money is available for the purpose.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I appreciate those answers. I may take advantage of the opportunity over the next little while, if I can impose on your staff, to get some more details on particular programs that are working or not working or expected to be working.

The next issue I want to ask about is the family maintenance enforcement program. The main part of my questions is structural as much as anything else. The program is operated on the basis of what's called contracting out to a firm called Themis Consulting Ltd. -- or something like that. As I understand it -- and here is where my understanding may already be wrong -- the ministry makes a grant to the firm which is equivalent to the operating costs of the program. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that's the contract price, and we pay that.

G. Plant: So the contract price must be a formula, in effect, that says that the contract price will be the operating cost of the program. Presumably that is determined after the fact, as it were, rather than before the fact. Before the fact, you won't know what it's going to cost to operate the program for a particular year. Or am I wrong in that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's a fixed amount based on previous experience. It is not a fluctuating amount.

G. Plant: Are the employees of the company Crown civil servants, or are they employees of a private company?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: They are employees of a private company.

G. Plant: Does the private company operate on a pure cost-recovery basis or on some other basis?

I guess we'll pursue that after we follow the bells.

The committee recessed from 2:58 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

G. Plant: I was asking about the issue of profit in relation to the family maintenance enforcement program and the consulting firm. It's not clear to me, and I realize that I could probably take advantage of the opportunity to have a discussion about these details with some of the minister's staff. Does the contract figure that is agreed upon, pursuant to the formula that the Attorney General discussed a few minutes ago, include some element of profit for the company? Or is it basically a collection of salaries and that kind of thing?

[E. Conroy in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's not a non-profit company; it's a private company. There is a contract price, and they do the work for that price.

[ Page 7231 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I assume that the company would be making some money out of the contract price, but I'm not aware of that. We simply agree, based on past experience, on what the contract price ought to be to do a certain amount of collection. I believe it's about $8 million or $9 million now, and the collection is over $70 million a year. It was $12 million this past year, and the collection is over $70 million, if I remember correctly.

G. Plant: The $12 million, more or less, represents the amount of the grant to the company or the amount of the payment that's made pursuant to the contract with the company. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is a learned lawyer. There is a price pursuant to the contract to do certain work, so it is not a grant. That's the money we pay the company for them to do the collections that they have been doing.

G. Plant: If during the course of the year there is an unexpected growth in the number of people who enrol in the program, that's going to have an effect on the cost to the company of operating the program. Does the company then get an opportunity to renegotiate the contract price?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If there are minor fluctuations, we don't expect them to ever come back. But if there are significant changes that may not have been anticipated, they can always come back. We'll look at it, but there is no foregone conclusion that they'll get what they ask for. For instance, with respect to the new MHR initiatives, we took that into account; hence the price went up slightly.

G. Plant: The MHR initiative represents an instance where there was some opportunity for advanced planning, presumably, and some changes to the contract price. Failing that, if there is some radical change in the demand for the service -- the number of people registered -- that will, generally speaking, be a matter for the company rather than the government. Is that correct?

[3:15]

G. Plant: Am I right that the cost recovery is now going to be built into the operation of the program -- I think for the first time -- as a result of some of the recent changes to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act? My question, I suppose, would be: how is that going to affect the way that the program is operated, including things like the contract price and so on?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The default penalty comes into general revenue, thereby possibly reducing the government's cost.

G. Plant: So there will be no direct effect on the grant to the program operators. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

G. Plant: Does the government. . . ? I think I know the answer to this question. The question was going to be: does the government re-tender the program to other contractors on a regular basis? My understanding is that the existing contract has an automatic right of renewal built into it. Perhaps I could ask the Attorney General to confirm which of those options is the correct one.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As recently as July 31, 1997, a three-year contract was entered into with this company. At the end of that, in the year 2000, we would certainly look at tendering it, if need be, after looking at the cost-benefit analysis.

G. Plant: So there's a three-year deal now, and at the end of it the government can do what it wants. There's no automatic renewal provision within that contract made last July. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the contract can be re-tendered at the end of the term, with a one-year notice to the company. The notice would have to be given by March 31, 1999, if I'm correct, if we intend to tender at the end of March 31, 2000.

G. Plant: I think that concludes most of the questions I had under the heading of community justice. We had a fairly good discussion on community accountability programs earlier in the debate. There are some questions around residential tenancy, but I think that some of the questions my colleagues have will be better assisted by some staff people who I think are going to arrive tomorrow. So I'm going to put that subject off. I think that's in keeping with arrangements made with other members of staff.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Residential tenancy?

G. Plant: I think residential tenancy will arise first thing tomorrow.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: But the staff person is here, if you're interested. She was here, but that's fine.

G. Plant: Well, a couple of my colleagues were discussing tomorrow morning.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Tomorrow, that's fine.

G. Plant: I think, then, there were. . . . I know that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast wanted to ask some questions about immigration and so on. I don't see him here, but I'm quite certain that one of my colleagues will have some questions in the general area of multiculturalism and immigration. So that would be where I propose to turn now.

V. Anderson: Just one question from the last part of the other discussion on maintenance. One of the clients or persons that we've had come to our office came with a real concern. She was receiving payments from her husband on a regular basis; he lived in another province. Things were going along fine. Then she had to sign up under the maintenance program. As a result, without any knowledge on her part or any complaining on her part, the person in the other province -- the paying person -- had a government member turn up in his office, wondering what he was doing. This upset the relationship between the couple considerably, so much so that for a

[ Page 7232 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Of course, I'm not aware of all the details of the particular case, nor would I want them made public here. But usually people are asked to enrol in the program if they are Ministry of Human Resources assistance recipients. If the individual is living in another province, there are reciprocal enforcement arrangements. So it would be the officials from that other jurisdiction who would have made the decision to go in. I agree with the hon. member that all of these things have to be done in a very sensitive fashion. I would be interested in the hon. member's details of the matter and will perhaps pass those on to the ministry. They can check with the appropriate officials. If there was anything improper done, we would make sure that it is not repeated.

V. Anderson: Moving on to the multicultural area, I'm wondering if the minister might take a moment and indicate any significant changes that have happened in the area of multiculturalism during this past year. Is it business as usual? Or have there been any significant changes that have taken place during this past year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member is asking whether there have been any major policy changes, no, there haven't been. We have essentially the same amount of money being given for the same kinds of projects as we discussed last year and the previous year. There are, of course, committees within the ministry that assess those applications and make those approvals. The budget allocation for the whole branch, if the hon. member is interested, is just over $8 million -- that's multiculturalism and immigration.

V. Anderson: Is the process of giving core grants to multicultural groups still in place, and has that changed at all? Have the number of groups that are getting core grants changed during this year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are, I believe, 28 organizations getting core funding of, a total of $750,000. The hon. member can have a list of those. That can be provided very easily for this year -- and for the previous year, so the hon. member may be able to compare.

V. Anderson: Has the number of groups that wish to have core funding increased? Are applications coming in? Are any of those applications that come in for core funding not being approved? How many new ones have there been?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that this year almost all of the applications that came in-- and I will stand corrected if I'm wrong -- were approved for core funding, but not necessarily at the level that they were seeking funding for. It may have been at a reduced level.

V. Anderson: Has there been any movement to reduce the general amount of core funding to an individual group in order for more groups to get core funding under the same budget?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, not as a matter of policy. No, that decision hasn't been made. But there might be organizations that have been advised, for certain reasons, that this is perhaps their last year for funding because there might be another organization that is doing the work and can be more fruitful and deserves that funding more.

V. Anderson: Under Multiculturalism B.C., has there been any shift in the focus of the programs -- education, racism and other programs? Have there been any major shifts in those programs during this year? Has that affected staffing in the offices? Have they increased or decreased the staffing in the granting offices?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There have been some changes in emphasis. The ministry has done more education and prevention work. Our ability to do that has been enhanced by some re-staffing that has occurred within the ministry. As well, the emphasis has slightly changed, in that previously -- in '94 -- about 10 percent of the work was done outside of the lower mainland; now about 30 percent of the work is being done outside of the lower mainland. As well, there has been some involvement by first nations groups in this work, which is quite encouraging.

V. Anderson: What kind of discussions have been taking place between B.C. and federal multicultural programs and activities? Are there any agreements in place for programming between the two?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are no formal mechanisms for a discussion to take place on multicultural issues. With respect to funding, however, there is always an informal discussion, and in many instances, federal as well as provincial departments co-fund certain organizations. Sometimes one doesn't fund a particular organization because it believes the other is funding it sufficiently, and there are discussions in that regard.

[3:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: About one-half of our funding in multiculturalism goes to anti-racism programs -- education, prevention and other projects. It's about $650,000 a year.

V. Anderson: Would I be right in assuming, then, that that's one-half of the educational programming? If so, what is the amount that is actually spent on multicultural understanding, awareness and interaction appreciation, as against the anti-racism context?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The total funding for cross-cultural understanding and education, as well as anti-racism programs, is about $1.2 million. Half of that goes towards anti-racism education and programs and the other half is for cross-cultural understanding, education and awareness.

V. Anderson: Is there any focus on citizenship education in either of those programs or in the multicultural. . . ? Or is that simply left up to the federal rather than the provincial government?

[ Page 7233 ]

V. Anderson: Shifting over a little bit from multicultural to immigration -- because the two are directly linked with each other -- how much is the multicultural ministry involved in the area of immigration, integration and planning? What's happening in those areas to enable immigrants, through the multicultural program or others that the minister's responsible for, to fit into society?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is $2.5 million, I believe, for settlement purposes. All of that goes into providing assistance, particularly to new arrivals so that they can become meaningfully employed, to single mothers so that they can get some ESL training, and to all those kinds of issues that they confront when they come here so that they become meaningfully involved in our society. There are, I understand, 111 projects and 44 organizations funded throughout the province.

V. Anderson: We hear a great deal, again in this area, about who is responsible: federal or provincial. Is there discussion going on in the settlement programs? If so, I understand that there has been some shift as to who's taking responsibility in some of these. Could the minister comment on those?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there have been some discussions. We always believe that the federal government should do more in terms of settlement -- particularly in ESL and especially in schools. We provide close to $70 million a year for ESL funding throughout British Columbia, and not one cent of that comes from the federal government. That is because they say that K-to-12 is the responsibility of the province, and we disagree. We want immigrants to come to British Columbia who can enrich British Columbia in diverse ways, but we also think the federal government should take more responsibility on that score.

However, on the issue of settlement services, they spend around $22 million to $25 million a year in British Columbia. They decided some time ago -- as a matter of principle -- that they were not going to remain in the business of providing settlement services and that they were going to devolve that responsibility to the provinces. Many organizations within the province came to the ministry and said: "We don't want the funding directly from the federal government to come to an agency outside of government. We want the government to receive funding and then provide those settlement services, with the funding, that are being provided." They could be providing us, I believe, with $22 million to $23 million a year, hopefully, once the agreement is concluded, to provide the services that they currently provide. That money isn't for any new services.

I just sought some clarification. I understand that there is a larger agreement being discussed within the two levels of government. We're hoping to sign it. Hopefully, part of that would be a devolution of the settlement service responsibility with the money attached. The moment they say there's no money coming, we'd say: you take back your services and do them yourself.

V. Anderson: Two questions about it. Is there a time frame on that transition? I know groups out there are very anxious about the transition. If so, with the new money coming in, is there a council or an advisory body within the community that will be working with the government on this transition and on the new guidelines of the integrated program?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a federal-provincial transition committee. The committee has consulted with the service-providers in British Columbia and will continue to consult with them. We're hoping that from the moment we sign the agreement. . . . It might take six or so months for it to be implemented. In transition, we would continue to consult with those who actually provide these services, and that's a very important thing.

V. Anderson: Is the multiculturalism advisory committee of the ministry still functioning? If so, do they have a one-year mandate or a longer mandate? Could the minister supply us with the names of the persons who are presently part of that committee?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The committee is functioning. I haven't been to one of their meetings in four or five months, although I have attended several of their meetings over the last couple of years. We recently staggered the appointments, if I remember correctly. Some appointments are expiring shortly and others may continue. We will be reappointing some of those, and we may be appointing new ones as well.

V. Anderson: I'll ask two questions at once. Are minutes of those meetings available, and could we get those minutes? Also, are the other ministries of government still doing a report on their multicultural activities? I know there was some question as to the nature of those reports, because in the early stages they all sounded like they had been written by the same persons in the same format. They didn't tell what was happening, really, if anything. There was some discussion of changing the format of the report so that it would be more indicative of what really might be happening.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that if the hon. member looks at the '95-96 report. . . . The '96-97 report is coming shortly; we're usually about a year behind. That might be good to look at, but '95-96 is also better than the previous reports.

I was wrong in saying that we've staggered the appointments. I may have been thinking about staggering them. We haven't staggered the appointments; we're going to.

V. Anderson: If we could receive a copy of who those appointments are, we would be appreciative.

I'm not sure this directly comes under the minister. Because it's multicultural and about immigration, and there's certainly a concern here, I wonder if the minister has any input. One of the concerns raised has to do with convention refugees, and maybe the minister can be helpful in this regard. The issue is that in Human Resources, the convention refugees, because they don't have any documents. . . . They're refugees without documents except their UN convention doc-

[ Page 7234 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My officials tell me that the ministry has been working with the Ministry of Human Resources to sort out these issues and provide assistance to people. The discussions have not been concluded; hopefully they will be. I don't know where the matter is at, but I understand that the ministry has been talking to the Ministry of Human Resources.

[3:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The officials have heard the hon. member, and I'm sure they'll take direction from my concern that it should be done soon. We are also dependent on other ministries, but we will certainly push it forward.

V. Anderson: I'm glad to hear that. The Minister of Human Resources said it was a priority for her, as well, so with the two of you together I will expect results very quickly. It's now in Hansard, and I know that MOSAIC and other groups will read these comments and will follow up on them very quickly. Thank you for those comments, hon. minister.

G. Plant: There are two aspects of immigration that I'll cover in a fairly general way. First of all, the minister knows that the federal government has been soliciting views in relation to proposed changes to the Immigration Act. I wonder if the minister, now wearing his hat as the Minister Responsible for Immigration, could outline the government of British Columbia's position in respect of the issues raised by the federal government. Of course, they will have an impact in British Columbia in terms of settlement programming and things like that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I had instructed the ministry, as soon as I saw the report upon my return from India or Australia -- I don't remember which. . . . I had seen the report, and I actually spoke publicly about it. I expressed some public concerns about several issues. As a result, I asked the ministry to provide me with a formal submission that we could forward to the federal minister, and I understand that it will be coming shortly and that it is currently being reviewed before it's presented to me.

I don't remember all the aspects of the report, but I was very concerned with respect to some of the issues. I felt that it would stand in the way of British Columbia attracting more investors and entrepreneurs. From the proposals, it became quite clear to me -- and I said this quite publicly. . . . I have a lot of respect for Jim Pattison, so I'm not trying to say anything negative about him. If you had Jim Pattison in Hong Kong or Taiwan or some African country, not able to speak English or French, and he wanted to immigrate to British Columbia to set up shop here and to invest money, under the proposed rules in the report, that would be a difficult task to accomplish. I think that's how ridiculous some of the proposals were, and I wanted to make sure that Ottawa knew my concerns. I spoke publicly about some of them. Hopefully I'll be able to forward a formal submission to them. I understand that they've agreed to review them, and they've indicated that they're not committed to all of them.

G. Plant: For myself, I would ask that I be put on the distribution list for the report. Perhaps I could go one step further, though, and ask. . . . I know that the minister is waiting to hear from his staff, but is it his expectation that the general concerns, which he expressed publicly at the moment that he became aware of the federal government's proposals, are likely to find their way into the formal submission that he will be making to the government of Canada?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The other aspect of immigration policy that is of interest is the ongoing discussions or negotiations with respect to the transfer of some program authority over immigration between the federal government and the province. I wonder if the Attorney General could give us a bit of a status report on that issue.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That agreement has almost been concluded. We will be hopefully concluding it shortly and signing it at some point. I don't think it's appropriate for me to say anything unless there are signatures on the dotted line from both ministers, because anything is likely to change.

In terms of the selection process and all of those programs, British Columbia isn't interested in taking over, or taking any responsibility for, selection from the port of departure or wherever that might be. It is important, however, that we seek larger, fuller consultation on an ongoing basis, and it is also important that we make sure the federal government knows that they need to take our economic needs into account, because much of the time the federal immigration policy is based on what's required for Ottawa, what's required for Ontario or Quebec. We want to make sure that we're able to provide them with input, and that it's taken into account in the formulation of any policies that they might have. We are trying to be creative with this agreement; hopefully, we'll be able to achieve that.

G. Plant: I know that one of the issues that is discussed publicly from time to time is the extent to which, for example, some immigrants are received into one province of Canada and then make their way into another province. And there are perhaps issues around settlement funding and program funding, both for the federal government and for the initial receiving jurisdiction and whatever other provinces that the people may eventually go to. I'm told that the minister's staff are part of a process which is helping to develop better tracking mechanisms to actually see whether or not this is a problem, as opposed to something based on anecdotal evidence. From what I'm told, it certainly is a problem. Is that on the table of issues that are up for discussion and have been negotiated as part of the agreement that is currently being negotiated with the federal government -- and by that, I mean the implications of transprovincial mobility of immigrants.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's an issue of ongoing concern to me. I have spoken publicly on that issue as well, and I. . . .

[ Page 7235 ]

That imbalance has been quite evident to me, and I've raised it publicly. I'm going to be raising it with the minister the next time I see her. I want to make sure that any investor or entrepreneur programs that they come forth with -- because we are still under the old regime. . . . Once we have a new regime, I want to make sure that if Quebec can get an investor into Quebec with $150,000, we can do the same in British Columbia. The reason the other happens is because it is cheaper for someone to come into the country based on another province's qualifications. In a sense -- maybe inadvertently -- the whole formula has been stacked against British Columbia, because it has been more expensive to immigrate to British Columbia. Fewer immigrants would directly come here but a larger number would come indirectly, having left the money in another province.

I understand that's the problem the hon. member is referring to. It's been a concern for me and I'll certainly be raising it. In fact, one of the Reform MPs, John Reynolds, raised it with the Premier and went public with it a few days ago. I've spoken about it publicly before, and we need to work on it.

G. Plant: Is it an issue which is part of the ongoing negotiations for the agreement which is expected to be concluded soon, or is it an issue for another context -- if that question makes sense?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is actually outside this agreement.

I was asking about some other issues. You can be briefed on some of the complex issues they are trying to tell me about.

G. Plant: I may take the minister up on that offer.

The minister indicated earlier that the agreement that is being negotiated is perhaps close to conclusion. I think his statement was that in those circumstances it would not be wise to make any statements about it. In the other chamber of this assembly at the moment there is a vigorous debate going on which arose, in part, because the people responsible for attempting to negotiate another agreement -- in this case, an international agreement -- have not, perhaps, been as communicative as they could be from time to time about the status of negotiations. In this case, the minister has alluded to British Columbia's interests in respect to this agreement in a way which I think would find general favour. I don't expect that there are significant time bombs working here. But may I encourage the minister to ensure that there is some opportunity for continued public input into these issues, if that should become necessary? Clearly, that would not be the right way to get what should be a new arrangement and a new relationship off on the right foot -- to emerge from behind closed doors with an agreement that created unnecessary confusion.

The minister will be the best judge, I suppose, in the short term of when and how to communicate with the public about what he's up to. I think it's always wise to communicate more rather than less. If that sounds like a lecture, then so be it. I yield at this point to the member for Peace River South, unless the minister has any further comments on that.

[4:00]

There is a concern that perhaps the provincial emergency program here should apply to some of the damages suffered by Peace River farmers as the result of incredibly wet years that prevented either planting or harvesting. Areas that are of particular concern are deeply rutted fields that are going to cost substantial amounts of money to correct. I think the argument is that the damage to soils and crops in Manitoba is not substantially different than that suffered by farmers in the Peace.

Now, I know that applications have been made by the Peace River Farm Crisis Committee to Mr. Kelly, the regional manager for the provincial emergency program in Prince George. Can the minister tell me whether he has had involvement in this issue, whether he has some thoughts that he could share on the issue and whether or not he's prepared to become involved if negotiations or renegotiations with Ottawa might be necessary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I do recall meeting with a committee of individuals from that region who visited the Legislature some time ago. I met with them in the presence of the Minister of Agriculture several weeks ago. I don't recall the exact name of the committee, but this was to do with this very issue that the hon. member raises.

I'm also aware of the correspondence that the hon. member has sent me; I don't recall whether I have responded to the correspondence as yet. This issue more appropriately belongs with the Minister of Agriculture, rather than expanding the definition of "disaster" in the disaster financial assistance program to include what may not have been intended to be included in that particular legislation. I would suggest that it appropriately belongs in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, if they want to consider this issue and look at the havoc that has been caused by weather and seasons. I think that's where it appropriately belongs.

I sympathize with the hon. member's approach. That may not have been possible at the other end, either, so that's why he's approaching this ministry to see if we can provide some assistance. While I sympathize with the notion of trying to provide some assistance to those people, I don't know whether it's appropriate for us to be expanding and maybe even possibly distorting the definitions in the legislation to do what should clearly be considered. . . . I can tell you from the discussions I had with the Minister of Agriculture at that time that he was quite concerned. I can't tell you what his decision was or would be. Maybe the hon. member can tell me.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

J. Weisgerber: There has been a response from the Minister of Agriculture after a couple of years of discussions. Some will feel that the response was appropriate; others -- perhaps people who have been active in this group -- would feel that it was quite inadequate. I'm reluctant to enter into that debate, except to say that I think the issue of damage to the soils and to the land itself has never been the subject of discussion with respect to farm aid. Farm aid generally has always focused its attention on crops, crop damage or the ability to harvest or

[ Page 7236 ]

I gather we've been called. I'm not sure about that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We'll recess.

J. Weisgerber: Is a motion necessary to adjourn?

The Chair: I'll just declare a recess for a division. We'll return after the division.

The committee recessed from 4:06 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

J. Weisgerber: I'll try to pick up where we were.

I think the essence of going to the provincial emergency program as opposed to looking for some traditional farm aid or crop insurance or government-sponsored compensation for crop loss is to look at the intent of the provincial emergency program. It is to deal with uninsurable losses as a result of climatic or weather disasters. When one looks at the damage to fields where grain crops are planted, it seems that if this doesn't fit exactly, there's really nowhere else to go. The costs may be substantial, but they either going to be borne by society at large or they are going to be borne by a few individuals who will argue that this climatic disaster is no different than the ones in the Red River valley, the ones that saw aid pumped into Quebec and Ontario as a result of ice damage, and other floods and other disasters we've seen.

Here in British Columbia -- and I've been involved in two or three instances where the provincial emergency program kicked in -- crops that were in storage and were uninsurable were covered; buildings that were damaged and uninsured were covered; damage to roadways. . . . Many, many times the province of British Columbia has paid both private individuals and municipal corporations for damage to bridges, roads and other infrastructure as a result of flooding. The farmers, I guess, say: "Well, what makes our fields, which have been developed as a result of substantial capital investments and have been damaged by weather, any different than the road belonging to the city of Dawson Creek that got wiped out as the result of a weather disaster?"

That's the essence. I don't expect the minister to say: "Yes, it's going to be covered." What I would like him to say is that he would look at this thing with an open mind and try and look at it from the perspective of a relatively small number of people suffering serious financial hardship as a direct result of weather conditions in the Peace. If he will do that and work with people in the provincial emergency program to try and perhaps develop or finesse in some way an application that's appropriate, I'd be grateful and, more importantly, the people involved would be. Perhaps I'll let the minister respond.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There's no question that this is a serious problem. That's why I remember the hon. member's correspondence which was directed to me recently. If, perhaps by trying to seek ways of providing some assistance to these people, we can bring in the federal government and get them to pay the lion's share of the need that's out there, I'm certainly prepared to take a look at it. If I understand the hon. member correctly, what he is saying is that this should perhaps be treated as the floods around Winnipeg were. If that's the case, I'm certainly prepared to look at it and see if we can do something to bring the federal government in. This is obviously a large area; it's not a few people that we're dealing with. We're probably dealing with a significant number of individuals who are obviously affected through no fault of their own. I certainly give you my word that I'd look at it very seriously.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly appreciate the comment. I'll just conclude this by reading into the record a quote that appeared in the local Peace River Block News on April 16. It was quoting someone named Larry Maguire, who is president of the Western Canada Wheat Growers Association. He is a southwest Manitoba farmer himself. He said: "Peace farmers have in many instances been worse off than the Manitoba farmers in the Red River valley who received compensation under federal-provincial programs." I don't think that requires any particular comment by the minister.

I want to move on to the second issue today, to deal with legal aid. I understand from the Liberal opposition critic that this issue was dealt with quite extensively on Friday. My regrets that I wasn't able to enter into the debate at the time you had staff available.

I wrote to the minister at the end of March respecting a particular issue. I'm a bit uncertain, as a result of the correspondence I received from this individual, whether or not I should read their name into the record. I don't think I will. What I would like to do, though, is read very short excerpts from the letter that the individual wrote to me. I was quite moved by the letter that I received from this person. It's a man. He says:

"I've been engaged in a litigation with my former spouse on the issue of my obligation to pay spousal support. I've never denied that some spousal support was payable to my ex-wife, who suffers from certain [problems]. The issue has always been whether the support should be payable for a limited time or whether it should be permanent. I was successful in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as the spousal support ordered was for a limited period. The trial judge's decision was brought to the Court of Appeal where, in an unanimous decision, the court upheld that judgment. . . . My ex-wife was financed at trial and on appeal by the Legal Services Society of British Columbia, and her appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada will be financed by them as well."

"It is my understanding that Legal Services, in funding this appeal, is performing a valuable service to the public and the government."

"The public will benefit, no matter who is successful in the Supreme Court of Canada, as their decision will almost certainly clear up an important uncertainty in family law."

"An injustice arises, in my view, because I am required to jointly fund this project for the benefit of the public. Even if I am successful in the Supreme Court of Canada and am awarded costs, there is no prospect of my ever receiving any of these costs. It is my view that simple fairness requires that both sides in this matter be funded by the Crown. My lawyers have made this request to the Legal Services Society, and they declined on the grounds that they are able to grant legal aid only to individuals who meet the society's financial eligibility criteria."

[ Page 7237 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the point the hon. member makes is an important one. Obviously this issue, from the letter, appears to go beyond the circumstances of the case itself. What I will do is ask the ministry to take a look at the facts of the case. If there is clearly an issue of public interest involved in having a particular issue examined by the Supreme Court of Canada, I can't direct the Legal Services Society to either pay someone's legal costs or not. But I can certainly try and have the ministry take a look at it and see if the ministry needs to intervene, if it is an issue of such importance.

I'd ask that the hon. member talk to someone from my ministry, and we can look at the facts of the case and determine whether or not it's appropriate for the Attorney General to intervene, either by providing some assistance or otherwise.

J. Weisgerber: I appreciate the minister's commitment. I don't know and I don't think any of us have been able to get a sense of where this person might go, other than to Legal Services. We've all been through Legal Services and their shortage of funding and their eligibility requirements, etc.

I had an instance when I was a car dealer. I had a Cadillac franchise, and one day I got a letter from Ottawa, from the Department of Justice, saying that General Motors were selling Cadillacs with illegal radios in them. By a lottery, I, as a dealer in Dawson Creek, had been selected as the person charged with that crime. I thought it was such an outrageous thing. I thought: "Why me? Why Dawson Creek? Why do I have to travel back and forth to Ottawa? Why can't we find someone a little closer. . . ?"

G. Plant: Why are they selling Cadillacs in Dawson Creek?

J. Weisgerber: I'm not going to get involved in slagging any of my constituents or their preference for Cadillacs.

The fact of the matter is, it's one of those things where from time to time. . . . I think we would all agree that there are issues that should be tested in the courts. But I think that to select an individual and to have one private individual in a society -- particularly someone who's paying support, who appears to be a person motivated to pay their support if it's due and payable -- bear the costs of a Supreme Court case. . . . I know what I would do. I'd simply go in and plead guilty and then refuse to defend it in the Supreme Court and let society find some other way of dealing with it. In my opinion it, wouldn't be worth possibly winning. Winning would be a financial hardship, and there would be little to be gained.

[4:30]

With that, those are the issues that I wanted to raise today, and I'd be happy to take my place and let someone else continue.

G. Plant: As I listened to the last series of questions, I couldn't help but reflect on the number of cases out there these days -- and it seems to be a growing number -- that raise legal points that are of interest to lawyers and those who have to administer the law. In an increasing number of those cases, it seems that it's government and government agencies that are fighting with each other, and sometimes there's a private citizen caught in the middle. I know that that can create personal hardship in cases where it probably doesn't need to. I'm not sure whether the solution in those cases is for the government to make funding available to the fellow caught in the middle or for all the rest of the parties to realize that the courts are not always the magical places for solving these problems that lawyers are inclined to think they are.

I wanted to ask questions that are related to public safety, but I had one question that is a bit of a miscellaneous question along the way. The Criminal Injury Compensation Act and the scheme for compensating the victims of criminal injuries are, I believe, a scheme and a statute that are under review or, at least, that have been under review within the Ministry of Attorney General. The Attorney is aware of some of my concerns; at least, I think I've expressed them in the past. There are concerns about where the program is administered, in the sense that it may not be in the right place to be kind of an adjunct to the workers compensation system. There are issues around the definition of victims -- the definition of who is the victim of a crime. There are issues, of course, around the adequacy of compensation and the extent of government's ability as well as willingness to fund the program.

Could the Attorney General tell us where this review is at? I think when I last looked -- and I think it may have been even a year ago -- I got the impression that the review was pretty actively underway. I'm a little surprised that I haven't heard anything about the outcome of such a review. If it was because I wasn't paying attention that day, I'm sure the Attorney will tell me. But if the review is still underway, perhaps we could have a progress report.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The review is underway; it's still being done. However, I think this is a difficult issue. British Columbia is the only province that provides significant amounts in awards for pain and suffering in these cases. While people are able to collect their disability benefits, they're also able to collect wages and the like from this program. Those are concerns that I have. We've been wanting to make some changes to try and bring the program back into the Ministry of Attorney General -- not to say that WCB doesn't manage it efficiently -- and manage it so that we can reduce the costs. Then we've been looking at the possibility of trying to eliminate dual recovery if at all possible. That's going to need legislative change, I believe. If it doesn't, we could do it without it. That's where the review is at. We are perhaps very close to making some decisions as to which direction we want to go. The issue of pain and suffering isn't on the table. That will remain, because most of the awards are relatively small.

The issue of double recovery is much more troubling for me. I don't believe that this a program where people should

[ Page 7238 ]

G. Plant: This is an area where, as in other areas, I would encourage the Attorney General to take whatever steps he can take to try to encourage the debate to become a public debate. There are questions around process, and those have to do with whether the program is in the right ministry and so on. I'm glad to hear that those are actively under review. I think there are solutions to those problems that could be found, which don't necessarily -- and shouldn't, in fact -- add to the overall burden on the taxpayers of British Columbia.

In terms of what purposes the program is intended to serve and the legitimacy of issues and claims around things like pain and suffering, while those are obviously, on a case-by-case basis, enormously painful decisions to have to make, if you were to take a step back and ask how many problems we expect government to be responsible for, I suspect that you might find the public to be perhaps more willing to engage in a bit of a debate around that with a view to recognizing that there are some burdens that members of the public, citizens, ought not to have to bear -- actual costs that flow from criminal injuries. But to regard the criminal injury compensation program as a sort of insurance scheme -- and perhaps even a bit of a no-fault insurance scheme -- and to in effect create, in the context of criminal liability, an insurer and a fund that takes the place of the private sector in terms of liability for negligence. . . . I think that the time may be upon us where we can engage -- and the public may be willing to engage -- in a debate around those harder questions. Who knows? It may be that the outcome of that will be some general public consensus around solutions that would lighten the burden on the public purse without disturbing some of the really important things that that program can do. So I encourage the Attorney General to involve the public in his deliberations on that. I don't know if there's any further comments that need to be made.

Last summer the Legislative Assembly passed significant amendments to the Police Act. I understand that the implementation of those amendments is an ongoing project. Of course, the Legislative Assembly has made a recommendation for the appointment of a new police complaint commissioner, and I think the commissioner has himself been appointed by OIC. Clearly the appointment of a commissioner will be a further impetus in terms of completing the implementation of the new complaint process. Can the Attorney General indicate what his expectation is of the date that the new process will be up and running?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The end of June, early July.

G. Plant: Among the stakeholder groups that participated in the dialogue that informed the government's decision about the bill, I know that there were those who felt that the bill, although generally good, continued to have one or two -- or more than that -- problems. Some of those groups, I think, still have some concerns. Some of those concerns -- probably all of them -- are legitimate, and I think the hope is that when the system is up and running, it will work in a way that alleviates most of those concerns.

I have apprehensions similar to some among the police community around a lingering issue: the issue of characterization of a complaint when the complaint is by nature a public trust default, but because there isn't a victim who is a complainant, the complaint comes forward as an internal discipline complaint. Part of the challenge here is that in the broadest conceptual sense, internal discipline complaints were generally intended to be handled on more of a labour-relations model. Public trust defaults were given more of the baggage of a quasi-judicial, quasi-criminal process -- something like the old process.

The concern is that if there is a complaint which by its nature is a complaint where it is alleged that an officer or officers have acted in a way which engages the public trust and confidence in the police, the process should permit the complaint to be dealt with as a public trust complaint even though there is not a complainant. I think the concern is that the way the act is worded in terms of characterization issues, some complaints will end up being characterized, perhaps irretrievably, as internal discipline complaints, when they should really be characterized as public trust defaults. I sense that that is a concern which may not be alleviated by the way the act is administered, because it is a structural problem created by the act. I know that this is not the place to debate legislation, but I think that if there's any merit to this apprehension, it would be great if we could address it somehow before the act is proclaimed and the system is up and running. To put it another way, if there is a problem, let's fix it now rather than later. So I wonder if I could impose on the Attorney General for his response to my comments.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I personally have not been. . . . At least, nobody has spoken to me on this issue. But the member raises an interesting and perhaps a serious issue if it could cause problems. As the hon. member knows, we are going to be reviewing this matter in the next three years after it's implemented. If there are problems, perhaps the review could be concluded and some amendments made even earlier with respect to this particular matter. Obviously, this concern having been expressed, the commissioner would be mindful of it and would try and handle matters in a way that tries in the interim to avoid the difficulties the hon. member talks about.

[4:45]

What I want to do is say this to the Attorney General. First of all, a number of people from different stakeholder groups have approached me over the past few months with a range of issues and concerns around the implementation of the act. I've tried to pay attention to them to the extent that I'm able, and it seems to me that some do fall legitimately into the category of complaints that people who are apprehensive about a new system are likely to have, and hopefully, they will go away when the system is implemented.

[ Page 7239 ]

I'm saying really pretty much what I've already said, but I'm doing it for the purpose of encouraging the Attorney, if I may do so, to make inquiries to see, first of all, whether from his perspective there is merit in the concern; secondly, whether in fact there is a structural issue that really cannot be overcome by an administrative mechanism; and thirdly, if that's so, to see whether something can be done to fix the problem or at least ameliorate it before the act is proclaimed. I don't need to remind the Attorney General of the importance of ensuring that this act is well received upon implementation by all who have to use it. Everything we can do to make sure that this happens is a worthwhile step. I should say that I was under the understanding that this issue had been brought forward. What has happened may be that it was brought forward to Professor Hogarth as part of his work and that he did not move it forward into the ministry, in which case it may be something that I am bringing to the minister's attention for the first time.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will certainly make inquiries and look at the issue.

G. Plant: The next issue that I want to discuss for a moment or two is the growth and increasing seriousness of the problem of organized crime in British Columbia. The issue attracted some public attention recently, and the Attorney General made some public statements about it. It's probably wise not to get caught too deeply in the trap of assuming that the problems of the world are biker gangs or other gangs. On the other hand, when I have travelled British Columbia and have gone on ride-alongs in various communities, every RCMP and city police officer I speak to -- who speak from their individual anecdotal experience -- sees a big problem out there in the world of British Columbia. And that problem -- going back to some of the things we talked about earlier in terms of the problems of overlapping compartments and all of that -- is a problem that tends to feed and create other problems. So there's a problem, and I know the Attorney General is at least aware of it now.

The issue is what is going to be done over the next year that is new and different in terms of responding to that problem. For example, in the budget for 1998-99 there isn't any significant increase in funding for CLEU, and that is an organization that over time has had an awful lot of responsibility around organized crime. Will the new initiatives that the Attorney General has underway actually allow him to say with some confidence: "Yes, we are doing something within our authority as a provincial government to combat this very serious problem"?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are a couple of things that have happened. One, a couple of days ago there was a conference in Ottawa of police representatives from across the country with the Solicitor General, who says that this is his number one priority. Somebody asked me about that on Friday afternoon, and I said that if that is the case, he should fork out $50 million, and much of it should come to British Columbia. We have the wealthiest chapter of Hell's Angels in British Columbia, and we obviously have serious problems. We had our representatives from British Columbia, particularly from CLEU, present at that conference. They were talking about a national strategy to deal with this issue.

The other initiative is a cross-border forum that has dealt with these issues in the east but has not been extended to the west. Now the Solicitor General has agreed that the western provinces will be included. That cross-border forum would extend to the western states as well as Canada so that we can deal with this issue.

Thirdly, it is appropriate for me to say -- and I said this publicly on Friday, in fact -- that I don't believe we can craft a strategy on this issue separate and apart from the national strategy. We're waiting for the national strategy to take shape. We are also looking at CLEU; we're looking at our own resources; we're looking at the resources that the RCMP have. I understand that the federal RCMP presence in British Columbia is over 450 people. The federal force has about 450 people essentially working on drugs, and drugs are very interrelated with the biker gangs and the like -- organized crime. We have other municipal forces that are also active on this issue. So you have close to 500 police officers working on this issue. The federal government says that this is their number one priority; they want to craft a national strategy. We want to take a look at the resources that are being used in British Columbia federally. We want to look at our own resources and look at how CLEU is being used. We want to look at all of that in the context of the strategy that's being developed, review what we're doing, then craft a strategy that might complement the national strategy and work hand in glove with that strategy. That's going to take time. In the interim we are also looking at some possible short-term initiatives that we could take pending all of that larger national strategy and the provincial strategy falling into place.

G. Plant: Part of the challenge here is that with minor exceptions, resourcing police in British Columbia is virtually a zero-sum game; that is, there have been some minor increases in the complement of municipal and provincial police forces over the last little while, but they're not even keeping up with the rate of population growth. Clearly what's also been happening is that the Attorney General has identified other priorities over the last few years -- the hate crimes unit, the provincial prostitution unit -- that take some individuals, some groups, from the pool of total police resources, and they are then dedicated to a particular task. I'm not sure if that this is the right model for policing or not, but its effect is to limit the number of people left over who could now be dedicated to a new project -- or a redefined old project -- of combatting organized crime. I suppose that creates its own challenges.

I compare that challenge with one of my least-favourite political facts, which is the number of fully qualified police officers who are still sitting in photo radar vans across British Columbia. I ask myself about the relationship between stated priorities and actual priorities. Maybe that is a convenient way of introducing one aspect of the photo radar subject, which will probably get pursued a little bit more later. Does the Attorney General have plans in respect of the staffing of photo radar vans that will take those 90-odd police officers away from photography and put them back onto the streets fighting real criminals?

[ Page 7240 ]

Having said that, I come now to the more important question of photo radar's 100 police officers. Firstly, when the photo radar program came into being, it was important that it got off the ground more appropriately in the hands of police officers, because this is law enforcement and public safety. Any law enforcement that is designed initially to enhance public safety would have no credibility if we tried to do that without the police officers. I think that was the thinking behind all of this. Additional funding was provided -- about $10 million a year, I believe -- to support those police officers. So these police officers weren't taken out of the existing number and assigned to photo radar; they were additionally funded by government.

However, it is important that as the photo radar program gains credibility and continues to save lives and injuries and money, perhaps there might not be the need for police officers to continue to staff those vans. There is an evaluation underway which would be concluded, hopefully, by the end of June, and at that point we will be discussing that matter with the police to see if we can make the shift. It was always intended. I think I remember making some public statements about that issue. I remember reading statements about this issue by the previous minister who was in charge of this that perhaps the photo radar vans could be staffed by fully trained technicians. We certainly are interested in proceeding in that direction, but we want to make sure that we have the cooperation and the agreement of the police. If the police indicate to us that that particular area of law enforcement does require the continuing presence of police officers, it would be difficult to change. But we're working on it.

[5:00]

G. Wilson: I must confess, actually, that I was rather intrigued to find out what empirical evidence the Attorney General has that photo radar saved us any money. But maybe I'll wait to get into that part of. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I understand the Attorney General to say that it saves money by way of injuries and lives. I think it would be very. . . . I mean, as an academic, I'm going to really press on how you can make sure there's a correlation between a photo radar van and any savings of injuries.

A Voice: Ask the question.

G. Wilson: That's a good idea. I will ask the question. What empirical evidence do you have that photo radar has saved any money?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Here are some figures, but the hon. member will be at liberty to receive further figures from the ministry: reductions in fatalities, 16 percent; 8 to 10 percent for injuries as reported by the Ministry of Health and the B.C. coroner's office; an 11 percent reduction in fatal collisions and a 7.8 percent reduction in injury collisions in the first year of operation. The figures for savings for that year of operation are $200 million in social costs, which would include health costs, as well as $125 million in insurance costs directly. The hon. member asked and I'm giving the figures, but the hon. member is at liberty to receive further figures from the ministry. The issue is that when you do save lives, when you reduce the number of accidents, you reduce costs all around and enhance safety as well.

G. Wilson: I really didn't come in to talk about photo radar, but I'm tempted. . . . Well, I'll take that information, and I'd be curious to see how you can make the direct correlation.

Anyway, I'm more interested in. . . . I think, having read Hansard, that the official opposition critic is obviously going in most of the areas that I want to go; there's a couple of areas that he has not. I'm advised that some of the staff may actually have left, and so I'm going to be fairly brief and fairly specific.

I wanted to come back to immigration for just a moment, and I'd like to know what the minister is doing currently with respect to negotiations with the federal government in terms of the sponsorship issue. I'm advised that -- I'll use Quebec as an example; it might be somewhat unfair because of a different relationship there, but nevertheless -- currently Quebec is looking at about 21,900 immigrants, 12 percent of the total, and it has about 35 percent of settlement dollars. British Columbia by comparison, I'm told, is substantially less than that. It takes about 22 percent of immigrants and gets only 17 percent of settlement funds. I'm curious to know whether or not the government, in its negotiations with the federal government, is actively trying to amend this arrangement or whether or not there are some other ideas afoot.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are actively working to have that arrangement -- the imbalance in that arrangement -- redressed. We have received some moneys from the federal government -- I believe $23 million starting last fiscal and $22 million or $23 million again this fiscal -- to offset the settlement services we already provide in British Columbia. That's a discussion that needs to be had at a different table. We are currently negotiating a general immigration agreement with respect to consultation and the like, and we are quite close to concluding that agreement. The issue the hon. member raises is an important one. I've raised it publicly myself. In fact, a member of the Reform Party -- a Member of Parliament from British Columbia -- raised it just some days ago. We need to make sure that we at least begin to receive our share of the settlement costs, which hasn't been the case in the past. Last fiscal year we did receive some money in recognition of that fact, and this fiscal year we've also received some. I think it will continue for another year, and we will be negotiating a continuing provision of some money based on the number of immigrants that end up in British Columbia.

G. Wilson: It's interesting that the Attorney General refers to the Member of Parliament who -- I could be wrong -- is the member from West Vancouver-Powell River, John Reynolds. He happens to be my Member of Parliament and is, in part but only in part, the reason why I'm asking these questions. There are a number of people who are talking about trying. . . .

[ Page 7241 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of any studies. I don't have the officials here, but I can certainly undertake -- and the ministry would read the Hansard -- to try and provide that information to the hon. member.

The whole issue of corporate sponsorships is something that I haven't considered myself, although we are currently negotiating with the federal government with respect to our ability to nominate individuals, if we so choose as a government, if we thought it would be in the public and financial interest of British Columbia to be able to get one, two, three or four immigrants who are going to have particularly large investments or a contribution to make. It's what one of my officials calls the Pavel Bure clause: just in case you want somebody, and you want them to be able to jump the queue -- under those circumstances to play hockey in British Columbia -- you should be able to do that. We are currently negotiating those kinds of issues.

I'd certainly ask my officials, through Hansard, to be in touch with you and provide the information that the hon. member needs.

G. Wilson: Just by way of slight digression, it would be interesting to know, if one's immigration status hinged on one's ability to get your team into the playoffs, whether or not the Canucks might have had a different result -- rather than the number of goals you score or the millions of dollars you make, right? However, we'll never know. But because the officials aren't here, I'll just leave it at that, if you could get me some information on that, because there are people actively pushing it.

I only have a few more questions. I may be jumping ahead of the official critic, but I'm going to seize the opportunity I have to be here. It has to do with the notion of auxiliary police and handguns. This is a topical issue, as you know. Could the Attorney General enlighten me as to where the initiative to remove the guns came from? Where did this actually start? Was this an initiative of government, or did it come from other sources?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The initiative came from the RCMP.

G. Wilson: So it was the view of the RCMP that auxiliary officers should not be armed. Or was it the view that there should be more training? Or did they just simply say: "Look, we no longer wish to have auxiliaries in the front line"? If so, was that precipitated by some kind of issue or event?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there have been ongoing discussions, prior to January or February of this year, between the ministry and the RCMP. There were some concerns around legal liability, around auxiliary safety and around regular police officer safety, as well as public safety. All of those were then brought to my attention recently by the ministry, because the ministry started conducting a formal review of this issue.

It was essentially a recommendation from the ministry supported fully by the RCMP and the Vancouver police department that, at the end of the day, led me to make the decision that was made. No particular incident was ever instrumental in us arriving at this decision. In fact, I was never advised of any particular incident during the discussions that were had with me. I want people to know that no single incident or series of incidents led to this review. We have discussed this issue; there was a long debate on this on the first day. Perhaps the hon. member can take advantage of that. We went into it fully, and I'd be happy to speak to him or to provide a written response if the hon. member so required at the end of his reading and perusing of the Hansard.

G. Wilson: I'll take the Attorney General up on that offer, and I will go back. I missed that, actually, in the Hansard. I'm assuming that it was on the first afternoon. I didn't read that.

Let me just ask, then: within that debate were there questions posed with respect to security guards and the security guards having side arms and whether or not they're going to be catergorized in the same way? Will they now have their side arms removed?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No. If the hon. member is referring to guards, such as Loomis guards and the like, they're not part of this review.

G. Wilson: Was the issue of the WCB regulation on uniforms addressed? WCB defines a police uniform -- RCMP uniform -- as including a side arm. One of the issues that auxiliaries are saying is that the workers compensation issue is now such that if they go to work in a uniform without a side arm, somehow they're in violation of WCB standards. Now, I've not seen the standards, but I'm told they're there.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not even aware of. . . . That issue was not raised, but if that clause is a concern and if the hundreds of RCMP auxiliaries are willing to go back to work and help us, I would push that regulation through cabinet very quickly to make that change -- if that's the only thing that's preventing them from going to work.

G. Wilson: I'm told that that's one of the things that's preventing them from going to work. I've not actually seen it yet, but I'm told from a number of sources that that is in fact the case.

[5:15]

[ Page 7242 ]

The other concern that I have. . . . I'd ask the Attorney General to look at it. It may be outside of his purview, but nevertheless I think it's important that we take some leadership. It has to do with the salaried officers and the amount of money that RCMP officers are expected to live on. The two are obviously juxtaposed in the sense that we want as many policemen as we can afford; on the other hand, we want to pay them adequately. I wonder if there's any work being done with respect to making sure the federal government will get realistic about rural policing costs in British Columbia and start to recognize that not only do we have to have an adequate amount of money to pay but we also have to be able to pay liveable wages. I'm curious to hear the Attorney General's response to that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the hon. member may be aware, the officers did receive a certain raise in pay, and also the. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Very small, very small. Also, the issue of cost-of-living allowance is currently being considered by the federal government. I was in full support of the police officers receiving a reasonable raise in their salaries, and I have actually spoke out publicly on this issue.

In terms of the first question, we have had an increase, according to the RCMP press release that was issued. With respect to the auxiliaries, they mentioned that we have actually added 120 police officers to the provincial force in the last year and a half. Some people from my ministry say it's 124; others say it's 120. We'll take 120. It's never enough; obviously we are also strapped for resources. If we had more, we would certainly add more. We continue to try to fund additional police officers wherever possible. I don't think we have -- at least in terms of the communities which are below 5,000. . . . When they go over 5,000 in terms of the population, the additional police officers come free, because the communities would then be funding their own police expenditures. We have not taken those positions back. We continue to fund them as part of the larger provincial police force.

G. Wilson: I understand also that your multiculturalism and. . . . They have left.

A Voice: They're gone.

G. Wilson: That's unfortunate, but I'm assuming that there was broad and lengthy debate on this most crucial issue in British Columbia. There are many questions with respect to issues around multiculturalism, and I'll assume that those questions have been asked and that there's been fairly broad debate -- or not.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Some questions were asked in terms of whether there have been any policy changes, whether we continue to fund core services, whether we continue to do anti-racist education at the same level -- and we do -- and whether cross-cultural understanding and acceptance work is going on. The answers essentially were that we have $1.2 million dedicated to cross-cultural understanding, education awareness and anti-racism work. About $600,000 of that is for anti-racism work. There have been no major policy changes. There has been some consultation with the communities. The core funding continues as is, which is about $750,000 to about 30 or so -- 28 organizations, I believe.

B. Penner: I'll ask you a couple of what I describe as short snappers before moving into more detail on some other topics. Given that we're dealing with public safety and regulatory services, I wish to ask a question related to a press release issued by the Attorney General's ministry on November 10, 1997. The headline is "Cell Phones for Vancouver Women at High Risk of Violence." That caught my attention. I've got a couple of questions pertaining to that press release. The first question would be: how many phones were issued in that program and for how many women?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are strategic reasons why that information was not made available at that time. I would not even remember how many cells there were at this point. This was a pilot, and we wanted to make sure that we gave out as little information as was necessary to protect the safety of the women that we were dealing with, and because of that, I would hope that the hon. member leaves it at that. If the hon. member is interested in knowing the information, he should approach the officials, and they might be able to brief him on that. If the hon. member then seeks more answers, I'd be happy to provide them.

B. Penner: Yes, I would be interested in receiving some more information.

I wonder if the Attorney General feels that he is at liberty to tell us what the cost of this program is.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The program was based on corporate donations from ADT and B.C. Tel Mobility. There was a women's group that was involved in having us pilot that, and that pilot is, I understand, now complete. We are evaluating the pilot. Hopefully, by the end of May we will have the evaluation in hand, and I'm hoping that if we have the resources or the cooperation of the corporate donors, we may be able to expand this into many other areas.

B. Penner: The minister answered my next questions, which were: what was the result of the pilot, and has the pilot been completed? It appears that the pilot has been completed.

I was speaking to a seminar on Saturday morning concerning violence against women. That meeting took place in my own constituency of Chilliwack, and the people in the crowd -- there was a pretty good number for early Saturday morning -- were asking for alternatives and suggestions and ways we could deal with this problem in the future. That's why I am interested in this topic.

I look forward to receiving information about the usage and the benefit that these phones provided, whether any women had to make use of them and what the results were if they did in fact have to resort to using those phones in a crisis situation. I look forward to receiving that.

Moving on, then, and looking at a breakdown of expenditures provided by the ministry. . . . I am looking at the film classification unit. One thing that just caught my attention was an increase of 5.6 percent projected for this coming year in terms of the film classifications expenditure. I am just wondering if there is some explanation for the significant increase in budget expenditure for that division of the Attorney General's

[ Page 7243 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I remember correctly, we've taken over film classification for the province of Saskatchewan as well, which we did last year. If I remember, there was a press release on it, and the cost of that is reflected in the increase, and there is also cost recovery.

B. Penner: Just to follow up on that. . . . I'm sorry, but I must have missed that announcement about us in British Columbia taking on the responsibility for Saskatchewan. I am wondering whether the minister can confirm whether, then, the entire increase of 5.6 percent will be recovered from the province of Saskatchewan.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I misspoke. I stand corrected. I am now told that that increase is purely a reflection of the increased building occupancy costs. The division moved from one place to the other, and as a result, there were increased costs.

B. Penner: I appreciate that. Again, because the breakout for the film classification division didn't show any increase in full-time-equivalent employees, I was curious about the increase in costs. I was ready to guess that there was an increase in the cost of films or an increase in the price of popcorn -- I don't know.

Moving along, then, to the topic of photo radar, I will canvass this in a bit more detail than the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. To begin with, I'm wondering if the minister can clarify what the current relationship is between the B.C. government and American Traffic Systems.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe those questions should be directed to the minister responsible for ICBC, because they are the ones who have a contract with them. Remember that we have charge of those cameras and vans, and we have charge of the police officers. The reason that that happened, if I might say to the hon. member, is that police officers made it very clear that they wanted to make sure their independence and their integrity was protected by being housed in the Ministry of Attorney General. I agreed, and we brought them in, and I thus became responsible for photo radar.

With respect to contracting, film processing and process serving, those are all issues that ICBC deals with.

B. Penner: I anticipated that we would be getting into some difficulties about who's got responsibility for what. I would suggest that that's part of the problem with the current arrangement -- having a lot of it housed in a Crown corporation. I believe that's the concern that a fair number of the motoring public have about this program: that a Crown corporation with an obvious interest, perhaps, is in charge of some of the program, while the rest of the government shrugs at times but also is involved. There's a lack of clarity, I would say, as to overall responsibility for this program.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am responsible for the police officers and the photo radar being on the roads. What goes behind that, what the contract is with AT&T and whatever the name of the company is, is something that ICBC. . . . What is it?

A Voice: ATS.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: ATS. Okay. My apologies. I know it's not AT&T. I make a special point of not remembering useless information, and that's one of those things.

It is important that we recognize that I'm accountable for the police officers, and I'm accountable for the photo radar tickets being issued, because the work of those police officers results in the issuance of those tickets. I agree with the hon. member that there are sometimes many areas of confusion in this arrangement, and as we learn, we will deal with them. I think that if the hon. member went to the ICBC minister at some point during the estimates and wasn't able to get satisfaction and believed that he needed to talk to me about some of the areas that I deal with, I'd be happy to provide those responses -- even in writing, for his comfort -- so that we can move on.

B. Penner: I'll keep trying here, and I'm sure I'll be told many times that I should take the matter up with a different minister.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, I won't tell you that unnecessarily.

B. Penner: I'll continue.

The minister will be aware, nevertheless, that service records for at least two photo radar units show that they had to be repaired between 35 and 36 times in the past 18 months. My question is: who has to pay for the cost of repairing those units? Is it the company that sold us those units and told us that they would only have to be serviced once every 24,900 hours of usage, when in fact it turns out they need to be serviced once every 25 operating hours? Or is it the taxpayers of British Columbia who are paying for that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: ICBC.

B. Penner: I think the minister will be able to answer this one directly. How many photo radar units are operational in British Columbia, and what is the annual cost of maintaining and operating those units?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is asking very technically specific questions. Let me just say, generally, that the integrated traffic camera unit budget is about $9.5 million for the coming fiscal year. Am I correct?

A Voice: It's here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, you know only accountants can tell you what's right. It's $10 million gross, but there are some recoveries, so the net cost to us is about $9.5 million. I'm rounding the figures.

If the hon. member is interested in receiving all of the detailed information, I would be happy to have him get a copy of this. It is usually difficult for me to answer very detailed arithmetical questions, generally speaking, but I'm happy to answer them if that's what the hon. member wants.

B. Penner: I would be interested in receiving a copy of that. I'm not deliberately asking questions that are designed to be difficult. There are some specific questions, though, that I do wish to ask, simply to get it on the record. It's fine if I receive correspondence from the minister's office, but it's not as easy to make that accessible to the public. I'm always surprised at how many people actually spend the time to review Hansard. For example, this morning I received an

[ Page 7244 ]

I wonder if the minister could tell me whether the figure he just quoted for the annual operating costs actually includes the cost of prosecuting the photo radar tickets -- or if that falls generally under the budget for prosecution within his ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, it doesn't include that figure. That would be part of the general cost in the ministry, and some in the ICBC, because process serving is with them.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the total amount of fines assessed in the past year was and how that compares with the total amount of fines collected in the same time period? In other words, how great a difference is there between fines assessed and fines recovered?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The number of tickets issued in calendar year '97 was 316,235, to be exact. I don't have an indication of how many of them were actually paid for at the end. The revenue from the fines in '97-98 fiscal was $24 million approximately. That, the hon. member should remember, is '97-98 fiscal, and the initial number I gave the hon. member is for '97 calendar year.

B. Penner: I wonder if the Ministry of Attorney General has a comparison of how many of the old-fashioned speeding tickets were issued last year -- for the sake of comparison.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would not have that information here.

B. Penner: It does strike me as a pretty phenomenal number, though -- the 300,000-plus tickets being handed out in one year just through photo radar. I suspect that that's much larger than the police were issuing prior to the arrival of photo radar -- just a suspicion; I can't prove that. If the minister's staff do have any statistics showing the previous number of tickets via the old-fashioned method, that would be appreciated, as well as the current number of tickets being provided the old-fashioned way. I'm just referring to speeding infractions, not other moving violations.

I'm wondering if the minister is able to tell us what percentage of photo radar tickets are being disputed; I'm wondering if the ministry is keeping track of that statistic.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: About 5 percent.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister has any way of comparing that to what percentage of conventional speeding tickets are disputed. Is it a greater number that are being disputed, or is it a smaller number?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have that information. We will continue to make notes and have that available afterwards, if that's at all possible.

B. Penner: In the event that a photo radar ticket is disputed, who ends up prosecuting the photo radar tickets? Is it the actual police officer who was present in the photo radar van at the time the photograph was taken, or is there a Crown counsel prosecutor who gets assigned to the case?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have the criminal justice branch personnel here, but I am told by the police services branch that it is the criminal justice branch that prosecutes all photo radar tickets.

B. Penner: I find that interesting, because it is different than the old-fashioned practice, where speeding tickets were provided directly by a police officer to the alleged offender. In most of those cases, it is the police officer who ends up prosecuting the infraction. There are exceptions, of course, where a matter of law is raised and the matter is raised to provincial court, but by and large, it is the regular police officers who prosecute the regular type of speeding tickets.

I wonder if -- again, a technical question -- the ministry has kept track of the rate of success that people are having in challenging photo radar tickets. Is there an increasing trend of success in challenging photo radar tickets? Or has that not yet been identified?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the criminal justice branch would have that information, and we've already dealt with them. If the hon. member is interested in asking that question of the ministry, they'd be happy to provide that. My general feeling would be, looking at the media and the news reports, that whenever there is a photo radar ticket that has been successfully challenged, it's usually in the news. Looking at those reports, there are probably very few, but I can't say.

B. Penner: Just looking again at that number that the minister provided earlier -- about 316,000-plus photo radar tickets in one year -- if about 5 percent of those were being challenged, that would mean about 16,000 disputes and therefore, presumably, trials. Is the ministry keeping track of how many photo radar trials there are?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we do keep track of that, but we wouldn't have that information here. That would be with criminal justice or court services, I believe. That information would be available to the hon. member for the asking as well.

Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada