[ Page 9667 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: Some very special people are in the gallery. One is a dear friend of mine that I went to high school with, Cathy Hoffman Main. She is joined by her husband Lorne Main and their two children, Sarah and Joshua. Joshua is very special, because -- as this House may remember -- five years ago today I went off to assist in his delivery. He is five years old today. I would ask the House to make them all very, very welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I have visitors in the gallery, two folks that are very special to me: Ed and Ellnora Hornal. They are my cousins, actually. They live in Walnut Grove, and they spend a little time in Qualicum when they're not retired and relaxing in sunny California. They came here today to watch the circus at 2 o'clock. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I too would like to welcome a family who are very good friends of mine: Davis Swan, his wife Barb Janzen and their two young boys, Elliot and Devin. Davis and I worked together in Alberta with the late Grant Notley for many years. Davis, Barb and the two boys are from what the opposition would call that green and promised land of Calgary, Alberta. I ask the House to make them very welcome.

L. Stephens: Visiting in the House today are four ladies from Surrey and my riding of Langley. They are part of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Society of B.C. They are Marilyn Stevens, who is the president, along with Nora Jacobs, Jill Viani and Jill Filer. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. de Jong: It is not often that a member of the opposition has an opportunity to introduce a senior ministerial official to the chamber, but I couldn't help noticing this person's presence in the gallery. I would ask all members to offer an unrehearsed and unscripted welcome to one of the Children and Families minister's most trusted and virtually anonymous officials, Madam XXX.

Introduction of Bills

REGULATORY STREAMLINING MISCELLANEOUS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted to introduce the Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, the first in a series. This act represents the initial legislative results of the streamlining initiative which was announced in the 1998 budget. That initiative is designed to reduce red tape and cut the cost of doing business here in British Columbia, and it is being shepherded by a 16-member task force. The business task force, which I chair, represents business, labour and government. The task force released its initial report this morning and recommended that this legislation be introduced. All of the provisions in this legislation are housekeeping in nature. As such, the act is a further step towards achieving the objectives.

Our overall goal is to find ways now and in the future to minimize the cost of doing business and of the regulatory requirements. We will not be sacrificing health, safety or the environment. However, we will look for ways of increasing government efficiency and responsiveness, as well as reducing the regulatory burden on business. Taken together, the provisions in this act contribute towards reducing the cost of doing business and increasing government efficiency.

Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BUSINESS PAPER REDUCTION ACT

Hon. I. Waddell: I move that Bill 43 be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, this is a unique bill to cut red tape. The Business Paper Reduction Act has been written to allow government to reduce some of the unnecessary administrative and procedural paper burdens experienced by business. It's an enabling tool so government can work with business to make for quicker changes. This act provides for the use of leading-edge technology and simplified procedures to streamline business registration, reporting, payment and licensing requirements.

The Business Paper Reduction Act supports reducing the costs placed on business, without compromising health, safety and other environmental objectives. It will assist the recently formed Business Task Force in its mandate to identify and reduce government red tape. The legislation will speed up the business of doing business in British Columbia, which will improve our business climate and create jobs for British Columbians.

An Hon. Member: Good news.

Hon. I. Waddell: It's very good news.

Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 9668 ]

Oral Questions

TNAC AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF NISGA'A AGREEMENT

[2:15]

I hope there is some explanation for that. I agree with the member that that is simply unsatisfactory, and I will certainly address it forthwith.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, first supplementary.

G. Campbell: I should inform the minister today that we heard from the Council of Forest Industries, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and the B.C. Business Council that in fact they have not received all of the legal documentation of that agreement. In fact, they are very concerned, because the word on the street and in the public is that there is going to be an announcement of the final agreement with the Nisga'a before they have had an opportunity to make those reviews.

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is: will he commit today that there will be no announcement of a final agreement with the Nisga'a prior to the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee having an opportunity to review the full and final legal wording of all the clauses that are included in that agreement?

Hon. D. Lovick: I had hoped that my answer to the first question would give sufficient assurance, but let me try and clarify, if I might. I'm reluctant to answer in the affirmative the question that the member poses, simply because he used the phrase "the full and final legal agreement," if I understand correctly. What we expect will happen in Nisga'a -- and indeed, for that matter, in any major treaty -- will be an agreement that to all intents and purposes is the final agreement. But then, likely, that will be initialled by the parties; then it will go for a final quick review by the respective legal counsels. That will produce, then, the document that the member refers to. However, that is merely for clarification. I will give him my assurance that I will talk to officials today to ensure that those chapters are made available to the parties as he requested. That is as much assurance as I can give him, but I hope that will provide him the comfort he requires.

The Speaker: I recognize, for a second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Just so that I can confirm with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. . . . Prior to any announcement of a final agreement, the full legal text of all the clauses within that agreement will be submitted for public review and public comment -- prior to the government announcing the agreement.

Hon. D. Lovick: Again, I have to offer the same caveat I did just a moment ago. It would be, frankly, irresponsible for me to say that I can give that absolute assurance, because I don't know that the agreement that may be signed within -- what? -- one week, two weeks or three weeks will be the same thing that we call the final legal agreement. That will happen perhaps three weeks later, when the respective legal counsels have had an opportunity to review the document and to give their respective sign-offs. For the substantive agreement, however -- the substantive agreement that we are hopeful will be produced within the next one or two weeks -- I can give that assurance to the member, and I have no hesitation in doing so.

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES RESTRUCTURING AND VOLUNTEER AGENCIES

Hon. L. Boone: The member was at the news conference yesterday, and she would have heard all of the organizations that we've been working with over the past nine weeks express support for what we've done. She was there; she should have heard this. She doesn't want to hear the things that we're saying.

It takes a long time to review this and to work with our partners to find out how we can proceed in the best way, so that families are not left in limbo and so that all the concerns out there are addressed. This is a very, very complex issue and one that can't be solved overnight. Yes, we took time to review it. I make no apologies for taking the necessary time to review it, making sure that our staff had the concerns of all the people out there addressed and making sure that we can move forward in a positive way with the support of all our supporters out there.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, this minister took longer to review and release the report than the authors took to write it

[ Page 9669 ]

When I talked to every major agency in my region, not a single one of them was even aware that she was releasing it yesterday. But when she did release it, she said: "Well, I'm not to blame; I'm not responsible." Her ministry has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this failed experiment and hundreds of hours of staff time. If she is not responsible and if her deputy is not responsible, can she tell us who ordered this failed experiment? Who's going to be held responsible for the damage that it's done to the thousands of volunteer agencies across British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: You know, you don't just take a report, read it and then release it without deciding what you're going to do with it. It takes a long time to actually find out how you are going to move forward, what you can do to solve the problems out there. That is what takes the time. It would be easy just to read it, as the member opposite would do, put it on the back shelf and not do anything. But there are actions that needed to be taken; there are concerns that had to be addressed out there with groups across this province. We've been doing that. We're going to move forward in a positive way, working with our partners out there, who are very supportive of what we are doing today.

R. Masi: A further question to the Minister for Children and Families. You know, hon. Speaker, the NDP rushed headlong into the implementation of contract-restructuring for non-profits without at all thinking about the consequences of their actions. Now we have volunteers -- volunteers who are the foundation of our nation, the absolute foundation -- in these agencies that have lost their contracts. These volunteers have now quit; they're leaving; they've left. Can the Minister for Children and Families tell us how she expects service agencies that have totally lost their volunteers to provide top-level community services in the coming year?

Hon. L. Boone: I've not heard any service organization out there that is currently providing services to individuals say that they are not able to carry forward; I have not heard one of them say that. What they have done is ask me to work with them to find solutions to the difficult situations that we are in. We will do that. If there are situations out there where contracts were supposed to have gone out, we will deal with those issues case by case.

But I know that the members opposite -- although they don't like to hear positive things -- previous to our making the decision to review the CPR, were saying: "Stop this process; stop CPR." Well, we have stopped CPR, and now what are they saying? Do they say congratulations? Do they say: "We appreciate what you've done"? No. As usual, they are critical. They know no way of ever saying that it's a job well done.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. First supplementary, the member for Delta North.

R. Masi: During this whole restructuring process that the NDP rushed headlong into without proper implementation processes, service agencies told the government that they were doing wrong, that they were going about it the wrong way. But once again the government didn't listen. Now, in my community, Deltassist, a 25-year provider of community services in Delta -- 25 years -- has lost their staff, has lost their executive director and has lost volunteers after they were told that their contracts would not be renewed. Can the minister tell the people of Delta, who have relied on Deltassist for years and years, why they should trust an NDP government whose incompetence has essentially destroyed a 25-year-old community service organization?

Hon. L. Boone: The South Fraser region is one of the regions where there are some problems with regard to what was taking place. I've asked the ministry person who will be working with the assistant deputy minister, who will be going in there, to immediately move into that area to work with those organizations to find out how we will be moving forward and what we will be doing. But those will be done on a case-by-case basis.

LANDS MINISTRY APPLICATION BACKLOG

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the opportunity to address once again the same points that have been addressed with the member opposite during our estimates process, just recently completed. In fact, as the member well knows, the Crown lands division has applied up to 40 new staff people, reassigned from across government, to deal with the Crown lands backlog. In fact, the member is aware that we are tracking those applications on a weekly basis to ensure that we are dealing with the backlog.

As well, the member will be aware of the number of policy changes we've made in Crown lands in order to expedite applications. I would also remind the member that if he has a specific case, as I've offered to him and any other member of the opposition, he needs only to bring it to my office. I will do my very best to endeavour to deal with his question and concern, and I agree to follow up on this question as a result of his inquiry today.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Madam Speaker, that was last year's estimates, not this year's estimates. That's the problem with you: you don't address anything. This is not rocket science; it's the sale of a piece of Crown land -- five acres.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

R. Neufeld: Listen up, folks -- five acres. It was surveyed and put up for sale by the Crown over 20 years ago. For over 20 years it's been on the books for sale. You've taken over a year; it's worth only $4,400. My goodness, I could tell the minister that this would help the sagging housing starts in

[ Page 9670 ]

My question to the minister is: when will Mr. Tyerman be able to get title to this piece of land? It's at Mile 147 on the Alaska Highway -- no hydro, no water and sewer, a gravel road. As far as you can see, it's Crown land. When will Mr. Tyerman get title?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member opposite must have had a memory lapse since this discussion just yesterday in estimates. Rhetoric aside, I have given the member my assurances that I will look into the matter, and I will do so.

Orders of the Day

[2:30]

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading continued)

T. Nebbeling: I would like to rise and speak on the motion that we have been debating for some time now, and that is to hoist Bill 26 for a period of six months. I personally would prefer that we had been speaking about many of the other issues that are very important to the people of British Columbia -- issues such as jobs. It's not too long ago that the government made commitments with the jobs and timber accord, whereby a large number of jobs were guaranteed to be delivered this year and next year at a cost of a large amount of money. So far we have not seen many jobs developed. We have seen a lot of jobs leaving British Columbia; we have seen a lot of money spent through Forest Renewal B.C. So I think that once we have dealt with this bill, it will be time to go back to discussing the kinds of issues that are really at the forefront of the minds of British Columbians.

You cannot open a newspaper today without reading about yet another mill closing down, another forest company deciding to stop harvesting. While these issues are put on the back burner because of Bill 26 being put in front of this House, I wish that the other side would start focusing on the fact that we really cannot afford to do anything further to damage what is happening in British Columbia as far as opportunities are concerned.

We have to start getting our financial house in order. The last budget, as we all know, was once again a deficit budget -- the seventh deficit budget. The unfortunate thing is that the government, when presenting budgets, still has that element of denial of what is really happening in British Columbia when it comes to our financial management. There is not a province in this beautiful country of Canada that continues to increase its debt the way we do in this province. The excuse used by this government, time after time, to justify going deeper into debt -- and let's face it, this debt is nothing but the taxation of future generations -- is that it is needed in order to get British Columbia to go forward, to create jobs and opportunities. A year later, two years later, there is still no proof that any of the so-called excuses for going into debt are actually paying off. We are losing more jobs.

Rather than speaking to this motion, I wish we could be discussing the job situation and the financial state of this province. We should be speaking about education. The education bill that is coming forward contains many, many pitfalls. The fact that 87 percent of the trustees in this province rejected the mandatory bill that has been put in front of us shows how little that bill is focused on developing the students.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Which bill?

T. Nebbeling: If the minister would be willing to wait and listen to what we have to say, he may learn a little bit. He won't need to go to school anymore.

It is clear that once we begin to talk about education issues and the need to truly focus on the well-being of students -- on how we can accommodate those students and on how we can get students to school safely. . . . That's what we should be debating today and in future weeks, rather than having the need to debate a motion to hoist Bill 26.

Yesterday, when the Minister of Labour spoke briefly at the end of the afternoon session, he described the B.C. Liberal opposition as a bunch of Chicken Littles who were doing nothing but going around telling the world: "The sky is falling; the sky is falling." If the minister would take the time to leave this building and look at what's happening in this province -- and he doesn't have to go far -- he would not say we are calling out, "The sky is falling," like Chicken Little. In many places, because of this bill, the sky is indeed falling.

I received an e-mail letter last week from a small developer in Pemberton. This developer is developing two projects. One is a 46-townhouse project in Pemberton. It is not a big project. He got some backers from the east. This project is really needed in Pemberton for a number of reasons. Pemberton is a small community without a tax base. It has, I believe, 386 community members. Any growth will add to the tax base, which is badly needed for the infrastructure of that area. It's also an opportunity for the town of Pemberton to become partners with Whistler, as far as housing objectives are concerned. Whistler is not necessarily available to young families who want to own homes. Many people in Whistler are renting, and many people have been looking at this particular project in Pemberton as an opportunity to have a chance to own their home, be 20 minutes away from Whistler, and start a family in an environment that is a little bit different from living in a resort.

This developer notified me last week that because of Bill 26 and all the other elements which make the business climate in British Columbia of such a nature, they no longer have faith that their investment will create a fair return. This project has been shut down. I think it is a crying shame when small business people are trying not only to make a living themselves but at the same time to provide a number of jobs in an area where very few jobs are available. The industry in that area has traditionally been the forest industry, and the demise of many job opportunities has happened because of the demise of the forest industry.

Here was a chance for some people to shift focus, to get out of the forest industry and to start working in a trade that had some potential for the future. Because of the debate on Bill 26 and the intent of Bill 26, the financial backers of this project said: "Sorry, folks, but no thank you. There are many, many other places where (a) we can get a guaranteed fair return on our money, and (b) we can do it in such a manner that we don't have to ask ourselves on a daily basis: 'Did we make a mistake?' "

[ Page 9671 ]

In the same town of Pemberton, there is another project that was on its way. It's a project that has been discussed by the community for about three years. It is a small hotel: 40 rooms, a pub and a restaurant. It has gone through all the regulatory reviews, environmental assessments and approval from the community. So this project is ready; the hole is in the ground. Again, this project would not only provide a fair amount of work for people who have traditionally been working in the forest industry, and provide a chance to get into the construction industry, but it would also provide jobs once the project is finished -- people working in the hotel, the restaurant and the pub. So in a town where 35 percent of the people are unemployed, this is an incredible opportunity. The project was on its way.

[2:45]

Some of those families that were really counting on this one-time opportunity are now going to have to make the decision to move on. Some of these families are going to join the big army of people who are leaving this province -- the 16,000 people who decided that they had to move on. They decided they had no opportunity to stay in British Columbia -- 16,000 people. If we only had a government that believed in business, if we only had a business climate that could make some of these projects that I just described. . . . And this is in just one town. Who knows what happens everywhere else? If we could just have some of these projects actually happen and save some people the hardship of packing up and moving to wherever they can find a job. . . .

We on this side have to fight. If we can somehow get this government to understand that we are talking about people values, that we're talking about quality of life, that we're talking about the elimination of quality of life because of the breakup of families -- family members leaving and other family members staying behind and kids not wanting to leave schools, so they stay with another family member. . . . If we, through supporting small projects like the ones I just talked about -- not financially but through a government with an attitude that says: "We believe in small business; we believe that small operators can make the difference. . . ." That attitude alone can make a tremendous impact on so many people who don't know what to do today. Sixteen thousand people have left in the first quarter of 1998. I don't even want to look at the number for the second quarter, because I don't think it will be much better.

Madam Speaker, when I speak about the motion to hoist -- to take this bill back from the floor and give everybody another chance to look at what it's really doing, not just by theorizing in this House about what it is doing and what we don't have to worry about, but by going out of this House and into our ridings and checking on what's happening right now and what people are saying when they talk about this bill, what fear it is creating and what impact it is creating, and then coming back to this House six months from now and having this debate again. . . . Then, if everybody's honest and looks at what's happening in this province -- all the other negative elements that are permeating the system today -- hopefully, I think we can get some people on the government side to understand that Bill 26 is wrong and that if we pass it today we make a fatal mistake. This could well be the straw that breaks the spirit of British Columbians. I don't think we can afford to do that, and I don't think we can ever allow ourselves not to take the time to avoid something of such a serious nature as breaking the spirit of British Columbians. That's what we're talking about.

I've been listening to my colleagues, and I think we all have some story that we can put in front of the members to illustrate why we truly feel compassionate about the wrong of this bill and why we truly feel compassionate about the need to hoist this bill at this stage. While I was listening to my colleagues, I was thinking back to when I came to British Columbia. I arrived here as a landed immigrant, with very little money but a lot of willingness to work, to roll up my sleeves and go for it. That was in 1977. And in 1978, when I was able to start my very first business in Whistler, which at that time was a small community with a lot of dreams, a lot of vision. . . . I was part of that dream, and I was part of that vision.

The reason I really wanted to be part of it was that the way it was set up and the way government worked at that time was that they enticed free enterprise. They enticed entrepreneurs. As a matter of fact, it just came to my mind that when I applied for landed immigrant status, I didn't get approved for my landed immigrant status because I had a university degree or spoke many languages -- none of that. I got in because in Europe I had shown that I had a good sense for business. I had a small business there, and I was willing to sell that business to start here in Canada, to be part of something that I really thought was going to be phenomenal, the Whistler resort. I got in as an entrepreneur, under a special entrepreneur program.

When I came to Canada, entrepreneurship and free enterprise were two very strong motivators for Canada's governments to say: "Come in. Show your stuff. You've got an idea that you think can work. Let's do it. Just do it. If you make it, we are going to be thrilled, because if you make it, Mr. Entrepreneur, you're going to create some jobs. If you don't make it, well, at least you gave it a shot. You risked some of your own money, but you had a chance." I think that's the key.

[ Page 9672 ]

When I talk about when I came here, Madam Speaker, I did start my business there, and I started another business. Within three years, I, as an entrepreneur, in a free enterprise spirit, had created 60 jobs. Each and every one of the jobs that I created then is still there today. They were established, and with the success of Whistler and the willingness of people who were involved from the beginning to hang in, in difficult times as well, Whistler established itself as a renowned world-class resort.

We as government can look and say: "Here are some examples of how we can entice investment to Canada." Whistler was not built with just borrowed money from the banks. Oh no. We had money from Europe. We had money from Asia. We had money from Australia. We had money from everywhere. Every investor who came to Whistler knew that they had a hell of a good chance to, indeed, get a fair return on their money. That's how Whistler was developed. Anybody who is willing to look at the books today can see that in that one small town -- there were 250 people when I arrived there -- $2.5 billion has been invested over the last 18 to 20 years. That was the climate of the eighties. That's how people felt government enticed them to come here. They did come here and they did miraculous things.

Since 1991 that has all changed. Since 1991 we have seen more and more erosion of all those great principles British Columbia upheld that created jobs, that allowed us to have a good social system. We see all those values being eroded, for reasons that the government themselves can best explain.

I want to come back to today. It's no use living in the past, when things were such that somebody in this province, when entering business life or entering a worksite, had an opportunity to indeed make something of themselves and in the process often create opportunities for others.

Today, when I go to my riding and I stop in a town like Squamish, as I did last week. . . . I spent a day or two in Squamish because of the crisis that's happening that community. Many of you are fully aware that over the last two or three years, with the demise of the forest industry and the broken promises of this government when it came to funding the changes that had to happen in the forest industry -- be it for the environment, be it in harvesting practices. . . . The promises made at the time that the forest industry was going through that change were clearly that government would collect extra money from the forest industry, but that they would return it to the communities where the money had been taken from. "We're going to use this money to indeed make the forest healthy, vibrant and ecologically sound, so that the forest can continue in perpetuity to contribute to the well-being of all British Columbians."

The people in Squamish -- 80 percent of the population there derives its income directly or indirectly from the forest industry -- believed it. They said: "That's great, because we need change. Things cannot go on the way they're going." So things changed. Forest companies paid the stumpage. And the forest-dependent communities kept waiting: "Where is the money? Where is the money you took from us, which we're going to need now to deal with the changes that you're imposing on us?" It takes a lot longer to get a permit, so we have to shut down from time to time. Those are things we never had to do before, but now we do, because the Forest Practices Code says we have to shut down until such time as we have all the permits in place. That's a long, drawn-out process. We didn't think it was going to be a long, drawn-out process, but it turned out to be a long, drawn-out process. Suddenly there was unemployment in the community of Squamish, but nobody understood, because they had been promised that money was going to be available from Forest Renewal funds. After all, it was collected from that community.

I'm not going to go through the whole two years -- or three years by now -- of mismanagement of Forest Renewal funding. I'm not going to go through all the elements where the whole change in rules and regulations and taxation imposed on the forest industry has led to what we face today. Today we face an industry which is on its knees, which is on the brink of going into oblivion. When I went to Squamish last week, they were still harvesting in the forest. They were harvesting with the new methods, the new controls and the new codes. So everything is done ecologically right, and they're very pleased about it. But all the timber that is not cut within the Squamish tree area is now floated to the Fraser River. It's floated down the Fraser River, because the local mill that traditionally treated all the wood shut down officially for three months. It shut down and put 180 people out of work. Madam Speaker, you know as well as I do that when 180 people are out of work, it has an impact on another 500 or 600 people. Today, similarly, we use a factor of two and half indirect job losses from the direct job losses. We're talking about 500, 600 or 700 people who are now affected by the fact that this mill shut down last week for three months.

[3:00]

When I met with the mayor and the council there and some other forest people, my very first point, of course, was: "Considering that you shut down because the Japanese market is flat and you have been cutting dimensions for the Japanese market. . . . You can't sell your lumber. To me the obvious solution to this is: why don't you change the mill? Why don't you look at markets that do still flourish? Why don't you look at speciality woods? The timber coming out of tree farm licence No. 38, the Squamish tree farm licence, has got very high-quality wood. So why not change the mill?"

There's the link. I can name the company: it's Interfor -- a big, important, very well known company. The company can't get the financing to transfer the mill from the Japanese dimensions to other dimensions for which there are markets. And why can't they get the funding? Well, first of all, I believe the letter of credit is gone. They have exceeded their credit lines that have been established based on what's happening today in the province -- not what happened five or ten years ago. I'll bet you that five or ten years ago it would have been no problem to get money to change the mill over to new dimensions. But they cannot get any money.

Again, the fact that we have this climate of mistrust of business, this anti-business climate, has caused a company such as Interfor -- a major forest company in this province -- to be forced to shut down a mill because today they cannot get financing for the turnover of a mill. That turnover would have meant saving those 180 jobs, and the impact of those jobs losses, or the. . . . Let me rephrase that; I got stuck there for a second. It is not just the 180 jobs; it's all the indirect jobs.

That's what is happening today in British Columbia. The investment tap has been turned off completely. There is

[ Page 9673 ]

Bill 26 adds to that unrest, that mistrust, that rejection of any further money coming to this province. That's why our motion to hoist this bill is so justified. Give us time to look at what this bill is truly doing. If we do that, I have no doubt that after six months, when we get back into this House, the member opposite from Prince Rupert will realize that bailouts such as we have made in the past can no longer happen and that this is the best thing to do.

Please, hoist the bill -- that's what I have been speaking for.

J. Weisbeck: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Weisbeck: There are two students here on the premises today to discuss post-secondary education. They are Jamie Gillis, who is the incoming vice-president of the B.C. Liberals from the University of Victoria, and Ed Hsu, who is the president of the B.C. Young Liberals from UBC. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Continuing with the second reading hoist motion debate, I recognize the member for Delta North.

R. Masi: I rise to support the amendment to hoist Bill 26 for six months. I believe we must ask some fundamental questions about Bill 26. First of all, I'd like to ask why this legislation is being brought forward at this time, when the government is in a financial mess. We've seen seven consecutive deficits -- this year, about a $1 billion deficit. We've seen our debt load go straight up and sky-high at about $31 billion. Economic prospects are very dim in this province, to say the least.

All investors -- small business, largely owned and invested in by women; big business; other small investors; all of us. . . . Everyone has a vested interest in the economy and in the growth and development of this economy. If you have a mutual fund or an RSP or a pension, you have a vested interest in this economy. I guess it essentially boils down to this -- and especially those who have investment capital say it very clearly to this government: "Don't fiddle with the Labour Code."

I was interested in the comments in a letter from a Delta resident who had experienced the government of that famous NDP icon Bob Rae, the former Ontario Premier. The resident said:

"Expecting honesty and integrity, the public may elect the NDP, in which case the next series of events may occur. The NDP, right after election, will say it must borrow money to correct the situation left by the previous government."

"Then the Labour Code will change to streamline unionization and impose a bureaucratic nightmare on employers in the name of safety, employee security, the environment and watching over the big, bad employers. The government payroll will increase quickly, and all services will be performed by unionized labour."

Going on further in his letter:

"Some high-profile projects will be started by the government to increase employment, which will further increase the debt."

He also said:

"Every year of its term, more borrowing will be required to keep these events on track. At the same time, venture capital, foreign investment, major corporations and entrepreneurs will be leaving and avoiding the province in record numbers."

"As banks, corporations and money leave the province, more and more funds will be borrowed to ensure that programs are not affected, personal taxes are not raised and hydro and insurance services are maintained."

"Eventually everyone will belong to a union -- that, of course, will bring joy to the hearts of the NDP -- but they may not have any work."

Then we have to ask the question: why did the government call debate on Bill 26 the day after it was introduced? Probably the government assumed the opposition Liberals would object and enter into debate for a while, and then the government majority would pass the bill, things would quiet down, and the bill would become step one or the first stage in the return of Bill 44 and complete the sectoral bargaining process in the province. Of course, the sectoral bargaining process is dear to the heart of the Premier. Again we ask the question: why now?

This is a government that is unpopular. It has lost the confidence of the people of this province. It sits constantly at between 20 percent and 22 or 23 percent in the polls. Over a period of about two years, it has shown a downward trend in popularity. You know, the question I get asked the most when I travel throughout British Columbia in my constituency is: when are you going to get those guys out of there? When is the election? That's generally the first question I get asked in my travels throughout the province.

Why introduce an economically destructive bill now, when the province is in an economic crisis, when the government is at the bottom of the barrel in popularity? The only possible answer I can come up with is that it's payback time. It almost appears as if this NDP government has a suicide wish. First it attempts to bring in Bill 44. It gets slapped down by the public because of its extreme measures. Lack of consultation was the excuse given by the government for withdrawing that piece of legislation, but we know that the public wouldn't stand for it.

So we have a new plan that's come out after a year or so. The new plan is to slip it in on an unsuspecting public: this year, Bill 14 and Bill 26; next session, sectoral bargaining for

[ Page 9674 ]

So I ask the Ministry of Labour: what implementation process was put in place? I must say, the government has a shaky record in implementation. In the implementation of their health plans, the reorganization of health services, they're not doing well. The reorganization of Children and Families was rushed in with very little implementation process used. And now, of course, they're reaping the benefits of poor planning.

I agree: there was a report done by Kelleher and Lanyon. There's no question of that. And I agree that there were recommendations put forward in this report. However, there were no time frames recommended in this report. There was no sense of urgency recommended. There was a clear reference to the economy. I'll quote a reference. According to Kelleher and Lanyon: "They are not based on the state of the economy at any particular point in time. Whether they will be introduced and the timing of their introduction" is up to the government. So there's some doubt expressed in the report itself about the timing of the implementation of Bill 26. That's essentially what we're talking about here today -- timing -- and the amendment is to hoist the bill for further consideration of this legislation.

When a report is commissioned and the terms of the commission apply only to the status quo, without any reference to external factors and conditions, this is what you'll get. You'll get the Kelleher and Lanyon report on construction labour relations. There's no expansion, no consideration of external factors.

But I go back to the original question that I asked: what implementation process was used? Was timing considered, relative to the general economy, the economic health of the province? You know, most implementation plans consider timing essential. It's one of those basic things that you have in a plan. I don't see any plan here except to rush right in -- the same old stuff.

Was an impact study done relative to the effect on employment or unemployment? We know that unemployment in this province now sits at 9.8 percent. We know that youth unemployment is climbing sky-high, somewhere between 18 and 19 percent. So I would suggest that an impact study would be a basic thing that would be required in the implementation plan. Even the federal government knows that.

[3:15]

Further, in the implementation process, was there a step-by-step plan to ameliorate the union turf wars? We all know that turf wars have been going on for a long time in unions. It's certainly no different, I guess, than any other social organizations. People seem to get involved in turf wars no matter where they are. But they're still going on; turf wars are going on in the unions. Perhaps at a later time here, I'll further refer to some of the historical aspects of union turf wars. But they're still going on there.

We see the rise of wall-to-wall unions. Perhaps wall-to-wall unions or industrial unions are the wave of the future. But there's no sort of acceptance that evolution perhaps might take place in union development.

In the implementation process, was there a recognition of technological change? Was there any new look at credentialling? For years, tradespeople have been credentialled in the same manner. The present system of credentialling is very restrictive and lengthy, and I guess this bill virtually solidifies it.

We should get more out of our youth, our young people, that are going into apprenticeships. They're capable of much more than being nailed down to an old-style trade or craft union. I suggest that there was really no proper or acceptable implementation process developed for this bill, that it was simply a matter of demand from an old-line union that was demanding its due from the Premier -- and it got it.

I have to ask, further to the implementation: was there any assessment done on the impact to the different regions of the province? Can a small company -- say in Salmo, Creston or Smithers -- forced to pay the same wages, compete or even stay in business? Was there no consideration given here for regional differences? In a large and diverse province like British Columbia, were regional differences not considered in the implementation plan? I think that's a fundamental approach when dealing with provincial matters. This is not a one-industry or one-geography province; it's very regional in its makeup. So we have to consider that. How do they affect socioeconomic conditions that vary throughout the province?

We need fairness in our labour laws. The pendulum cannot keep swinging back and forth, depending upon which party forms the government. To again quote from the Kelleher-Lanyon report: "Technology and methods of work have changed, as have the complexities of contractual and financial relationships. Non-union contractors and industrial-style employers are more prevalent than was the case 20 years ago."

I feel that Bill 26 is probably as archaic as was the notorious Bill 19 of former governments. I just feel that this pendulum-swinging has to come to an end for the good of the people and the residents of this province. It seems inconceivable that the Ministry of Labour did not carry out impact studies on the economy. The minister made a quote about perception. I suppose that it was in a different context than what I'm talking about, but when you're talking about the economic climate, you are talking about perception. I know a historic quote from Roosevelt during the Dirty Thirties in the United States: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Well, right now I fear that this government is scaring people.

I'll give another quote from the Kelleher-Lanyon report: "The recommendations we are making. . .are what we consider to be sensible changes." Well, that's a moot point, as far as I'm concerned, but they went on to say: "They are not based on the state of the economy at any particular point in time. Whether they will be introduced and the timing of their

[ Page 9675 ]

I heartily agree with the amendment to hoist this bill. I think it's important that consideration be given to it on the basis of the impact it is going to have on the economy of the province and also on our future citizens who are now leaving schools and institutions of training. This bill does nothing to open doors for these young people coming into the workforce.

I was interested in looking at a few media comments, as we all do in this political game that we play. I would like to refer to a couple of the comments. One was: "Even if the changes are necessary, why bring them in now, at a time when B.C.'s business climate and economy are in such poor shape? The Clark government still fails to grasp the fundamental point that in business perception is reality." Here is a further comment I picked up from the Province: "It was also learned that the government did not do any impact studies." I've commented on impact studies already, so I don't have to comment further on that. There is sort of an extra here: "In these times of globalizing economy and instantaneous cash transfers around the world, impact studies only make sense."

If there is an essence to what I'm saying here, it is the question of the impact that globalization and instant communication are having and the whole change in our technological approach for the future. You know, the future is coming -- that's a bright statement! But the twenty-first century is upon us.

I think I'd like to relate a little story I read, written by a man by the name of Jonathan Swift -- my apologies to Mr. Swift. It's a story of a little country called Lilliput. It was a fine little country; it was a lot like our province. It had a little king, and we have a little king. It had fawning courtiers, and we have a cabinet. It had a grey eminence, the king's adviser; and of course, we have Ken Georgetti. It had a king's fool, but the fool will remain unnamed. It had a town crier to tell the good news, and of course, we have the government spin doctors. You know, everything was going so well for the little king. They even had a great little war going on, because it's always a good idea to create a war with an external enemy -- my apologies to Machiavelli.

This war was with another little country called Blefuscu, and they were separated by a great ocean, at least six feet deep in some spots. But it was a great war, and everybody was happy, because they really didn't fight. The little king sailed in his great fleet with the banners flying at least 18 inches high, but he didn't tell the people that he sold the Crown jewels to pay for the fleet. But horrors! One day a giant arrived and spoiled everything, and the little king was frantic. He had never realized there was any other world but his. "We'll pass a law," said the little king. "That will stop the giant. It will be a historic law." But to no avail. The giant sunk the fleet, knocked down the city walls and said: "The country's mine."

Well, the giant is arriving in British Columbia. It's called new technology, instant communication and a globalized economy. We had better recognize it. Old-style labour laws catering to old-style unions just won't work in the twenty-first century, and we'd better understand that.

I'd like to look at an excerpt from the 1994 jobs study report by the OECD in Paris.

"Structural unemployment grows from the gap between the pressures on economies to adapt to change and their ability to do so." I think that's an important point. "Adaptation is fundamental to progress in a world of new technologies, globalization and intense national and international competition. The potential gains may be even greater than those which flowed from the opening up of economies after World War II, but today OECD economies and societies are inadequately equipped to reap the gains. Policies and systems have made economies rigid and stalled the ability and even willingness to adapt. To realize the potential gains, societies and economies must respond rapidly to new imperatives and move towards the future opportunities. To many, the change is wrenching.

"For governments, there are trade-offs and discipline involved in steering societies through the adjustment to new technologies and new forms of global trade. Their challenge will be to embrace change rather than succumb to pressure to resist it through protectionism or other measures to restrict competition.

"Governments are faced with designing and redesigning a range of policies across the economy and society in order to help foster -- or in some cases stop hindering -- adaptation to evolving ways of production and trade. But governments cannot meet the challenge alone. A high degree of social consensus will be needed to move forward with the necessary changes. Businesses, trade unions and workers need to be innovative to develop the new products, processes and ways of working that will create new jobs and help to shape skills to fit with the jobs of the future."

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

When we look at the evolution of unions from a historical perspective, we see that unions, like everything else, respond to the times we live in. If we look back, we can begin with craft guilds, which responded to the agricultural societies. Those were the days of wood, water, metalwork, stonework, food and food production. Then we moved on to the industrial unions, which responded to the industrial societies from the 1800s to the 1900s. Then we got into mass-production assembly lines and industrialization, and it was largely a labour-intensive era. Now unions are still evolving -- or they should be -- to meet the requirements of the emerging technological age of the twenty-first century.

[3:30]

Everyone understands that unions play a vital role in protecting workers in negotiating incomes and benefits. No one objects to unions recruiting, providing there is free choice, no intimidation and a secret ballot. However, hon. Speaker, unions will have to adjust their organizational structure, both in order to maintain credibility and to survive technological change. Craft unions will have to accept change in their structure just as the old craft guilds, with their excessively long periods of indenture and their extremely hierarchical structure, fell by the wayside. You know, there are many ways of restructuring. I don't know if we should look back to the old days of the "one big union" concept, which was an umbrella-type organization, promoted by union activists during the depression of the 1930s. But we know that construction union members could very easily be multiskilled and hold trade qualifications in more than one area.

Reforms in skills training and apprenticeships are highly overdue. I will be looking at the ITAC, the Industry Training

[ Page 9676 ]

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to stand and speak to the amendment to Bill 26, to hoist this bill. Speaker after speaker has spoken on this side of the House as to why this bill is not good for the economy of this province at this time. Every one of the reasons we have given about this bill is a reason why this bill should now be hoisted for six months, at least -- or more. The main reason this bill should be hoisted is because this government either is too lazy or just doesn't care enough about the economy of this province to do an impact study. An impact study would give them the information right up front on what will happen to the economy of this province if this bill is passed.

When it comes to the economy of this province, we see the NDP suffering from the three brass monkeys syndrome. For members on the other side of the House who don't know what the three brass monkeys syndrome is, I would be happy to share it with them. The first is seeing no evil. This government continues to wear a blindfold when it comes to the business community in this province. The second is hearing no evil. This government continues to hold its hands over its ears when it comes to hearing what community after community is saying. Their ears are plugged. The opposition adjourning the House right under their noses was a good example of how this government pays attention. The third is speaking no evil. Just take a look at this government's record of broken promises to the people of this province. Those are the symptoms of the brass monkey syndrome.

Hoisting Bill 26 until an impact study has been done will help the healing process, which this province is in great need of at this time. Hon. Speaker, when I spoke to second reading last week, I mentioned an article in the Vancouver Sun, written by Vaughn Palmer, dated Tuesday, June 23. I know how upset the NDP get when Alberta's economy is mentioned. Reality is reality, and I have to mention it again. I will quote from Palmer's column. I hope that this time the members are listening: "Alcan is rethinking a plan to expand its aluminum production in Kitimat after a feasibility study determined that B.C.'s higher labour costs and higher taxes would boost construction costs by 50 percent -- to $1.8 billion from $1.2 billion."

Again in the Vancouver Sun on Thursday, June 25, was another article on Alberta's economy. It's the reason I felt the need to repeat Vaughn Palmer's article. In this article, the headline reads "Booming Economy Helps Alberta Slash Debt Faster." This article states that Albertans made a record payment of $2.6 billion on the province's debt, reducing the economic millstone to $14.4 billion. The article continues, stating that figures released by the Treasurer show that the province has paid more than $7 billion on debt accumulated from 1985 to 1994, when the province outlawed budget deficits.

I know that the NDP do not like this kind of news coming out of Alberta. They don't like it, because it shows what a bad job they're doing for this province. I'm just going to give you one more tidbit from this article: " 'Because of people working, we collected more taxes.' " Then they go on to say that the economy outperformed their expectations and how good they feel about that.

That's a good-news story for Alberta, but we live in British Columbia, and we don't have these kinds of good-news stories in our province. This amendment that we have put forward to hoist this bill is an amendment to help this government begin some good-news stories for British Columbia. Every day we see in the papers something that is working for Alberta and how the NDP policies are hurting British Columbia. That is why we should hoist this bill.

In the Vancouver Sun again, the Friday, June 26, editorial headline reads: "NDP Policies No Help in Economic Slump." This editorial speaks about our economy failing, and unemployment being up. It says:

"First nations negotiations are stillborn.. . . Health care is close to open revolt. . . . [The Premier, our] bold general. . .has a battle plan and, like Custer's, it is a bad one. . . . Perhaps steps to make B.C. more attractive to private investors would be useful. Instead, the Business Council of B.C. calls changes to the Labour Code 'highly interventionist [and] eliminating competition'. . .in this decade the province has been unable to attract investment and is dead last among the six biggest provinces, the only one to show consistent declines. Investment was lower in 1996 than in 1991 while the population grew substantially."

These business leaders gave the Premier two messages. The first message was: "If you want the economy to rebound, you must lower taxes." The second message the Premier was given was to not touch the Labour Code. The NDP has not listened one bit to the advice on how to kick-start this economy -- all to the detriment of this province.

I was reading an article in the June 20 edition of the Economist. The article that caught my attention was headlined: "The State the Boom Forgot." What was really interesting about this article is that it was about Hawaii, comparing Hawaii to the other states. It actually reminded me of British Columbia and how British Columbia compares to Hawaii and to Canada. The state the Economist referred to, as I told you, was Hawaii, and the Hawaiian economy has been staggering for a number of years and has averaged only 5 percent growth per year since 1990. The Bank of Hawaii is predicting no growth for 1998. " 'We're just a little dot on the Pacific,' says Hawaii's Governor. . .but this is an expensive, highly taxed, highly regulated little dot in the Pacific, and Hawaii cannot blame all its troubles on Asia. It is also a lousy place to do business." That's what the article said.

An Hon. Member: That sounds familiar.

[ Page 9677 ]

The NDP could start a change to our downward spiral in this province by hoisting this bill. They could show the people of this province that they cared about the families that are suffering and out of work. They could show some concern about the staggering unemployment the youth of this province are suffering -- the youth who have to leave home to find work in other parts of Canada.

I was doing some shopping in my constituency, and a small business owner approached me and asked me what this government was doing here in Victoria. She said: "Please tell this government the damage they are doing to my business. My life-savings are invested in my business, and we cannot survive on sale after sale after sale. Even then, the people are still not coming in and buying. Before I lose everything, tell this government to quit punishing us and help us. My business gives jobs to nine people, who are going to be losers, along with my life- savings. Why do the NDP hate business so much? We cannot survive the way this government is treating us."

That's really the shame of it: having to watch business after business close down or leave this province. It kind of makes your stomach churn. We are speaking about families -- families who own small businesses and provide jobs in the community. It is these people who are suffering.

This government has tunnel vision. They continually talk about the worker. "We need to do this for the worker. We need to do that for the worker." The NDP forget that in order for the worker to get a job, someone has to be there to give them that job.

Jobs don't come out of thin air; they come from investment. They come from the person who wants to take a chance with their money and invest it and provide jobs for workers. I am sure that every MLA on that side of the House knows how to invest their money, hon. Speaker. They're not going to put their money into anything that doesn't earn them a fair interest on their dollars. So it is with anyone who wants to invest in British Columbia and provide jobs to British Columbians. They also want to earn a fair interest on their dollars.

I say again that that is why this bill needs to be hoisted for at least six months: so that an impact study can be done on the ramifications of this bill. Will this government listen? It doesn't seem so. They are so intent on ramming this bill through to pay Ken Georgetti back for all the big labour donations to their election campaign that they cannot see beyond their noses. As this government has said many times, they are only a government for the working man in this province. There is nothing else of importance in this province, as is told by their actions.

The Premier announced that SkyTrain is going to be expanded -- of course, in NDP ridings -- which will create 750 new jobs. They will bypass the environmental impact study that everyone else has to abide by -- but not this government.

[3:45]

Now they are openly attacking our democratically elected school boards. This is another betrayal of the people of this province by this socialistic government. This is another reason this bill should be hoisted: we cannot trust this government. This government wonders why people are leaving the province. It's just not small, medium- and large-sized businesses that are leaving; it's families also.

A big article in the June 20 Vancouver Sun showed a family heading back to Winnipeg because they couldn't provide for their family here. The good wages he earned to support his family were not the reason; it was the high tax burden in this province, the red tape, overregulation and high cost of living. This is another reason this bill should be hoisted.

Our economy is doing much worse than most people realize. Our economic growth is the worst in Canada. We have had massive layoffs and downsizing in the forest industry. Our statistics show that we rank the lowest in exports of manufactured wood products. Businesses and people are relocating to other provinces and states that welcome their investment. The list goes on and on.

I know that it doesn't suit the Premier and his NDP government's agenda to acknowledge the true state of our province's economic affairs. It is essential that they wake up and realize the extent of the problem. Every sector in this province is slowing down. Just take a look at the first quarter statistics: 16,209 people left the province, and only 12,654 people moved into the province. What does that tell us? It tells us that we have 3,555 fewer people to spend their money in our province. The NDP need to do their arithmetic, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Our economy grew from 1990 to 1995 because of the influx of people moving into this province. When more people begin to move out of the province than move in, we are in trouble. This government had better start treating it as a crisis.

Let's take a look at a column in the Sunday, June 28, Province newspaper: ". . .the big fear for a construction employer is they won't have much say in negotiating an agreement that's specific to their company." Why would anyone want to do business in this province when it's so unfair and one-sided?

I received a copy of a letter from a company in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, written to the Minister of Labour, and I would like to quote a portion of that letter:

"This province has many things to offer all Canadians and immigrants alike, one of which is freedom. Your proposal infringes on that right. We need a progressive government that can relay to the world that we are 'open for business' and that government is not a deterrent to the employer/employee. Many times in the past your government has not listened to the small business man and business woman of this province who are the catalysts that this province needs to rebuild a healthy working environment for both employees and employers. This province is my family's home, and I pray that it will have a future for my children. To this end, I urge you not to proceed with the new Labour Code."

Who is listening to the people of this province on that side of the House? Who, on that side of the House, is doing any consultation with the people of this province?

I was looking through last Monday's news clips, which we receive every day, and in the Chinese language news summary a headline grabbed my attention. This headline

[ Page 9678 ]

In another clipping in the same section, Surrey's mayor is quoted on his earlier warning that the B.C. government had a hidden agenda when it proposed to the GVRD the setting-up of the GVTA. You can understand why they had a hidden agenda, when the Premier gets up and approves the SkyTrain without any consultation with the GVTA.

These are all reasons that this NDP government cannot be trusted to do the right thing to get our economy moving again. The NDP are sending the wrong messages out around the world that British Columbia is not open for business, and that's why this Bill 26 should be hoisted. This government has already imposed new red tape and new costs on businesses in this session through the introduction of Bill 14, which amends the Workers Compensation Act. The NDP didn't do an economic impact study on Bill 14, and neither did they do it on Bill 26. That's another reason on the list of many other reasons also given to hoist this bill.

The unemployment rate in British Columbia is about 9.5 percent. Youth unemployment is at an all-time high at 17.2 percent. I have to ask why that is. The only answer I can come up with is that this government has created the crisis with red tape, overregulation and high taxes. This bill will add more costs to doing business in British Columbia, and it sends the wrong message to companies looking for places to invest their money. That's why this bill should be hoisted. It should be hoisted right out of this province.

In the Vancouver Sun on Monday, July 6, columnist Mark Startup talked about the protest organized by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses to urge the Premier to let this bill die on the order paper. I quote from that:

"It's a rare day when you see owners of small and medium-sized businesses waging a public protest. I saw people from all sectors of the economy. One wonders if their message made it all the way to the Premier's. . .cabinet offices on the seventh floor of Canada Place. For the sake of the B.C. economy, let's hope so."

"When individual business owners learn the government wants to take away their right to freely bargain their own collective agreement, they're going to be very angry."

All the stories that we on this side of the House have tried to tell the members opposite have fallen on deaf ears. Acknowledging the serious state of our economic affairs doesn't suit this government's agenda, but it is essential that they begin to realize the seriousness of the problem this province is facing. This government needs to begin a healing process for this province and hoist this bill.

Doesn't the NDP care about our unemployment rate? Doesn't the NDP care about the number of youth who are unemployed? Doesn't the NDP care about the 12,000 forest workers who lost their jobs last year? They say they are a government for the workers, but lost jobs don't seem to concern any of them.

Doesn't the NDP care that sales of oil and gas rights have fallen in the first six months to $58.3 million, compared to $237 million in the same period a year ago? That is $178.7 million less for programs like health care, children and families. In health care, we might even cut down on the waiting lists.

Doesn't the NDP care that at one time B.C. had the best credit rating in Canada and that now it has been downgraded? Doesn't the NDP care that we have the fastest-growing provincial government debt of any province in Canada? All I can say to this government is: "Clean out your ears and listen. Wash out your eyes and see. Hoist this bill today."

It would be really nice if this socialistic government showed at least a little bit of concern for the province and made an effort to find out why people and companies are leaving this beautiful province we live in. The only reason that I can think of as to why this government doesn't want to do an impact study -- or anything we propose -- is because they know the findings will be negative: so why bother?

How can the Minister of Small Business show his face in public? This bill is an attack on the very constituents he fails to serve, the people who create 70 to 90 percent of the jobs in this province.

Who knows what this government will do next? They could do the right thing for the province and hoist this bill -- but they won't. The previous performance of this government is a pretty good indicator of what their future performance will be like. We can trust nothing that this government does, when it works so hard to tell British Columbians what this bill won't do. This bill is a disgrace for this time. We need a bill that will be fair to both labour and business. Otherwise, we will continue to have unrest in this province. So I again ask that this government hoist this bill and do something right for the province for a change.

C. Clark: It won't be any surprise to members to realize that I'm rising to support the hoist motion and to ask the government to hold this bill back for a year, for six months -- for some time -- and to go and ask people, to listen to British Columbians, to find out what the economic impact of this bill will be. British Columbians will pay a heavy price for Bill 26 -- Bill 44 Lite. We will pay a heavy price. Don't doubt it. Look at where we are today economically: we are on the brink of a recession in British Columbia. And who put us there? This NDP government -- that's who put us there. We are teetering on the brink of a recession. In the face of an economy in the rest of Canada that is thriving, this is the province that's bucking the trend. And why? Because of this NDP government's policies.

It's their policies that have driven us to this point. When I talk about statistics and I talk about housing starts and I talk about unemployment -- which I will in my comments this afternoon -- what I'm talking about is people's lives. I'm talking about people's ability to pay their mortgage, to put food on the table for their children, to make sure that their future is secure and that they can pay for their children to go to university and pay for vacations to go to some of the parks that the government might decide to leave open in British Columbia. Maybe that's what they'll do with their money. But they need the money, they need the jobs, and they need employment to be able to afford to do those things. Without those things, what they're facing is a desperately uncertain

[ Page 9679 ]

That is what we are talking about when we talk about changes to the Labour Code. We are talking about the government's willingness to push this economy over the brink into a recession. Rather than trying to help people fix their lives and find some certainty and hope for the future, all this government will do is create more uncertainty. That means more dysfunction, higher suicide rates and higher divorce rates. In the end, that's what this means. That's what economic uncertainty means. Let's not forget: that's the human element we are talking about here. So when each of us on this side of the House stands to speak passionately in favour of this hoist motion, it's because we are thinking about just that: what it will mean to real people out there.

[4:00]

What we have seen with this government since they were elected is the exact opposite: a total and utter betrayal of everything they said they stood for in the election. They are not a party of compassion; they are not a party that cares for people. They are not a party that upholds those social democratic principles that they claim to run on in an election. They are none of those things. This is a government of the old-line, hard-line labour activists. That's the only special interest that this government represents, and that is a narrow special interest.

I would call the government's attention to the experience that they had in Britain. I lived in Britain. . . . I was a student at university in Britain in the eighties. When I was there, it was at a time of great upheaval in the political system there. The Labour Party was redefining itself -- or attempting to redefine itself -- in that period of time. Arthur Scargill was the leader of the radical fringe of the Labour Party, but he didn't represent a radical fringe of the Labour Party. He represented the mainstream of thought in the Labour Party in those days. His hard-line, old-time approach to managing the economy was what ruled the Labour Party in those days.

What the Labour Party forgot when they adopted that old-line labour view was that that didn't represent the needs of many people -- not many working people, not many union people. What they forgot was that if you narrow down the people that you represent to such a small number, you can't get elected. I'll offer this caution to the government. If they don't change their approach, and if they don't go back to what they said they believed in before the election. . . . If they don't discover what Tommy Douglas stood for when he said that the NDP was a party of compassion, they will go down to the same kind of defeat that the old-time Labour Party did in Britain, and for exactly the same reason. What the Labour Party forgot is that if there are no jobs, there are no union jobs. You've got to have a job before you can get unionized.

What NDP economic policies have meant for British Columbia is that there are fewer jobs. So who is the NDP hoping to unionize with its new legislation, if there are no jobs out there? That's the first step in getting the economy going. If they really thought about it -- and maybe a hoist motion, if they'd agree to it, would give them an opportunity to think about it -- they'd realize that they're going about their program backwards.

On this side of the House, there aren't many of us that would argue that the Labour Code needs to be changed, that the Labour Code needs to be seriously rebalanced in favour of one side or the other. We on this side of the House wouldn't argue that. When they argue that, the government forgets that the first thing they need to do is create those jobs. Otherwise, they won't have anybody that they can unionize. That's the problem with their economic policies. The Labour Party in Britain today is an entirely different Labour Party than it was in those days of Arthur Scargill, when they looked a lot more like this NDP government.

Tony Blair has reshaped that Labour Party. If you look through their election document, you don't find any mention or discussion of the fact that they need to tip the Labour Code seriously in favour of the interests of labour. You don't find that. You don't find in their platform, in their system of ideas, an idea that they need to cater to the big labour interests in order to succeed. That's not part of their program anymore; they've abandoned that. They have left that in the past.

They understood that in order to get elected, you need to represent a broad range of people, and it isn't good enough to have a government by and for special interests. It isn't good enough to ignore the middle class or to ignore the average working person who depends on a job every day to survive. It isn't good enough to forget about those people. If you do, you won't get re-elected; worse than that, what you'll do is destroy a lot of people's lives. By introducing these massive changes to the Labour Code, what this government is going to do is destroy jobs. When they destroy jobs, they are hurting people, and hurting people is something that government should be most focused on not doing. Government should be a force for the good. It should be a positive force in people's lives. For the most part, hopefully, government can stay out of the way and let people live their lives as they choose. Ideally, that's the way government should operate. But people need help. People need assistance from time to time, and that's where government can play a positive role. Government doesn't play a positive role by going in, getting in the way and -- not just getting in the way -- driving people away. That's not how government helps.

Government can't help by driving thousands of jobs out of our province into our neighbouring provinces. Government can't help by doing that. Government can't help by driving millions of dollars of investment out of British Columbia. That isn't helping; that's hurting. It's not hurting just this government's electoral prospects, and that's what they need to remember. They're hurting people when they do that. It's easy for a government to get lazy, arrogant, complacent and pompous. Goodness knows, when I look across this chamber at that group in the executive council of the NDP across from me, that is exactly what I see.

I see a government that is too lazy to bother to find out the problems that they are causing in the economy, too lazy to

[ Page 9680 ]

We saw in this government's last budget that they don't get it. They don't get that there's a problem. If they did, the budget would have been a bold step, a bold and dramatic change. It would have been a change from the terrible policies and the really dramatic impact that this government's policies have had on British Columbia for the last five years. The first step in recovery is understanding that you've got a problem; there are 11 steps after that. But that is the first step: you've got to admit you've got a problem. This government is too pompous and arrogant to admit there is anything wrong in British Columbia. They won't even admit that there is something wrong. It's not for lack of trying. Certainly, for our part, we've done our best to convince this government that there is a serious problem in British Columbia and that there is a problem in the economy.

Goodness knows, almost every day in question period this opposition stands up with new statistics and numbers, new memos and documents that conclusively prove the havoc this government has wreaked on the economy. Day after day, we've done that. We have put forward the statistics to the Minister of Forests -- easily once a week, and probably more than that -- pointing out what he and his government have done to people in the forest industry in British Columbia, to the lifeblood of our economy. How many jobs has this Minister of Forests killed in British Columbia? This Premier said that he was going to create 22,000 jobs, and what happened? We lost jobs, thousands of jobs, in the forest industry. So not only do we have to create 22,000 jobs to meet the Premier's promise, but also we have to add a few more to make up for all the jobs we've lost.

The Minister of Forests says: "Well, those aren't jobs. They've just been redistributed." The sad thing is that he's right. Those jobs have been redistributed -- to Alberta, Washington, Oregon and Ontario. They have been redistributed to other places, and that's why 12,000 British Columbians left the province two months ago. That's why Alberta had a net gain and British Columbia had a net loss. The jobs have been redistributed. They've been redistributed to other provinces that are experiencing record economic growth.

In British Columbia, our exports are down by over 6 percent, while Canadawide our exports are up at record levels. Why is that? We're a trading province. We are on the Pacific Rim. We are the province that is in the best position to take advantage of trade opportunities, and the government's only answer to that is: "Well, you know, the economies in the other provinces aren't doing so well. It's the Asian flu." Well, I'm sorry, but for all those people in British Columbia who are out of work, who are on the welfare line, for all those young people -- almost 20 percent of youth -- who are unemployed, it isn't good enough for this government to just point the finger and blame somebody else. It's not good enough. It's time for someone in this government to stand up and take responsibility for the mess that they've created, for the havoc they've created in people's lives. It's time for somebody over there to stand up and admit that there's a problem.

When this government first got elected in 1991, they said: "Well, the deficit problem is due to the previous government." When they introduced their next budget in 1993, they said: "The deficit problem that we have this year is also the problem of the previous government." The next year they delivered a budget and said the same thing: "It's someone else's fault." By then, I think, the excuse was wearing a little thin. They did it again and again. They did it seven times -- seven consecutive deficit budgets -- in a province that used to have the number one economy in Canada. This government has taken that achievement and made this province number ten in economic growth. Number ten in economic growth means fewer jobs, more lives disrupted and more problems in families. Most of all, it means fewer opportunities.

One of my colleagues, who is an immigrant to Canada, talked about what it was like when he first came here. He should know. He's a man who created an enormously successful small business and did it all on his own as an entrepreneur. He came from another country to do that here. My great-grandfather was the first of the Clark line in British Columbia. He came here from Scotland, because this was a place that promised opportunity. In those days it was a little tougher. He got in his boat and fished up and down the west coast of the Island. For four generations, my family made their living in the fishing industry in British Columbia. They can remember when the fishing resource was so rich in British Columbia that you couldn't go wrong. In fact, it was probably that attitude that has partly led us to where we are today with our fishing industry, where we don't have the same kinds of opportunities in the fishing industry.

When the government talks about the fishing industry in British Columbia, rather than saying, "Let's work cooperatively to try and fix the problem," they say: "It's somebody else's problem." Now, it's okay to say: "Maybe it is somebody else's problem." Maybe somebody else does bear some responsibility, but to stand up every time and say "It's not my fault" isn't good enough.

[4:15]

Why not just listen? Why not run a government that listens, that accepts input, that's prepared to cooperate, that is prepared to take the advice of British Columbians and fashion its policy based on what the people want, not just on what the special interests that drive the government want, not just on what the extra-honorary members of cabinet, the Premier's friends, want -- not just that. Do it for British Columbians, because they're the people that are depending on this government to do things right -- and more than that, they don't have any choice but to depend on this government to try and do things right.

What advice did the government receive about this bill the last time they introduced it -- Bill 44? What advice did they receive? They went out, and they made a big show of talking to the job creators, and the job creators were unan

[ Page 9681 ]

I was talking to a business person in Vancouver the other day. He has got a very successful small business. He does business with companies across North America. He told me that the only reason he was staying in British Columbia is because he likes the scenery; he likes to live in this beautiful place. He likes to sail; he likes to run. He's got a beautiful home in Vancouver. He likes this place.

Well, thank goodness the NDP can't export the scenery, because if they could, no one would be staying in British Columbia. They would export all the jobs from British Columbia. One of the ministers, when we talk about this bill, likes to talk about the film industry. In her view, it's doing extremely well. One of the reasons we have a film industry up here is precisely because of our scenery, because this is a beautiful place to be. It's a beautiful place to make movies, to make films that you can sell all over the world. That's one thing that the NDP can't export. I have to assume that they would if they could, but thank goodness, they can't.

You've got to ask yourself why this man that I spoke to in Vancouver is in the minority. Why are all those other people leaving a province so beautiful and so bountiful and so rich -- a province that should be so full of opportunity -- to go to places like Calgary and Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Ontario? Why are people uprooting their families and businesses to go somewhere else? It's because this government has lost sight of its. . . .

Interjection.

C. Clark: Oh, the Minister for Children and Families says it's to get away from me. Well, I'll tell you. . . . I'll digress for a moment here just to answer the minister. I don't think that British Columbians are dying to get away from me. Now, I'm hopeful that I have some influence in British Columbia, maybe some influence in Port Moody. Maybe some people know my name; I don't know. But I don't think that 12,000 British Columbians left the province in the month of January to get away from me.

Here's another example. We have a government that says: "The economic problems in British Columbia aren't my fault. Don't blame me; blame the Asian flu." We've got a government that says: "The deficits aren't our fault. It was the Socreds." We've got a Minister for Children and Families who says that the restructuring disaster, the bankrupting of those non-profits in British Columbia, isn't her fault; it's somebody else's fault. Now, the same minister has the gall, the moxie to stand up in this House and say that British Columbians are leaving the province, fleeing at record rates because of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. Well, you know, the minister. . . .

I am always tempted to take credit, because in politics none of us get credit all the time. Lots of times we have tough days, and we hear criticisms from a lot of people. I'm always tempted to take credit. But somehow, I don't think that I am quite that important in British Columbia. Somehow, I don't think that the whole economic disaster that we're facing, the fact that we're on the brink of a recession, is due to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. That's a nice theory, I suppose, but it's got to be one of the most cockamamy theories that this government's come up with so far.

Who are they going to blame next? Who's going to be at fault next? If it's not the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, I don't know. Maybe they'll blame those small business people themselves. Maybe it's those small business people, because they're not expanding. You know what it is? Those small business people aren't expanding, because they're on a capital strike. Maybe it's their fault that they're leaving. Maybe it's their fault.

I'm not on the government side of the House -- and I, as much as any other British Columbian, am a victim of this government, a victim of this government's economic policies.

Interjection.

C. Clark: As much as the minister likes to blame me for the mass exodus of British Columbians, I'm afraid I can't take credit for that.

This Minister for Children and Families likes to get up every day and talk about how she'd rather not be in this House. She'd rather not listen to me. She'd rather not listen to the members of the opposition. She'd rather not listen to all these people who carp and complain all the time about all the things she and her government are doing. She'd rather not be in debate in the House all the time. That's what this minister says on a regular basis. And I'm going to remind her again: if you don't like it, don't do it for a living. If you don't like debating in the House, don't run for office. If you don't like representing people. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Would you take your chair, please. Perhaps the member could at some point begin to address the hoist motion on Bill 26.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Yeah, I'll certainly draw the Speaker's attention to the issue at hand, and that is a government that likes to blame everybody else for its problems, instead of finding out what the real problems are. By hoisting this motion, what this government will do is have the opportunity to hear from people, to find out what the problems are, to go out and listen -- do some public hearings, get some committees travelling, go out and listen to your constituents -- and then to come back, after having heard them, and make sure that their input is reflected in the legislation it brings before this House. That's the essence of the democratic process -- and with the hoist motion, we are giving this government the opportunity to go out and listen. Stop blaming everybody else.

One of the things this government might hear will be painful for them. They might hear people say, when they are out there listening to people: "You know what? The economic problems in British Columbia are your fault. They're the government's fault." People might say that. People might blame the economic policies that have been pursued by this Minister of Finance, by previous Ministers of Finance and, ultimately, by the Premier. The government might hear that from their constituents. They might also hear, if they took the time to listen -- if they hoisted this bill and took the time to listen -- that this legislation is so ill-thought-out that it will push us over the brink into a recession. I don't think they'll like hearing that either.

This is a pet piece of legislation that this government is bringing in to try and serve the very narrow special interests that it represents -- the only people that it can claim to represent in British Columbia anymore. They have forgotten all those other people who need to be served by government. They have forgotten them, and we know that, because this is a

[ Page 9682 ]

Let's talk about the number of young people who are unemployed in British Columbia. The unemployment rate in British Columbia is almost 20 percent. If they took the time to listen to people, they would hear that that rate is largely due to this government's failed economic policies. If they took the time to listen, that's what they would find out. Because of this government's policies, 20 percent of young people in British Columbia are unemployed. If they went out and listened, they might have students coming before the committees, coming before the commission that travels, coming before them in their constituency offices, who are going to tell them that the reason they're not working, the reason they can't pay back their student loans, the reason that maybe they are continuing their education for longer than they'd intended, is because they can't get a job.

What good is an education if you can't use it, if you can't get a job, if you're going to spend the rest of your time on the unemployment line? Why would students go to university without ever a hope of employment at the end of it? Why would they incur a massive student debt load without any certainty that they'd be able to pay it back? That's what this government has done to young people in British Columbia. This is the Premier responsible for youth, and he should be ashamed of what he has done and of the way that this government has constricted opportunities for young people so that unemployment is almost 20 percent, so that young people can't find a job when they finish university. That's why we should hoist this bill, and I'd encourage the government to support me in voting in favour of this hoist motion.

Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the next speaker, the Chair really needs to remind members that we are debating the motion in regard to Bill 26 -- the hoist motion. It is not in order to repeat previous speeches in regard to Bill 26, because that is repetitive. I would suggest to members that they review their prepared speeches and put forward fresh ideas in this debate.

P. Nettleton: The member responsible for freshness. . . . I certainly did enjoy the comments of my colleague from Port Moody. I find her to be an inspiration not only to myself but to the rest of the colleagues within caucus -- a young woman who is intelligent, bright and articulate, and has something to say about not only Bill 26 but the hoist motion.

Interjections.

P. Nettleton: The minister from Laliland. . . . If he would contain or restrain himself for roughly 30 minutes, I might have an opportunity to expound on some thoughts that perhaps haven't been explored in the detail that I would like to explore them.

In preparing for the comments that I would like to make, I had to ask myself what there is that I can say that would have the effect of bringing this group across the floor to its senses. Is there anything that I could say that would bring them to a realization of the destructive nature of the legislation that they're intent on ramming through this Legislature and imposing on British Columbians? Nothing came to mind in terms of a magic sequence of words that I could recite and bring this group to their senses. But in any event, I thought that as a last resort, I would resort to reason. Again, I suspect that rational debate isn't going to have the desired effect. But I think it's important, even if this group across the way doesn't come to their senses, even if this group across the way doesn't hoist this bad, destructive piece of legislation that they seem intent on foisting on British Columbians. At least the people out there will have some sense of what this government is doing to them and also have some sense that in fact they are represented here in this chamber.

It's important, not only for people who feel vulnerable but also for people who are hurting as the economy crumbles around them, that they have some sense that in fact there are those of us here who recognize that things are bad and who have some feeling for their hurts and some sense of direction in terms of what can be done to turn the economy around. As I said, in preparing for sharing a few thoughts with reference to the hoist motion before us, I had to ask myself: why not hoist Bill 26 rather than foisting it on an unsuspecting populace that, as I say, is feeling the effects of this government's policies over the course of the last number of years, since 1991?

[4:30]

My colleague made reference to the 12,000 jobs that seemed to disappear here in our province in January. That is a very alarming figure by anyone's standards: 12,000 jobs, representing not only 12,000 workers but workers who support families -- men, women, children. We are in a state of crisis, I would suggest. Our economy is in crisis. When our economy is in crisis, families and people generally are in crisis. A time of crisis is not a time to be attempting to impose and foist legislation which, as I say. . . .

There has never been any claim that this legislation would help people who are hurting, that this legislation would help the economy not only in northern British Columbia, where I hail from, but in the province as a whole. So I ask myself: why is it, then, that this government seems intent on foisting this bad, destructive piece of legislation on British Columbians? Is it in fact that their associations with those in organized labour are such that they feel compelled to push this legislation forward, regardless of the impact that it may have on average, ordinary British Columbians -- including workers, many of whom are unionized?

I can tell you that, unionized or non-unionized, workers want work; workers want jobs. I think people's main concern is that this government move toward an investment climate that attracts investment, attracts investors and creates jobs -- be they union jobs or non-union jobs. That is really a moot point when we find ourselves in the position we're in -- in a time of crisis, when jobs are disappearing at the kinds of rates that have been discussed here in this chamber.

Hoisting the motion would allow this government some opportunity for sober second thought. The response may be that this was their response to Bill 44 of last session. While I understand that this bill is considerably different than the

[ Page 9683 ]

This hoist motion would allow some opportunity, as I suggested, for sober second thought. Sober second thought is not a bad thing. It allows opportunity for consultation with many of the groups who have certainly been faxing, phoning and otherwise corresponding with us as opposition members, letting us know and giving us some sense of the impact that it's likely to have on them and the people they employ.

So our concern is not to bash organized labour but rather to hold this government to account. As I say, it seems intent on rewarding its friends and insiders and on repaying debts owed to those who are in the executive of various organized labour organizations.

I would also say that I have heard nothing from the other side in terms of any attempt to rebut our claim that the economy is in crisis, is fragile. Arguably, the economy is shattered. I've heard nothing from the other side to suggest that in fact that is not the case. I know that we have a series of good-news announcements. That seems to be the approach to dealing with the economy from the other side: good-news announcements at some future date, in an attempt, I suppose, to buoy people's confidence and hope and to secure their chances of re-election at some future date. That does not have the effect of restoring confidence in British Columbia from the point of view of investors and the investment community. It seems to me that what the investment community wants to see is a government that will move very seriously and quickly to address many of the underlying problems associated with the economic crisis we now find ourselves in.

One thing is very certain and very clear. If we have the message, and I believe we do, it is this: Bill 26 is bad for our economy. Bill 26 is bad not only for investors. I know that this government, this group across the floor, doesn't have a lot of sympathy for those who have some money and want to invest it and make a profit. I would hope that they would at least have some sympathy for and understanding of the concerns of those who have jobs -- those who haven't lost their jobs and those who want to retain their jobs, those who want to support their families and loved ones, those who want to secure a future for themselves and their families. I hope that this group on the other side has some sympathy and concern for this group.

If in fact these folks across the way don't care, they shouldn't be here. They should not be here claiming, as they do, to represent various constituencies throughout this province -- claiming to represent their interests, claiming to speak and act for them -- when we have this kind of nonsense. This is absolutely unacceptable, and I believe that people out there have now got the message that this group doesn't care. This group is an incompetent bunch, but what's worse than their incompetency is the fact that they really don't care. They're too busy looking after their friends and insiders and lining their own pockets. That seems to be what they are intent on doing, and it's simply unacceptable.

I believe that at the first opportunity these folks across the way will be looking for employment. These will be the folks who'll be in the unemployment line. I can tell you that there will not be any tears shed for this group across the way. They have failed their constituents miserably and are now attempting to impose this destructive piece of legislation on British Columbians generally and on people clinging to their jobs who are looking for some hope for the future. I can tell you that the only hope for British Columbians, in my view and in the view of my colleagues, is to get rid of this bunch sitting across the way.

One of my duties, hon. Speaker, and it has been an enjoyable duty, is that I'm a member of an all-party committee dealing with conflict of interest and looking at the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. If you'll bear with me, I will tie this in with the hoist motion. One of the books that we've been given, which I suppose is mandatory reading, deals with the whole question of corruption, character and conduct. I think there are a few thoughts in this novel that tie in not only with Bill 26 and the hoist motion before us but with this group's approach to governance. I think the question has to be asked. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you take your seat for a moment, please. The Chair is compelled to remind the members that reflections on members in the House, though not named as a group, are indeed reflections on the House itself, which is not in order. The member may want to caution his remarks in that respect.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm certainly not interested in naming names.

I think a question that needs to be asked is: has the current government, with reference to this piece of legislation and this hoist motion, lost its sense of direction? Is that why we find ourselves in the position we're in today, fighting bad and destructive legislation? Has it lost its sense of purpose?

I know that this is group that belongs to a party which has high ideals. I think that many of those ideals are commendable. But in the present context, the question must arise: has this group lost its way? Has it lost its sense of purpose? Has it somehow lost those high ideals to which it has pointed in the past? Has it lost its sense of that which is equitable and fair not just for a very narrow group or for a small group but for the general populace? Has it lost that sense of equity and fairness?

The other question that needs to be asked is: is it perhaps the case that now this government, loathing as it did -- and does -- governments of the past, without naming those governments, and particular interests within the economy. . . ? I'm thinking particularly of those associated with development and free enterprise, things of that nature. Is it perhaps the case that this group across the way -- this government -- now typifies that which it loathed in past administrations? Is it possible that in fact this group here now typifies that which it once loathed? That's clearly a possibility in the present circumstances.

I made reference to a text by John Langford and Alan Tupper, entitled Corruption, Character and Conduct, dealing -- amongst other things -- with the whole question of procedural values associated with liberal democracy. Some of the thoughts raised in one chapter bear some discussion with reference to the hoist motion before us.

The authors point out that governance in British Columbia has tended to disturb or titillate many observers over the years, because its practitioners have often appeared indifferent to key procedural values associated with liberal democracy. In other words, B.C. politicians don't seem to care about how the business of government is conducted. Instead, they focus on delivering the goods to their supporters. Now, I don't want the hon. members on the other side to fidget or get nervous or embarrassed, but perhaps they could listen to the admonitions of the authors of this text.

It's also the case that in a book of this nature, dealing with the first three years of the Bennett government, Stan Persky --

[ Page 9684 ]

The notion of quasi-crime is a useful one, because it focuses our attention on behaviour that is ethically questionable without being criminal. In fact, it was suggested that previous governments were associated with patronage, cronyism, conflict of interest, unfair or careless administration, secrecy and invasion of privacy.

[4:45]

So I'm just suggesting this -- I'm just putting this forward to you, hon. Speaker, and to the members opposite -- as food for thought in the context of this hoist motion and this legislation and their association with organized labour.

The author was somewhat more optimistic than many of us in that. . . . Granted, this book was written in the early 1990s, but he had some sense of optimism that the current government, given the reigns of power by the electorate, had a mandate to provide good government -- I guess in contrast to previous governments. That seemed to be his impression. The electorate appeared at last to be showing as much interest in how government business is done as to what business it does. He went on to talk about -- for those members opposite who were here in 1991 -- how the government began, in a very commendable fashion, sending strong messages to the public and the public service that the old ways of doing business were no longer acceptable. That seemed to be your approach.

Questions that I think need to be asked in relation to the conduct of governments and with reference to legislation -- in this case Bill 26 and the hoist motion before us -- are: is all this concern about conduct warranted? Should we really be that concerned about conduct? There are some observers of politics in British Columbia who are more amused than disturbed by the let's-get-it-done approach to governance, judging it to be peripheral to the real animating force of B.C. politics -- the ideological divide, if you like, between the free-enterprisers and the New Democratic Party.

It is the author's view that such a dismissal is undeserved. It's his view that ethical misconduct brought down previous governments prior to 1991, when this government gained the reins of power. More importantly, particularly since the 1980s, it has fuelled a growing public cynicism with reference to politicians, politics and the political system, allowing the opposition and the media to oftentimes disrupt the policy-making process at will. He makes the comment, finally, that a habit of procedural abuse, public cynicism and the distorting effects of the new ethical regimes in the way governments do business are a lasting legacy of ethical misconduct in B.C. and the public sector.

I think that the warning granted by this author in relation to how it is that governments govern, how it is that we conduct ourselves, is appropriate in the context of Bill 26 and the hoist motion. Governments and members of government need to ask themselves: why is it that we are doing what we are doing? Where is it that we are going, in terms of our legislative agenda? What effect is our legislative agenda having on people generally? As I say. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me. I really hate to interrupt you, but the Chair is obliged to just point out for your information that Erksine May, twenty-second edition, page 503, talks about second reading debate. An important part of it that you should look at is: ". . .debate should not be extended. . .to a general criticism of the administration, or of the provisions of other bills before the House." Perhaps the member could keep that in mind when he continues.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I take your point. I accept it, and I am prepared to act on it. I should say, however, that it's difficult to disassociate this piece of legislation from the current government, from the members opposite me, because this is the government that is attempting to foist this very destructive, negative piece of legislation not only on those of us who are in opposition but on British Columbians generally. I can tell you that I would not be doing my job if I were not to stand up this day and stand up to this government, which is associated, in my view, with many of the notions that I have outlined and that are not particularly conducive to faith in politicians, policy-making or things of that nature. This is a time for those of us in opposition to stand up to this government and say, "Enough is enough," and to ask the question: "Why is it that you are intent, as you seem to be, on foisting this bad piece of legislation on British Columbians?"

Hon. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier in some of my remarks, coming as I do from the northern region of this province, as a number of the members opposite do as well, I know that people are in fact affected by the economic downturn, particularly in the resource sector. People who worked in forestry -- those who still have jobs -- are nervously and anxiously looking over their shoulders, wondering if they're next, wondering if their jobs too will disappear, wondering if they too will have to move to Alberta, the Yukon or elsewhere in order to secure employment -- not only for them but for their families.

I do have a duty, I do have an obligation, to stand up to this government. I would certainly encourage any members opposite to disassociate themselves from this legislation if they will, if they have the courage, and to accept that this is a very destructive piece of legislation that will have a considerably negative impact on the people they represent. I'm certainly open to that. I think a great deal should be said in this chamber not only in the context of the motion before us but with reference to other matters about procedural values associated with liberal democracy -- not only what they should not be but what they should be. We should be talking about things like fairness and equity. We should be talking about those kinds of notions. Perhaps, then, this government would regain their sense of direction. Perhaps, then, the members opposite would rethink why they're here, where they're going and what their agenda is -- not only their legislative agenda but their policy generally. That's my challenge to the members opposite.

I can tell you that as a member of the opposition and on behalf of the people I represent, I'm resolute and firm in my opposition to Bill 26 -- this labour legislation -- and also to the hoist motion before us. I've been fortunate in that I've received considerable input from groups, organizations and individuals with reference to this legislation. I know that the government has attempted to paint us as fearmongers, as

[ Page 9685 ]

This exercise is not about theatre; this exercise has nothing to do with pretence. In fact, I would suggest to the members opposite that if they were to examine themselves, if they were to examine their conduct and, more importantly, if they were to examine this legislation, they themselves would have to come to grips with a number of questions that have to do with how they conduct themselves, how they represent their constituents and what effect this legislation will have on the people that they claim to represent.

The Prince George Chamber of Commerce has been kind enough to share with me a media release issued in June of this year and dealing with Bill 26. I know that the chambers across this province have foreseen the negative and destructive impact of this legislation on not only their members but the economy of the province as a whole. They have been quick, they have been vigilant, and they have been vigorous in their opposition -- not so much to this government but to what they see as bad legislation and more bad news from a government that has oftentimes clothed bad news in good-news announcements. So I thank the chamber of commerce in Prince George and throughout this province for standing up to this government on this particular piece of legislation.

They point out that the officials from the Labour ministry have admitted that there has been no economic study of any kind to analyze how changing the Labour Code rules at this time could affect the investment climate. It seems that we always come back to that point, doesn't it? We come back to the point of the investment climate and the chilling effect that this kind of legislation has had on it. We don't have to speculate as to the effect this type of legislation is likely to have. We've seen the effects of this kind of legislation on the economic and investment climate in British Columbia. We don't have to speculate, as the members opposite do, as to the impact of this kind of legislation. The chamber, as I say, has very vigorously stood up to this government and pointed out to them that it has had a chilling effect on the investment climate. Their stand, they point out, from day one has been that given the state of the B.C. economy in general and the northern economy in particular, which is in some difficulty. . . . For those members here who represent northern constituencies, I'm quite sure that you won't deny that those of us who live in the north have felt the downturn in the economy, particularly in the resource sector, in a very significant way, in a very marked way. They point out that the northern economy in particular has been impacted and that now is not the time to introduce more uncertainty by making changes to the Labour Code.

Now is not the time, which brings me to my point, and that is the hoist motion before us. I challenge members opposite: stand up for the people you represent and hoist this motion.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time has expired. I recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: It's actually with some dismay that I stand to speak to this hoist motion, because I had hoped that the government would have withdrawn the bill a couple of weeks ago. You know, the problem that we face in British Columbia is a significant one. I want to move away from big terms like the economy and talk for a minute about the people who live here; the people who have lost their jobs; the people whose communities have been undermined by the withdrawal of economic activity, whether it's in the forest industry or the mining industry, whether it's in the fishery or retail outlets -- people who are losing their jobs and losing their sense of hope and opportunity in this province.

The hoist motion that we're speaking to today is a very important one, because it gives the government a chance to reinforce some of their words with their actions. We hear the government talk consistently about creating a climate where jobs will actually come back to British Columbia as opposed to leaving this province, and yet their actions consistently belie their words. This afternoon or this morning, the government released a report from the Business Task Force, "First Report: Initial Consultations and Legislation." This task force was set up when the Minister of Finance wrote to 90 separate business organizations across the province asking them for their input, asking them how to improve the business climate in British Columbia, asking them: "What does this government have to do to re-establish a sense of hope and opportunity here?"

You don't have to read the entire report -- I know the government spends a lot of time putting these reports on the shelf -- but you just have to get to page 6. On page 6 of this report, 90 separate business organizations have written in to the government and have said to them. . . . Their comment was this: ". . .the streamlining initiative will not be credible unless the objectives of this initiative are applied to other current initiatives and appropriate changes made." It points out that one of the changes that has to be made is that we have to look at a recent bill that was passed in the House, Bill 14, which the government rushed through the House, ignoring the voices of small business, ignoring the voices of the people who create jobs in the province of British Columbia. We have to change that. We have to fix workers compensation. There on page 6 it points out that the Labour Code amendments are in contradiction with and in contravention of everything the government has said.

[5:00]

That's why I urge this government to hoist this bill and support this amendment. Put it off. Take some time -- just six months -- to actually go and not just listen. . . . The government is fond of saying, as I'm sure you're aware, hon. Speaker, that they want to listen. It's important that they not just listen but that they hear and that they learn.

The minority must have their say, according to the Minister of Labour. Let's look at what organizations this govern-

[ Page 9686 ]

Hon. Speaker, those associations represent thousands and thousands of workers in British Columbia. They are saying to the government that they have reached out to this government and tried to get this government to listen and learn about the problems that it has imposed on those businesses. In doing that, if the government would just listen and learn, they could remove some of the hurdles to investment, they could remove some of the hurdles to success; and in doing that, they could start to create a sense of confidence in the province again.

Let's be very clear. This government has done nothing to create confidence. It has done everything to undermine the economy of British Columbia and undermine the family economies of literally thousands of British Columbians across this province. It should stop doing that now, and it should vote to approve the hoist motion before them today.

Again, just think, hon. Speaker, about what has taken place in the last few years. We have a government that thinks it's okay -- it's fine -- to remove workers' rights. Anybody who is examining what is taking place in the world today, who is looking at the economy today, knows that we have to allow our businesses and workers to come together, to work together, to compete and to win. One of the primary goals that we all have to have is to create some new flexibility in this province.

I was just talking to someone today in the energy business in B.C. They were pointing out the problems they're facing in establishing a sense of flexibility in this province so that we can respond to the opportunities that are there before us -- just to respond to the opportunities that are there, instead of stopping us from doing that. We have to create flexibility. So whether you're living in the smallest town in British Columbia or the largest community, if you don't have flexibility to respond to the needs of customers, to respond to the changes that are taking place day to day to day, then you will not succeed. Workers know that, employers know that and businesses know that. The vast majority of British Columbians know that. It seems to me that there's only one group left in British Columbia that doesn't know that, and that's the 39 members who are sitting on the other side of this House, trying to impose a piece of legislation which simply will not work.

In not voting for this hoist motion, the government is saying -- and the MLAs. . . . Forget that group known as the government; talk about individual MLAs. The individual MLA is saying to a worker in their constituency: "I don't mind taking away your rights. I think I know better than you what kind of agreement you should enter into with an employer." They're saying to the small businesses in their constituency, "We don't mind if we take away your right to enter into negotiation and agreement with the workers that work with you" -- "with you," not for you.

The vast majority of businesses in this province understand that their most valuable asset is the people that work with them; it's their employees. They want to create an environment that is safe and secure and that allows their employees to compete and to win, so their business can compete and win and so they can have long-term security. But what has this government done instead? Instead of listening and learning, what this government has done is say: "I think we know better." They know how to generate tourism better than the Council of Tourism Associations. They know better than the Technology Industries Association what the problems are that they face. Today we've got another announcement of another company going south of the border, because this government didn't know and didn't care. This government doesn't care about losing literally thousands and thousands of jobs of British Columbians to other jurisdictions.

It was interesting to me the other day when I noticed the Minister of Labour pointing out his vast knowledge and understanding of this issue. The Minister of Labour has never employed a person in his life. The Minister of Labour has never created one job in his life. He's destroying lots of them, but he's never created one job in his life. In fact, when you look at the 39 people who think it's a good idea to steal people's rights, to take away the rights of employers, to drive business out of this province. . . . When I look at those 39 people across the aisle there, I wonder how many jobs any of them has ever created. How many of those people across the aisle ever risked their capital, their savings, to try and make a business work? How many of them have actually done it?

What they're doing right now is saying to those people who do create the economy and the jobs in this province: "We don't care about you. We don't care about the jobs you provide. We don't care about the opportunities that you open up for young people." That's what the government is saying.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The NDP can change that. They can change it by voting to hoist this motion. Today the Coalition of B.C. Businesses has pointed out. . . . You know, it's never too late to learn. No matter how old we get, it's never too late to learn. It pointed out that government can send a strong message that they've learned and that they really believe all those words that they put out in their press releases and their announcements by stopping Bill 26, by putting the brakes on, by hoisting it. I can guarantee that those businesses would far prefer the government to simply withdraw it from the order paper and say: "We were wrong; we won't do it." But at least hoist the bill for six months, so you can go back and walk along your commercial strips and talk to people. Talk to the people who build things in your community.

Sometimes, when I listen to the Minister of Labour speak, I think that he thinks every construction company is a great, huge, massive multinational company, when in fact that is not the case in the province. The vast majority of companies that are going to be the front lines of this attack on workers' rights and employers' rights probably employ five or six people. What this government is doing is saying to all of those companies that generate wealth and opportunities: "We don't care about your rights."

[ Page 9687 ]

So let's at least put the bill on hold so the government has a chance to learn. Let's withdraw the bill. This is not some small or meagre crisis that our economy is facing. Our economy is on the skids and it is going downhill fast. When it goes downhill fast, it takes a long time to turn that momentum around. It takes a long time to turn the momentum around so that young people here have a sense of hope.

Today in British Columbia our young people have the highest rate of unemployment of any jurisdiction west of Quebec. Across the board, the unemployment rate for young people is over 18 percent -- almost one in five young people can't find work. I had a meeting with a group of young people the other day. It was organized by them, and they were asking questions. I pointed out this statistic and that I knew it was difficult for them, with one in five out of work. One young woman came up to me, up to the mike, and she said: "You know, Mr. Campbell, you're wrong. It's not one out of five that can't find work, because most of us have given up. It's probably four out of five that aren't able to find work in the province of British Columbia today."

I notice that the minister is shaking his head. The facts are tough for this government to accept. Go and talk to the young people; listen to what they're telling you. You can't create enough government programs to employ the thousands and thousands of young people that this government has put out of work. We have to put a stop to that.

It's not like this is new news to the government. The fact of the matter is that we're in the middle of an investment recession. The Minister of Labour was again pointing out how much he knew about creating jobs, about creating wealth in the province. I suppose that, never having done it, he feels he's in a particularly good position to talk about it.

Let me be clear about what our perspective is. We believe that you create jobs with private sector investment. The problem that we face today in B.C. is that we've been going through an investment recession in this province for the last two and a half to three years. That recession is showing itself in lost opportunities and lost jobs for every young person in this province and for many, many families across the province.

[5:15]

What we're looking at is growth of 1.3 percent in capital spending. Some people might say: "Well, you know, I wouldn't mind getting a 1.3 percent increase in my salary. I wouldn't even mind having a job that I knew was going to be there for some time." But let's compare that to the rest of the country. If you compare it to the rest of Canada -- remembering that B.C. was the number one economy in this country when the NDP was elected and we're now in last place -- there is 1.3 percent capital investment growth in B.C. versus 6.2 percent capital investment growth in the rest of this country.

Let's go next door to Alberta. In Alberta they're expecting capital investment growth to go up by 9.8 percent. I know that the other side of the House, the NDP, are fond of saying: "The trouble with Alberta is that Ralph Klein is a free-enterpriser. He's a guy that believes in the private sector; he likes to help business along so that it can create jobs." So they discount Ralph Klein and Alberta on a regular basis. Okay, let's discount them.

Let's talk about Roy Romanow, a New Democrat in the province of Saskatchewan. Hon. Speaker, you know and I know that one of the reasons that British Columbia is here is so that people can move from Saskatchewan to British Columbia. That's one of our major sources of population growth: people moving to B.C. from Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, what's happening today is a reverse trend. The reason is this: while B.C. is looking at a 1.3 percent growth in capital spending, Saskatchewan, with a New Democrat government which may be competent, is looking at an 8.1 percent increase in capital spending. So what happens? The government looks at the people who may invest, and they say: "Let's put another hurdle in their way. We already have the highest marginal income tax in North America. We already have a corporate capital tax. We already have a 7 percent sales tax, while Alberta has zero. We already have a government that's running a $1.2-$1.3 billion deficit, that has no control over its budgets and that can't be trusted to keep to an agreement or to keep to its word. We already have those things. Maybe we can get someone to come and invest anyway. What we'll do is throw in some additional, more restrictive labour laws that take away workers' rights and employers' rights and investors' rights. Maybe that's the way to encourage investment." Well, I don't think so. Unfortunately, the facts are bearing that out.

What happened in 1997? In 1997 we were the only province in Canada to lose jobs. With this province's resources, with the talented workforce and the entrepreneurial spirit that it has, somehow or other this government managed an economy that lost jobs -- the only province in Canada to lose jobs. That means that the little province over there on the Atlantic, the little one that's about this big on the map, Prince Edward Island, created more jobs than were created in British Columbia. Just think of that, hon. Speaker. This is British Columbia we're talking about.

What else has happened? In 1997, we know that 107 businesses moved from British Columbia to Alberta. When 107 businesses are moving. . . . Those are 107 healthy businesses with real, long-term, sustainable jobs. If those businesses are moving, they're moving because they have a future. Those are jobs lost not just today or in 1997 but in 1998, as those companies continue to thrive and prosper.

I was at the truck loggers' convention in January or February of this year, I think it was, and a young person came up to me as I was strolling through the trade area. He said: "When are you going to get rid of those guys in Victoria?" I said: "Well, as soon as I can." He said: "I'll tell you what happened. I live in British Columbia. I had to go to Alberta to get work. I'm here now just taking one course. There are jobs, jobs and more jobs in Alberta. In B.C. there are lineups for

[ Page 9688 ]

Well, I think it is a crime to have a government that deliberately goes out of its way to create problems in the economy, that deliberately goes out of its way when it knows. . . . I do not believe that the other side of the House -- whether it's the Premier or his cabinet or even his backbenchers -- understands the damage that is going to be done when they pass this bill.

An Hon. Member: They don't care.

G. Campbell: They obviously do not care, and that's what is most disgraceful. The government has an opportunity to reverse this trend, to put the brakes on the downward spiral that has been created by the New Democrats. They have an opportunity to show people that when they say they're going to listen, they're also going to learn. That opportunity will come when this motion comes up before this House. It's the opportunity for each and every MLA to stand for their constituents, to stand for the job creators of this province, to stand for the future and to vote for this motion to hoist Bill 26. That's what is critical.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: The member opposite says: "Let's vote now." I think that there are many members on this side of the House who would like to speak more on this issue. I think the best way to vote, the best way to make sure -- to quote the Minister of Labour, "the majority has its say" -- would be for the government to call an election. I'm just not expecting that to happen right now.

The fact of the matter is that we're in a lot of trouble in this province, and this bill, as it goes forward, digs a deeper and deeper hole -- a hole that many British Columbians have already fallen into. It's the hole of depression, of recession; it's the hole that says there's no opportunity. When you look around the province and talk to people, a very clear message comes through to the government: it is time for this government to embrace the opportunities that British Columbia presents. It's time for this government to liberate the people of this province from the yoke of regulation that has been imposed on them, day in and day out, for the last seven years. It's time for this government to liberate the people of this province from the yoke of taxation, which has meant that for six of the last seven years, their actual take-home pay has gone down. It's time for this government to understand that coming in in tenth place is not good enough for the people of British Columbia. It's time for this province to move back to number one again.

Who do we hear from? We hear from the Minister of Labour, saying that there's nothing to worry about. We hear from the Canadian Home Builders Association, telling us quite explicitly that the minister doesn't know what he's talking about. And what's happened in that part of the construction industry over the last year? Well, I'll tell you what's happened: we are losing an estimated 7,000 housing starts this year.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: I'm sorry that you don't like that fact, but it is a fact: we're losing 7,000 housing starts -- and 7,000 housing starts converts into 17,000 jobs. That's what is happening in this province: we're going to lose 17,000 jobs in the construction industry. We've already lost thousands and thousands of jobs in the forest industry. We're losing thousands of jobs in the mining industry; we're losing jobs in the fishing industry.

All of those things are coming to fruition because this government has consistently believed that they can impose regulation after regulation and tax after tax on the small business creators of this province, on the job creators of this province, and it will not have any effect. But it has had a huge effect on the people that live in this province. It doesn't matter whether you go to Parksville, to Vancouver, to Fort St. James, to Cranbrook or to Terrace, and talk to those communities. . . .

I got involved in provincial public life about five years ago, and I can remember travelling around the province. I remember travelling to Port Alberni. Port Alberni was a place where there was nothing but opportunity and hope and excitement about their future. They were not just excited about having a solid and stable forest industry to depend on; they were excited about the people who were moving to Port Alberni, who were creating a community. They were excited about the people in the tourism industry who were coming to Port Alberni and helping to build the economy there.

They're still excited in Port Alberni. But they're tired of government saying to people, whether it's the chamber of commerce or this business advisory task force, which includes 16 of them: "Come and tell us what to do." This says 90 separate groups. . . . We have representatives here of the B.C. Agriculture Council; of Small Business, Tourism and Culture; even of the B.C. Government Employees' Union. All of these groups are there, and they say that one of the things that we shouldn't be doing is changing the labour bill.

For all the time and effort that those volunteers put in, the government is just deaf to the cries of people that say: "Please let me succeed. Please let me hire some young people. Please let me encourage some investment so we can have some more jobs in our province. Please let me help you turn around an economy that's gone from number one to number ten. Let's start it back on the track to number one again." That's what people are saying.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: Thousands of letters, thousands of people and dozens of organizations say the same thing, and they are the job creators of B.C. Whether this government likes it or not, they are the job creators. They are the people who encourage investment. They are the people who will go out and put their entrepreneurial expertise to work for us in B.C. When they do that, they hire young people, they create opportunity, and they help create a sense of optimism about the future.

Today, hon. Speaker, I ask all the members on the other side of the House to reflect on this, to reflect on the damage that the policies they've imposed have done, to reflect on the damage they're doing to business and on the damage they're doing to people as they lose their jobs and lose opportunity. Vote for this hoist motion, so that we may be able to put the brakes on Bill 26 and start B.C. on the track to being economically number one in Canada again.

L. Stephens: It's my pleasure to rise today and speak to the hoist motion on Bill 26. We've heard a lot of comments about Bill 26 and the reasons why it should be hoisted. One of those reasons I want to talk about is that Bill 26 opens the door

[ Page 9689 ]

What the government doesn't understand is that the cumulative effects of government policies, practices, procedures and legislation are destroying the spirit of entrepreneurship in this province. The government continues to favour its friends and insiders, and the latest example is Bill 26. This government makes decisions based on ideology, not good public policy. That is why I support this hoist motion.

The Labour minister said that this is a minor amendment -- nothing like last year's Bill 44. But the labour bill which the government had to remove. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, why don't you take your seat for a moment. On behalf of no one, I apologize, but I would ask members to please. . . . Comments are not bad, but debate across the floor is not helpful. It's impossible to hear the speaker who has the floor.

Member, continue.

[5:30]

The labour bill that the government had to remove from the order paper last year, because of its radical contents, was sent back for another look. The government did this; last year they took Bill 44 off the order paper. They did have another look, and they did go out and consult -- one of the few times that they have. They came back with Bill 26. This bill should be removed from the order paper. This bill deserves a second look. This bill should go around for ordinary people to have some input on. This opposition would settle for a six-month hoist, because this bill needs a second look.

Yesterday the Minister of Labour was saying: "Why don't you talk about what's in the bill. Why don't you do that? Why don't you look at what's in the bill?" Well, let's have a look at what's in this bill. This is from the minister's package that was sent out, and if you read the package, it's very clear what this bill is all about and why we have it before us. I'm going to quote from the news release of the minister. He says at the very bottom of the first page: "In 1997 there were almost 80 new craft certifications across the construction industry, representing approximately 700 workers. But in ICI construction, workers in as many as four out of five craft bargaining units were unable to get a first agreement before the projects they were working on were completed." Well, you know, the comments in the first and second reading debate from the minister were pretty clear about what this bill is all about.

He goes on to say: "This is unheard of in industrial settings, where virtually all workers are covered by a collective agreement. It means that there is no meaningful outcome for workers who decide to join a craft union, and that's not fair." According to the minister, that's not fair. But, hon. Speaker, who does it disadvantage? Why is this government coming in with another bill that is virtually a clone of Bill 44, which was completely rejected by so many sectors in this province? The Leader of the Opposition has shown clearly the number of organizations and industries that have come forward to try and talk some sense into this government.

In this particular bill that talks about the craft unions and the need to give the craft unions a leg up, which is what this is all about, where does it say that the union movement is moving to wall-to-wall industrial-sector unions because it's much more flexible and serves the workers, contractors and consumers better? The fundamental issue here is the inefficiency and increased costs of craft unions that are dated in the past; they're just rooted in the past. More and more people -- a lot of people -- understand that, but obviously not this government. They didn't even want to hear from people who could educate them on what is happening out there in the real world -- not in that funny little ideological space this government inhabits -- and their legislation shows that.

Let's look further at the information that was provided by the minister. Let's look at the panel recommendations. What's in Bill 26? What was in Bill 44? It's going to be amazing what we find. The panel recommendation says that they mandated multi-employer, multi-trade bargaining for craft bargaining units within the industrial, commercial and institutional -- ICI -- part of the construction industry. That's what's in Bill 26. But that's also what was in Bill 44 -- not only restricted to ICI, but it was a part of Bill 44.

Bill 26 says the ICI construction craft unions must bargain through a designated bargaining council. That is in Bill 26; it was also in Bill 44. The building trades bargaining council would only be mandated to bargain for craft bargaining units in ICI construction in Bill 26. Bill 44 would have allowed for separate trade union bargaining councils to be established for each of the seven designated subsectors of the industry, including residential construction.

So we know clearly what the government is up to. It was all there in Bill 44. We know where they're going; we know where they want to go eventually. This Bill 26 is just a little piece -- just a little nibble, if you like -- out of what the whole agenda is for this particular government and their labour legislation.

These items that I have mentioned apply to the ICI sector only. But there are other similarities between Bill 26, the panel recommendations and Bill 44 that apply generally across the whole construction industry. They say that section 21 should be amended to permit the certification of a single-person craft unit of employees. That was included in Bill 44, and it is in Bill 26.

The recommendation was that the Minister of Labour would have the power to permit a project collective agreement when the project is of significant economic importance to the province -- in Bill 26; it was also in Bill 44. The existing industry jurisdictional plan should be codified across all construction craft bargaining units -- again in Bill 26, and it was in Bill 44

All raids in the construction industry should take place during July and August only -- in Bill 26 and in Bill 44. This one is interesting. This is where you get rid of the so-called rat unions. This is one of the issues that was a real hot spot for this government, and particularly for the former Minister of Labour, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who took every opportunity he could to talk about the rat unions and how terrible and horrible they were. Well, here it is. It's back again. It was in Bill 44 and it's in Bill 26.

The minister had also said that he had five criteria that he was going to base his legislation on -- five criteria to test his changes to the B.C. Labour Code. Let's see how they shape up. He said: "We must ensure that British Columbia's economy is efficient and capable of competing in the national and

[ Page 9690 ]

The second criterion that the minister used is: "We must ensure that the right of workers to join the union of their choice is respected." We would agree with that. But the right of workers to join the union of their choice is already protected under the B.C. Labour Code and the Charter of Rights. The NDP took away a worker's right to a secret ballot vote on unionization. One of the most fundamental democratic freedoms was that secret ballot vote, and this government took it away. Statistics from the Labour Relations Board show that on average one new workplace is unionized in British Columbia every day. Over 50 percent of businesses certified now have ten employees or less. Access to joining a union should therefore hardly be a concern. These new Labour Code changes interfere with the ability of workers and employers to negotiate a collective agreement that is tailored specifically to the unique circumstances of the enterprise. So there are many areas in this bill that are not supported by the facts.

The third issue that the minister said was his criterion is: "We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." The exact opposite has happened, not just in Bill 26 but in a number of policies, bills and initiatives that this government has brought forward. These labour policies have helped to create an unstable business climate. As a result, B.C. has experienced a crash in job-creating capital investment over the last few years. Time after time after time we have heard, we've read, we've been told of these statistics. This is another reason why this bill should be hoisted for six months. This is another reason why the government has to go back out and talk to people to find out exactly what is going on. But they have to listen. They can't just go out and talk; they have to listen.

B.C.'s capital spending for 1998 is projected to be a minuscule 1.3 percent compared to 6.2 percent for the nation as a whole, 9.8 percent for Alberta, 5 percent for Ontario, 8.4 percent for Quebec, 8.1 percent for Saskatchewan and 6.3 percent for Manitoba -- pretty impressive for those other provinces and for the nation, but not for us. Our projected growth is 1.3 percent. It's not very good. Further unbalanced investment and unfriendly legislation is hardly going to help. That's exactly what Bill 26 is, and that's why all members on this side of the House encourage this government to go back out -- to hoist this bill, take it off the order paper, go back out and do it again, because they still haven't got it right. This is the second time; they still don't have it right.

The fourth criterion that the Minister of Labour brought forward was: "We must consult carefully with key stakeholders before making changes to laws, policies and regulations." We had a couple of committees, and they did go out and they talked, but the government still hasn't listened. Speaker after speaker talked about and listed the names and the number of organizations that came to this government and said: "Unbalanced labour law is bad for the province" -- not just business, but there were unions as well. The sheet metal union workers came and said: "This is not good legislation for the province." The business community has been unanimous in advising the government not to proceed with these types of undemocratic changes.

A new opinion poll by McIntyre and Mustel confirms that the public tends to be dubious about the public consultation process of the labour relations review committee. I suspect it's because ordinary people didn't have an opportunity to present to this panel. They didn't have an opportunity to be heard. That's another reason that this bill should be hoisted.

When asked if the government-appointed committee was truly interested in hearing all sides and has attempted to balance the concerns and needs of all the parties, only 25 percent of British Columbians responded that they believe this to be the case. Over 50 percent thought that the committee has been biased and hasn't properly consulted all parties affected by the changes. Clearly, a sizeable percentage of ordinary British Columbians do not believe that this government has gone out and honestly found out what it is that this province needs in relation to labour laws.

[5:45]

These changes include sectoral bargaining in the construction industry. That's absolutely clear. It's absolutely clear that this is sectoral bargaining in ICI. This can hardly be called working together with business, after virtually every organization other than the craft trade unions said to this government that sectoral legislation, sectoral certification, is bad. Once again, we must convince the NDP government that these changes are bad public policy that will hurt investment and job creation. Time and again that's what we've heard.

Unionization trends in small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia have improved with this government. Unionization has increased. They've been quite successful in their organizing effort since this government's first round of changes to the Labour Code came into effect in 1993. B.C. workplaces have been unionized at an average of more than one per day. That sounds pretty good to me. Fifty-four percent of workplaces now being unionized have between one and ten employees. Over 90 percent of all the new union certifications in the past five years have occurred in workplaces of 50 employees or less. The average size of the workplace being certified is about 23 employees. Of the more than 400 union certifications granted in 1997 by the LRB, 25 percent were in the construction industry. So the unionization in this province appears to be quite healthy. It appears to be moving along quite nicely from the government's point of view.

The opposition has no disagreement with certifications that are done in a way that is open, that provides the participation of the workers and the management -- the owners -- to come to an agreement that suits them both, which

[ Page 9691 ]

Let's look at some of the areas affected by unbalanced labour. . . . We have talked about investment climates. There have been all kinds of studies done on what is happening in British Columbia, and a lot of analysis done about what has happened in British Columbia to catapult us from number one in the country to number ten, which is a pretty dramatic change. I don't know. I have asked this of other people. . . . If a government deliberately set out to take a province from number one in the country to number ten, they couldn't have done it any better than this government has.

A survey of senior investment managers this spring talked about some of those problems here in British Columbia. They said that between 1994 and 1996, the average business investment in machinery and equipment as a percentage of GDP was the lowest in the country. British Columbia was the lowest -- only 7.7 percent. During the same period, business non-residential investment was the lowest in the country; British Columbia's was the lowest. The respondents to this little survey said that the taxation policy and labour legislation were the key reasons for British Columbia's dismal performance. That's not unusual. Most of the analysis that has been done on this province and on the fact that we're number ten cites those issues time and time again: high taxation, an unbalanced labour code, a government that doesn't care about business -- doesn't seem to care about business. They say they do. They even go out and make a pretence of consulting with business, and yet they turn around and bring in legislation like Bill 26.

There have been 18,200 new people added to British Columbia's unemployment lines this year alone. Year over year there are 21,300 unemployed British Columbians; that is from April 1997 to April 1998 -- 21,000 unemployed British Columbians. This is the highest rate in the western provinces. Our unemployment rate is a full 4 percent higher than our neighbouring province of Alberta, and Alberta is enjoying a wonderful resurgence of economic activity. They have balanced their budgets. They're paying off their debt. They're spending money on health care and education -- the issues that this government says it wants to protect and clearly is not. We're going to be debating an education bill a little later on, and we will have an opportunity to canvass those issues as well.

The climate in British Columbia for investment and job creation, and the unemployment issues, clearly show that this government isn't paying attention to business. I don't mean business in the sense of organized business; I mean the business of the province -- running a province in a fiscally competent way, making sure that the policies that they enact and the procedures that they follow in fact enhance the economic development of this province. That's where the jobs are coming from. That's where the economic viability of this province is going to come from, not from legislation like this.

Our youth statistics are even more tragic. Youth unemployment in this province is over 17 percent. Youth is generally defined as being from 15 to 24 years of age. P.E.I. and Quebec have the lowest youth unemployment rates. Since last year, 8,400 youth have been added to the unemployment rolls -- just since last year. All of us know of instances where friends of ours or family members have had to go to other provinces to find employment. All of us have heard these stories. Many of us have families in other provinces that are saying: "Oh, come to Saskatchewan, come to Alberta, come to Manitoba. There's lots of work here. The province is booming, and the government is providing services, health care, education services. Come on. Leave British Columbia."

For the first time in -- what is it? -- 15 years, out-migration from British Columbia has happened. It is unthinkable in this province that there would be an out-migration of people -- people moving out of British Columbia. It's usually the other way around. People love to come to Lotusland -- not any longer. The capital spending in British Columbia is declining. That's happening in only two other provinces: P.E.I. and Newfoundland. B.C. taxes and labour laws do not make investors around the globe want to invest here either. Companies are fleeing this province and its anti-business government. B.C. Stats say that 145 companies left British Columbia in 1996, and last year 107 companies left.

In my community, the results of this government's attack on job creators is perfectly clear. More than one business owner has told me that they are seriously looking at Whatcom County. We've had organizations from Whatcom County in Washington State come to our chamber, come to our community and talk about the benefits of doing business just across the line. For us in Langley, that's not very far to travel; it is not very far at all. We have companies that have relocated across the border. Again, they say, "The taxes in British Columbia are too high, with unfair and unbalanced labour legislation and an unfriendly business climate" -- company after company.

So what's the government doing? Have they made any effort to find out why companies are leaving? Well, they don't have far to look. Bill 44 last year is, for all intents and purposes, Bill 26. They don't have to look any further than that. All these companies are leaving because of this government's anti-business attitude. Many businesses are choosing not to invest here. Investment is down again. All of the stats and all of the analyses have shown that.

Back in 1991, before seven years of this government's rule, B.C. was doing very well. In 1994-95 and since that time, it's been a steady downward spiral. The per-capita economic growth -- the amount each person has in their pocket to spend on things that they need -- has been positive in British Columbia in only one of the last eight years. British Columbians are getting poorer every year; they're working harder, but they're getting poorer. Look at British Columbians' after-tax personal income. It declined by 1.9 percent in '96 and by 2.3 percent in '97, and bills like this are responsible for that. This government's economic policies are responsible for that decline. This government is literally taking money out of people's pockets. We've looked at all of the tax increases, fee increases and permit increases in health care, in the environment and in tourism. Everywhere you look, there are increased fees for one thing or another.

Even with all of those increased taxes, fees, permits and licences, this government still cannot balance its books and deliver a balanced budget. Bills like Bill 26 need another look -- a third look.

I see my time has expired. Thank you.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I recognize the member continuing her. . . .

An Hon. Member: She sat down.

The Speaker: It is the case that the hon. member did in fact take her seat before she was able to do anything further. I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

[ Page 9692 ]

Motion approved.

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

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

Hon. D. Lovick: Yesterday evening when we were having our discussions and debates, I offered to provide the member for Matsqui with some information in response to a particular question he had regarding the Nisga'a communications budget. What I want to do is give him some of that information and also some assurance that I will give him a hard copy, as well, of what I am about to read into the record.

The Nisga'a public information initiative is part of our continuing effort to ensure that the public and stakeholders remain fully informed about all aspects of treaty negotiations in B.C. I believe I said that last night. This is a commitment that we made in the context of the Nisga'a negotiations, for which there have been at least 400 meetings, pre- and post-AIP, with the public, stakeholders and advisory groups and that we made, as well, at the outset of the B.C. Treaty Commission process in 1994.

The Nisga'a public information initiative will ensure that government's commitment is met -- i.e., to fully inform the public about the Nisga'a agreement. We hope to recover from the federal government some of the costs associated with printing the final agreement, and we will look for other cost-sharing opportunities in order to decrease our costs. However, the bulk of the overall costs will be borne by the province to ensure that all citizens (a) will be informed that the final agreement has been reached, (b) will have access to the final agreement, (c) will be able to ask questions about the agreement and (d) will understand the next steps, including ratification and implementation of the treaty.

We estimate that the cost of the Nisga'a public information initiative will be no more than $2.3 million. These costs will both cover the production and distribution of information about the treaty and provide the public with information on how to access more details about the treaty. This total figure is made up of the following: firstly, $600,000 estimated for publication costs, including printing the approximately 250-page treaty and appendices document, fact sheets, and the treaty summary to be mailed to every household in B.C.; secondly, $1.3 million for media costs, which will include radio and television production and broadcast, which we perceive to be the most effective means of ensuring that the public is made aware of the agreement and how it can obtain the agreement and information about it.

We assume we're not likely to spend all of that money; we are presenting a maximum budget. This figure also indicates a 1-800 response line and extra phone lines, mailing costs, overtime and the extra staff required. We have also budgeted some $400,000 for the support and resources required to ensure that the public receives the agreement and answers to their questions in a timely fashion. I hope that is helpful to the member. As I said, I will get him a hard copy of that.

M. de Jong: That is helpful. The minister may have covered this, and I may have missed it: does the budget include provision for print and broadcast ads?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes. Single-word answers are not my forte, but yes.

M. de Jong: The question that arises from that -- and it is in part related to the exchange that the minister just had in question period in the other House with the Leader of the Opposition. . . . Could he tell me more about the timing of what is being described as the information campaign -- when that is expected to commence? I understand that there is some difficulty in attaching a date, insofar as I suspect and hope it is tied to the tabling of a final agreement. But in relation to an initialling or signing ceremony, at what point are British Columbians going to be in receipt of some of this documentation and to begin to see some of the ads that we've referred to?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the question is that the trigger point will be the time when the agreement is initialled by the two ministers.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

M. de Jong: I guess that does relate back to the discussion that the minister had with the Leader of the Opposition. It won't surprise the minister to know that the opposition has some concerns about where that amount of money -- up to $2.3 million -- is going to be spent, presumably to inform British Columbians about an agreement that won't necessarily be in final draft form. Let me offer an example. I do not have the benefit of up-to-date information as to what's taking place at the negotiating table, but we are told that it is not inconceivable that the initialling ceremony that is expected to take place within the next matter of days or weeks will leave some business unfinished. The precise text around, for example, finality or certainty provisions, may not be there.

I think I understand the difficulties associated with settling upon that final text, but in fairness, the agreement-in-principle speaks to the objectives of the negotiators. We have now been hearing for two years that when we next hear from the negotiating teams it will be to present the final text, that legal text which this agreement will live or die by, insofar as any challenges that might arise. If the initialling ceremony that we're looking to over the next days or weeks isn't going to have that precise text in it, then -- well, the minister knows where I'm going with this -- to spend up to $2.3 million on an information campaign seems to me to be, at a minimum, premature.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question, and if I did not make it as clear as I ought to have in the House earlier today, the member has my apology. Let me see if I can do it now.

[2:45]

[ Page 9693 ]

The difference I am talking about between the initialled agreement and what will become the final legal agreement. . . . They will not in any material and substantive way be different. Those documents will be essentially the same. The legal screen that I have referred to is literally a process of checking for punctuation and other typographical kinds of errors, simply to make sure that the final legal document has received an absolutely complete, thorough and careful scrutiny by the parties involved. The substantive agreement will be the agreement that is initialled and signed off by the parties. That's point one.

Point two is that the document, the treaty -- we're talking about some 250 pages and all of that -- will not be sent out to anybody as part of an information campaign until it is in the final form. I think the member would agree with me that it would be, quite frankly, a little irresponsible to send out 250 pages and then discover that you have 15 typos and have to reprint and do it over again, or something. I think everybody would agree that we can wait a few weeks until we have that. I hope that will allay some of the fears.

What else? As well, I should just make a third point -- namely, that the information campaign. . . . I said that the trigger for that is the initialling ceremony by the ministers, but in fact the consultation process comes before people start getting things in the mail. Indeed, they go in parallel. I think it's arguable and safe to say that the consultation will precede, if you like, the information campaign. In other words, here's what we've done; now we going to go out and talk about it. Is that clear?

M. de Jong: Let's take a couple of steps back and deal with the TNAC, the Treaty Advisory Negotiation Committee. If any part of what I am submitting to the minister is incorrect, then I know he will correct me. It is my understanding that the government, even before this minister took office, has been assuring TNAC that prior to any finalization -- and when I use that term, I include an initialling ceremony, which I'm sure the government and the Nisga'a will want to present as a significant event and as the finalization of the negotiation process -- TNAC would have an opportunity to review the legal text of all of the chapters of the agreement.

What I think I'm hearing from the minister is that we are perhaps days or a few short weeks away from that initialling ceremony, that at that point this documentation will be made available to TNAC and other interested parties, and that then an information campaign of the sort we have just been discussing will commence. I suggest to the minister that the TNAC organization was led to believe -- and believes -- that their opportunity to review this documentation will occur prior to that initialling ceremony. If that is the case -- for us to be talking, on the one hand, about them having a meaningful opportunity to review, and an initialling ceremony that is days or weeks away -- I think they're being squeezed.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, the answer to the question is yes -- two questions: yes, yes. They will be given that opportunity. Let me clarify, just in case anybody has the notion that TNAC is suddenly going to blindsided with all this information and this huge pile of paper they've never seen before, that they have been consulted all the way along. They have seen the chapters as they develop.

M. de Jong: About six of them.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, no. More than that, I understand. Indeed, what they haven't seen -- and here is the ambiguity and why I was so very careful in the House today. . . . The ambiguity is: what is it they haven't seen? What they haven't seen, as nearly as I can make out, is simply the final chapters. In other words, they've seen everything. But now we get to the final, last version of the document, and that's what TNAC has not yet seen in those -- what? -- 29 cases or whatever. I understand we're having a meeting with TNAC tomorrow at which these very issues are going to be tabled. We're going to put some of those chapters on the table, I take it. I think the problem that is being referred to is not as big a problem as we are perhaps starting to believe or perceive.

M. de Jong: Well, I guess the problem relates to the organization or person who believes it's a problem. The organizations that make up TNAC have sufficient concern to speak out about this very publicly and have done so yesterday and today. They are sufficiently agitated by the fact that they see a looming announcement, and in the case of many of these chapters, a great deal, in fairness, hinges on the precise wording. No one is surprised by the principles. In these estimates in prior years, the opposition and the government have battled over what those principles should be and whether the AIP embodies them. But leaving that aside, the actual legal text is very important.

Some of these organizations are complex and sophisticated, and quite frankly -- and I say this in all fairness -- they don't want a two-hour briefing on the day the text is released or initialled in the Nass Valley. That is not what they anticipated -- and in fairness, it's not what I anticipated -- when the government said they would be kept informed and have an opportunity to review in a meaningful way the draft treaty, chapter by chapter, as it became available.

Hon. D. Lovick: The last point the member made, if I heard correctly, is the question. They would indeed be given that opportunity to look at the chapters as they develop. That commitment has been fulfilled. Yesterday, for example, TNAC had a discussion on the most recent certainty language -- what is on the table right now. Certainty, as you know, is a tough issue that we've been grappling with for a long time indeed. That was yesterday's discussion. Tomorrow, the discussion has to do with wildlife and access. Everything is what it was except for two or three small changes, and TNAC will give sign-off to that one, one presumes.

The other point worth noting, I think -- and it seems to me an extremely important one -- is that the process of taking those draft chapters and then visiting with TNAC and going through that leads to some changes to the chapter in many cases, the changes presented by TNAC. So the process has worked very well, as far as I am led to believe in all my discussions with our people at the table, as well as from what my deputy tells me now.

TNAC has certainly had some major influence -- the B.C. Wildlife Federation, for instance. I have seen some of their correspondence. Indeed, I read a letter not too long ago saying: "Thank you very much for hearing our concerns. We were really worried that our concerns wouldn't be heard, but the process is working as it should. Thank you very much." Unless I hear some concrete and very specific evidence to the contrary, I feel pretty good about how things are unfolding. It seems to me that it's going well, albeit there may be a small glitch. If there is, we'll certainly fix it.

M. de Jong: A concern has arisen around the signing ceremony that is now much anticipated that there may yet, on that day, be parts of this agreement for which the parties have

[ Page 9694 ]

I can't be specific for the minister today, because I don't know where those difficulties are; I'm not privy to what's going on at the negotiating table. But the opposition and, I think, a great many people would have concerns if, as a result of wanting to abide by a public announcement schedule, the negotiating parties felt that that was an option available to them. This will be presented as the final agreement. I'm anticipating that the news release that will come from the Premier's Office or the minister's office will present it as a historic final treaty agreement. It won't be that if, within its provisions, there are sections that have the caveat attached: "Well, we couldn't agree on the final language, but we'll work that out. We have a good sense of where we're going." That's great, but it doesn't make for a final agreement.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is absolutely right that if we were to produce a document that said: "This is the final agreement, but we're going to have to carry on discussing X and Y. . . ." He's absolutely correct. Let me give him this assurance, though. What he has described in terms of the parties saying, "Look, we agree on these broad things, but we're having a problem with X, so let's put it aside," is what negotiations are. That's what they've been doing for a good long while. I have seen revisions of chapters in which they have gone through 40 different iterations and said: "We got everything, but we couldn't, finally, get something nailed down on these two paragraphs. Therefore we agreed to put it aside and go on to something fresh." That's the negotiation process. What we come up with at the end of this process, when we initial this agreement, will be the agreement. There will not be any of those caveats. I have certainly been given that assurance. Frankly, I can't imagine how you could sign something called a historic final agreement if you had 15 things that you said we were going to revisit six weeks from now or something. I hope that assurance is comforting to the member.

M. de Jong: That is comforting, and therefore the minister won't be surprised a month or two from now if that scenario I've described in fact takes place: the opposition rises up on its hind legs in outrage and says all the things I've been alluding to earlier.

Moving away from that for the moment, I want to ask the minister several questions around ministerial organization. I am obliged to members of his staff who have provided me, following a briefing, with some organizational charts that show some slight changes since we underwent this process last year. I'm not intending to canvass this square by square and person by person. That's not my intention, but I will say to the minister that it is unclear to me. That's probably not a big deal, but in my discussions with both third-party groups and, probably more importantly, with aboriginal groups -- some associated with the First Nations Summit -- it has been unclear to them as recently as several weeks ago who's in charge.

For example, I know that the deputy is involved full-time in the Nisga'a negotiations, and I'm not going to quarrel with that, but I know from discussions with first nations people that since the earlier part of this year, they had been dealing extensively with Mr. Plecas before he left government. I'm not at all certain how that came about, and I'm not certain what his role in this was. I wasn't aware that he had been seconded to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, so maybe I can start there as a way of ascertaining just how this process works for aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure whether the member is asking me specifically about Mr. Plecas or if he wants an overview of how it operates and who is in charge. Perhaps he would like to elaborate.

M. de Jong: I won't try to cut the minister off. He may want to begin by providing me with some overview. At some point, I will want to know specifically about Mr. Plecas. That's my intention.

[3:00]

The member will probably recall that I made some comment last night about the Premier's involvement and said that I, for one, was rather pleased about that. The Premier has made it very clear for the last couple of years that these first nations issues matter hugely to him and that we were in the process of doing some very significant and important things, which arguably will have the most huge impacts on this economy, on this province and on land use decisions in this province's recent history. The Premier therefore, I think quite appropriately, has said that he and his staff will be involved. What that has meant in specific terms is that particular people in the Premier's Office have been assigned particular tasks. I want to go beyond this a little bit. It's not just the Premier's Office, and it is complicated. I think it's absolutely necessary, too, as I'll explain in a moment.

Bob Plecas, working out of the Premier's Office, was given a special mandate. He was given a particular role. His role was to be a facilitator and a helper with our tripartite discussions and negotiations. The tripartite negotiation-discussion -- in case that isn't crystal clear to everybody -- is the table we established among ourselves and the federal government and the First Nations Summit, along with somebody representing those first nations who were not part of the treaty process. In addition, at that table was the B.C. Treaty Commission. They were more or less the keepers of the process, making sure that things unfolded. Mr. Plecas was contracted, I believe, by the Premier's Office to take on that particular role. That role is over. Mr. Plecas has gone on to a happier life in Italy, I think, for the next few months or something.

We have, however, got somebody else, I'm happy to report. That's Tony Penikett, a former Premier of the Yukon, as I'm sure the member opposite knows, and an individual who is hugely responsible for the historic settlement of first nations claims in that territory. He's well respected, wonderfully knowledgable and incredibly experienced. Penikett is now assigned to the particular task of working with us -- again, with tripartite activity -- on the post-Delgamuukw position.

[ Page 9695 ]

In addition, as you know, we also have a separate set of activities going on under the umbrella of the Nisga'a negotiation. That is being taken care of entirely by ministry staff. But of course, it will come as no surprise that the Premier's Office wants to talk regularly to the Nisga'a negotiating team to find out what's going on, because, as I said last night, the Premier takes this issue very seriously. And I, for one, am glad he does. I hope that gives some clarification.

If I may, let me add just one other thing to complicate the matter, in case anybody thought it was simple -- that is, the involvement of some other people working directly with me. For example, the deputy minister in the Attorney General office, Maureen Maloney, was seconded to me for our early discussions on Delgamuukw, simply because she is incredibly knowledgable and has a huge background, and because, as we all know, the Attorney General office is obviously, clearly and inexorably connected to all of this.

That leads me to my final point to answer your question -- namely, the reality of intergovernmental. . . . How shall I. . . ? It's almost like an ecosystem, you know. You can't deal with first nations issues with one ministry. First nations issues are indeed ubiquitous; they really are. If we have any sense at all, we must make sure that we have very clear linkages with all the line ministries as well as with the program delivery ministries. In our tiny little ministry -- you know that the budget is not very large -- much of the work we do, in fact, is in consultation with other ministries like Education and its aboriginal education branch.

So who's in charge? Well, I'm in charge of the day-to-day running and operation of this ministry, aided and abetted by some absolutely outstanding staff. I wish we had a great deal more. They're invariably outstanding. I have to say that, and I don't say that just for these people but for all of those with whom I have worked. They're wonderfully dedicated. If I may, I'll use this moment to say, Madam Chair, that they're also people who are -- dare I say? -- believers, who want to do the right thing in this province, who believe that we have a date with history and that we have some unfinished business that must be settled. I hope that that answers the member's questions, and of course, I'll be happy to elaborate if he has more specific ones.

M. de Jong: Well, that's helpful. But it's probably not surprising to the minister that it gives rise to a series of other questions, which I will try to pose in some sort of coherent order. Tell me: is Mr. Penikett attached to the Premier's Office? Or should I look for him on a revised organizational chart from the ministry? Which budget does his salary come from? Where exactly does he fit in the rubric of this organization?

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that Mr. Penikett is doing a number of different things for government.

A Voice: He's ubiquitous too.

Hon. D. Lovick: He's ubiquitous, too, perhaps.

He is apparently, as a matter of record, employed by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations as a negotiator for government. His primary responsibility at the moment has to do with Aboriginal Affairs, but he certainly has other things. As you know, he had some considerable involvement in the negotiations with public sector unions, as I recall.

M. de Jong: Not to be too crass about it, but if Mr. Penikett were ever to do or to say something that the opposition took exception to, heaven forbid, and on which the opposition wished to hold a particular minister to account -- I don't say that in a flippant way -- where is that accountability? Is Mr. Penikett the responsibility of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs when he is working on Aboriginal Affairs matters? Is he the Premier's responsibility? Where does the accountability of Mr. Penikett fit in?

Hon. D. Lovick: When Mr. Penikett is doing his Aboriginal Affairs work, he reports directly to me through the deputy. He and the deputy work very closely. To allay the member's fears, if Mr. Penikett or anybody else doing anything in the name of Aboriginal Affairs does something that the opposition wants to take high dudgeon about, I am more than looking forward to them asking me questions about that.

M. de Jong: Any budgetary considerations that might apply to Mr. Penikett therefore would flow through the Ministry of Finance. Is that correct? For the record, I see the minister indicating that it is the case.

Let's go back to the Premier's Office, because we embarked upon this discussion about Mr. Penikett's involvement as a result of some discussion we were having about Mr. Plecas, who at the time was attached to the Premier's Office. That doesn't appear to be the case with Mr. Penikett. Who's the point person within the Premier's Office? The minister has indicated that there are a number of individuals within the Premier's Office who are directly involved in this -- and perhaps many that have an interest. Who are those people?

Let me put it in this context. When I've met with representatives of first nations, they have said that they were formerly dealing with Mr. Plecas. They have now mentioned Mr. McArthur's name as one they have grown accustomed to dealing with over the last number of days. They are uncertain. I must say that I preface all these remarks with the observation that I don't find it an entirely satisfactory state of affairs when representatives of one of the three organizing parties aren't certain themselves. It's not so important that I don't know, but they don't seem to know who they're dealing with. What, if any, involvement does Mr. McArthur have in this exercise?

Hon. D. Lovick: As the member knows, I'm sure, Mr. McArthur is indeed the Premier's deputy. Obviously if the Premier is taking a direct involvement, much of that is going to be through the vehicle of his deputy. It should also be noted that Mr. McArthur was a former deputy of Aboriginal Affairs and has considerable experience in aboriginal affairs with both the Saskatchewan government as well as the territorial governments. I should arrange to get the résumés and the curricula vitae for Penikett and McArthur. I think the member opposite would be as impressed as I am -- and amazed, frankly -- that we have people like that working for this government, given that they could probably make about double what they are if they were working for the federal government. But both of them have chosen to work here. I think we're very fortunate for that.

I want to clarify that it is not a case of several people working in the Premier's Office. I hope I didn't say that, because I certainly don't intend that. I'm saying that there are

[ Page 9696 ]

We recently met with the First Nations Summit to deal with the member's particular suggestion that they're not sure who's on first, let alone second or third. We have made it very clear that their principal contact -- in terms of the tripartite process and working out our new arrangement to grapple with what I refer to as the post-Delgamuukw universe -- is Tony Penikett. That's his job; that's their contact and conduit. We've tried to make that very clear.

The member is suggesting that there's something here that isn't entirely healthy -- that it's a least confusing. I don't think it is, and if it has been, we're trying to change that. Let's have no illusions about this. The reason it may have been confusing is that when you take a small ministry such as ours, which is not exactly swimming in dollars to get as many people as we would love to have working in government -- and that's the case, of course, across all ministries in government today -- and when you're dealing with something that we think is as important as Nisga'a. . . . When you take your deputy minister out of the mix and say, "Right, we want you to go to Nisga'a -- and take two or three of the absolutely most senior and key people within the ministry," and at the same time you're trying to deal with another arguably hugely important historical event -- namely, Delgamuukw and what we do, as a province, about that -- you're going to have to look around for help without saying: "Right; we're going to go and hire 20 new people in our ministry."

[3:15]

The only other question outstanding is whether in fact there is some confusion regarding who's who and who is speaking for whom and so forth. I think those problems have now been solved. If they haven't, we'll certainly make sure that they are -- and very, very quickly.

M. de Jong: Here's why I think it is important. The minister made some candid comments yesterday about his impression of his present boss -- before he became Premier -- having a peripheral interest in this matter. He's now, of course, the man who calls the shots, who is ultimately accountable for the government of British Columbia. His interest now and his knowledge of the intricacies of the negotiations and discussions that have been taking place will not be what the minister's and members of his staff are. Yet almost cyclically, like a roller-coaster, there are times when the Premier's interest and involvement seems to grow -- and I don't say that in a nefarious way, necessarily -- which gives rise to some suspicion on the part of the opposition and other commentators. I'm going to refer to an example. I anticipate that this will be one of those sections of the discussion where the minister and I will not see eye to eye and will perhaps cross swords. Thankfully our tables are far apart enough to prevent any damage from being done.

I am interested in the series of events -- we also canvassed this briefly in the large House several weeks ago -- that gave rise to the departure of Mr. Robertson from the Treaty Commission. Perhaps the only thing the minister and I will agree upon -- not to put any words or thoughts in his mouth. . . . From the perspective of the opposition, that was a very curious and puzzling course of events or chronology. It certainly was from Mr. Robertson's point of view. I have his letter, and I will say candidly that it is a strongly worded document, and I don't think the minister will disagree with that, either. But it's almost unprecedented in its criticism of the government from an individual whom the minister's predecessor went to great lengths to say very positive things about. So as an opposition member, I am confronted, on the one hand, by a three-year positive endorsement of an individual, his work and his group's work, and suddenly a criticism of government by that person and something of a disavowal -- and I'll give the minister a chance to correct me if I've not been fair in characterizing it in that way -- by the incumbent in the minister's seat.

I'm going to go through the letter in detail, and I will ask the minister to respond in this forum, as opposed to the question period forum, to some of the issues that Mr. Robertson raises. This is the letter of May 20 that he wrote to the minister acknowledging that the province has decided not to extend his term as chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission. He characterizes that decision as a complete about-face by the province. He says that he was encouraged by the province and by the other two principals to seek reappointment. Maybe I should start there with the minister. From the minister's point of view, is that correct or incorrect, or accurate or inaccurate, when Mr. Robertson says that he was encouraged to seek reappointment?

Hon. D. Lovick: Before we take too many steps down this particular avenue, I want to ask the member to give me, if he will, some clear idea of what his purpose is in raising these issues. If he wants me to comment on Mr. Robertson's particular abilities, qualifications, work habits or something like that, obviously I'm not going to do so. I don't think personnel matters are appropriate to discuss. If he wants me to talk about simply what happened in the process, I can give him a brief description of that.

But I also. . . . The reason I'm perplexed by the question is that this began with some reference to concerns about the Premier and his involvement. Of course, I'm not cynical by nature or anything, but I too have the odd pang of wonder: what could the member possibly be leading to by posing this series of questions? So if he'd like to give me some assurance in terms of what he wants to accomplish, I'll be happy to answer his questions about the Alec Robertson affair -- or whatever he chooses to call it.

M. de Jong: I can accommodate the minister halfway. I think I can provide him with the assurance that my interest in this relates pretty much exclusively to the process that was followed. Insofar as my valid or invalid attempt to link this with the Premier, stay tuned.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am going to be careful and very circumspect in my answers, and I'm sure the member will

[ Page 9697 ]

Let me, without betraying confidences about what happened in a private meeting of the principals -- i.e., the federal government, the provincial government, the First Nations Summit and the B.C. Treaty Commission representatives -- explain what happened that night. We -- I and colleagues representing the provincial government and the ministry -- went over for a meeting with the principals, having been advised by my staff people that we had a deal. We were thrilled and proud and excited because we had a deal. The logjam in terms of Delgamuukw would be broken. The B.C. government's proposal for an accelerated approach of land, cash and resources would indeed be accepted. The summit had gone off to meet with its principals. . . . Yeah, exactly -- the member opposite gives the thumbs-up like the World Cup soccer or something, and he's right. We all felt that way -- precisely true.

What happened is that I went to the meeting, given these assurances that this package -- and the members have seen it; they have it in their possession -- was indeed acceptable, and that that was the new plateau from which we were going to march onward and upward and do all kinds of great things. I went to the meeting, and -- not to make too long and elaborate a story of it -- my hopes were dismayed. The First Nations Summit spokespersons, usually called the working group of the First Nations Summit, stood up and said: "We went to our convention, and we were told that: 'Sorry, this isn't acceptable.' " I don't want to impute motive or anything about that. I think it's safe to say that the summit leadership -- the summit, which is the leadership -- was rejected by its constituents, essentially on the basis of the constituent tribes, councils and others saying: "You can't speak for us. You can't in fact make a deal that commits us to do all of these things; we haven't given you that decision-making authority." I said: "Well, you surprise me, because here's the document that I've been given, which we've all apparently signed, and it looks to me as if we all said we had a deal."

That's what happened at the meeting. That took the better part of two and a half or three hours, and then we got to the end of the meeting, and at that point, the issue of Mr. Robertson's reappointment was raised. To be absolutely candid, I had thought when I went to the meeting that it was essentially pro forma, that we had agreed that the appointment would be extended. We'd had, however, as I want to emphasize, a pretty emotionally wrought experience, a lot of not very pleasant exchanges having gone on in terms of what happened to our deal, our agreement, etc., and all those kinds of things. At the end of the meeting, literally in the last ten minutes or so, the matter of Alec's reappointment was raised; there was some brief discussion about what the salary would be and then about the reappointment. The parties agreed that they would take that recommendation back to their principals.

I did so. I went to my cabinet colleagues and explained to them what had happened at the meeting. I said: "Sorry, guys, but guess what. The deal we thought we had, which I have been touting -- saying we're hopeful that great things are going to happen and all of that -- has turned to dust." We were all, obviously, dismayed. My cabinet colleagues, in their wisdom, decided then: "Well, if that's the case, we're not going to carry on as if it's business as usual. We should rethink the whole approach, and we should even consider whether the Treaty Commission, as it exists and as it has functioned for the last five years, is acceptable." The conclusion was: "No. We think we need to put that on the table before we go back in to a completely revised tripartite process structure." In the short term, it would not be advisable, then, to go along with this appointment for somebody for another two or three years or whatever, because we weren't sure what the treaty process, the commission's involvement in it and the commission's function might be at the end of that revisiting of the process. That's why Mr. Robertson's appointment was not extended.

What we decided to do instead, however, was to say: "Look, Alec, we have a bit of a problem here, and we would like you to maybe stay on for a couple of months until we can see if we can put this particular Humpty Dumpty back together again and get on with where we wanted to be." And Alec decided that no, that was not acceptable. The rest, as they say, is history, and thus you see the letter.

I left out one small part. Alec came over to Victoria to see me a day or two after our meeting in Vancouver, and said: "Well, what do you think we should do?" Our discussion didn't go anywhere. He had some ideas about what he thought should be done to get the process back on track. They weren't ideas that I and my staff and government colleagues happened to agree with. Then, as I said, the news was given to Alec that he wasn't going to be reappointed, and that is what led to his letter.

I think that's as detailed a background as is necessary, and I hope that's useful.

[3:30]

If I understand this correctly, there were discussions about the deal; it was and then wasn't, and then in the last ten minutes the matter of Mr. Robertson's reappointment came up. It was agreed that he would be reappointed, and that subsequently changed. It would be helpful for me to know with more specificity the dates around which those meetings occurred.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't know if I have a chronology available right now, but I will certainly prepare one and get that for the member at the first opportunity.

M. de Jong: Returning to Mr. Robertson's recitation of what took place, he says that the summit passed their reappointing resolution on May 6, 1998. Am I able to surmise, therefore, that the meeting the minister referred to would have taken place before May 6?

Hon. D. Lovick: The meeting was after May 6. If the member wants to go on a detective mission -- that's fine; that's perfectly legit -- let me give him some more bits of information in case he hasn't got them. You should know that the First Nations Summit passed three resolutions. The first resolution was to reject Alec Robertson's reappointment. The second resolution was to offer him a one-year reappointment, which Alec Robertson rejected. The third was to offer him a two-year appointment. So the summit obviously was going through some difficulties itself in terms of what ought to be done. I won't speak for the summit, but I think the member should just have that as a matter of record.

M. de Jong: Is Mr. Robertson correct when he suggests in his letter of May 20 that he was informed by the province and

[ Page 9698 ]

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

M. de Jong: I will repeat the question. In his letter of May 20, Mr. Robertson indicates that he was informed by the province that it had decided on May 7 about its intention to pass orders-in-council on May 13, 1998, confirming his reappointment. Is that information set out by Mr. Robertson correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: That information is indeed correct, but again I want to clarify two points. Number one, May 7 was the night of the tripartite meeting, the one I described in some detail. That's how he became informed of that, and I have many witnesses. Secondly, I want to reiterate the point I made earlier -- namely, that I said I would indeed take that recommendation back to my cabinet colleagues. I was obviously not empowered to sign an OIC.

M. de Jong: Let me try to explore that process a little more clearly. It is my impression -- and I think it is fair to say the impression of many people -- that when a minister engages in the type of discussion that I presume took place with Mr. Robertson and says, "I am going to go back to cabinet," he goes back to cabinet with a recommendation. Maybe I should simply ask the minister: was Mr. Robertson advised that the minister would take a recommendation to cabinet providing for his reappointment?

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe I answered that question twice already in the last fifteen minutes. I said that the three parties at the table agreed that we would make those recommendations regarding Mr. Robertson's reappointment. That is the equivalent of saying that obviously my duty is to take the recommendation back to cabinet. If that's what the member's asking, the answer is yes, for the third time.

M. de Jong: In light of the circumstances that the minister outlined with respect to the fast-track deal that came undone, was it the minister's recommendation that changed?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think I told the member that I met with Mr. Robertson the next morning. I think it was the 8th or perhaps the 9th; I'm not sure. As I said in the beginning, I do not want to use this Legislature, this House, as a means to dissect the character of an individual and talk about whether I approved of them or didn't.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, good. I'm glad to hear that the member opposite isn't interested in that, because I'm not about to do it. Suffice it to say that cabinet didn't meet until about a week later; I believe it was the 13th or something like that. At that point I had obviously had some opportunity to reflect on what had happened. I had met with Mr. Robertson the next day. I will confess that I was rather surprised to discover that Mr. Robertson would come and talk to me and suggest what ought to happen in terms of getting the process back on track, given that I was so demonstrably concerned over what had happened and felt that I had not been given correct information, or that somebody had reneged on the deal, as it were, on the night of the 7th -- that he would still come to see me the next day as if nothing had happened, to all intents and purposes. I'm sorry; that's not fair. It was as if it was a simple matter of the province just changing its position and everything would be fine again.

If the member is asking me if I had absolute confidence and if I was an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Robertson, I have to acknowledge, in all candour, that the answer is no. I didn't, however, go in to cabinet -- and this is the end of my answer to the question -- and say something like, "Over my dead body," or anything like that or recommend against him. Rather we had a discussion. Beyond that I can't say much.

M. de Jong: Here's why I think it is relevant. I'm not going to try pushing the envelope of cabinet confidentiality. Well, maybe I'll try, but I don't anticipate enjoying any success. We have these discussions here in these estimate debates, and we pose questions to the minister around his area of cabinet responsibility in the chamber. We do so with the expectation that he is the authority -- not the final authority but the authority -- around which government policy on aboriginal matters revolves. On a matter of this import, if the minister goes to cabinet with a recommendation, and that recommendation is overruled -- I say this candidly -- that suggests a lack of confidence around the cabinet table in the judgment of the minister, particularly absent any reasoning that the opposition might be provided with.

At the moment, the evidence we have, generally as a result of disclosures made by the minister himself, is that a recommendation was taken to cabinet, and it was overturned. The minister can say, "You're making too much of that fact," but I have to rely on the information that's at my disposal. If cabinet has so little confidence that they are prepared to overrule the judgment of the minister on a matter of fundamental importance like the appointment of the head of the Treaty Commission, then I have to wonder, as do others, how that lack of confidence might manifest itself in other ways as we embark upon this exercise.

The minister chuckles. I understand that to make these assertions and to challenge him in this way. . . . He can be dismissive of it, but I ask him to think for a moment about the appearance of this transaction, not just for the opposition but for others who are perhaps limited in their understanding by virtue of the limited information they have. But that's the information we have.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The minister acknowledges that it's a problem. Well, help us with that problem. If there are other relevant factors that account for why the cabinet apparently overruled the minister's recommendation, then let us hear that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I have some difficulty, Madam Chair, in answering the member's question in anything that is likely to be to his satisfaction without talking about how cabinet works. He doesn't understand that, obviously. That's not to fault him, because he hasn't been there.

But he ought to know that his starting premise is not really correct. He referred to "a matter of this import," and "a matter of fundamental importance." Well, sorry, but it's not quite so. The Treaty Commission functions rather well. Because there isn't a head of the commission doesn't mean that everything stops dead in its tracks. Indeed I would sug-

[ Page 9699 ]

I think the member is ignoring, wilfully or otherwise, the point I've tried to make -- namely, that what happened on May 7 was a huge event. Remember, we had people who had been hermetically sealed in a room for some 15 hours to try and come up with this deal, and we succeeded. Everybody said: "Isn't this wonderful!" Then you go to the meeting, and you discover that you don't have a deal; it's fallen apart. The obvious question we all posed was: what the hell have we been doing? -- if I may use a slightly unparliamentary expression. That's the question, quite legitimately, that was raised by cabinet. Everybody said: "Why do you pretend that it's life as usual, business as usual, when demonstrably what's happened is that there's a giant elephant in the room that wasn't there the day before?" That was the problem we grappled with.

Thus the cabinet, in its wisdom, decided that we weren't going to agree to a two-year reappointment. We agreed to go to six-month or a two-month one and said: "Help us over this hurdle, if you want." But as I say, that offer was not accepted. Therefore Mr. Robertson chose to return to private life, as he said very clearly. That's the end of the matter in my mind.

The other points made by Mr. Robertson in the letter are, it seems to me, essentially gratuitous, and of course I would challenge much of what he said there.

M. de Jong: Well, I'll just say this. My interest genuinely relates to the process by which the decisions come about and really have nothing to do with Mr. Robertson's skills, qualifications or otherwise. I don't intend to get into that.

If I'm misinterpreting the comments that I've heard over the last ten or 15 minutes, I hope the minister will correct me. I am left with the impression that there was tremendous disappointment that the terms of a deal the ministry, the province, thought had been negotiated around fast-tracking the treaty negotiations had became unravelled. Again, I'm not certain if that meeting took place on May 7 and if the finalization of the deal and its unravelling occurred at the same time. What I seem to understand is that negotiations took place, the minister attended at a meeting thinking he had a deal, only to discover that if there ever was a deal, it had come undone. The impression I am left with is that Mr. Robertson was held responsible for that. If that's not the case. . . .

The reason I say that is for the following reasons. The minister candidly admitted that his subsequent discussion the following day with Mr. Robertson was unique. He was somewhat surprised by Mr. Robertson's tone in the meeting with him. I am left with the impression that the minister's confidence in Mr. Robertson was shaken. If the failure to reappoint Mr. Robertson was tied to the unravelling of that deal on May 7, then maybe we should say that. If I've garnered an incorrect impression, then the minister should correct me.

[3:45]

M. de Jong: Well, I'll consider it when the. . . . I'm happy to consider anything the minister has to offer and will invite him to offer it.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, we can play games through this process. I have tried to present my questioning around this issue in a way that respects the usual rules around personnel. I have offered the minister an impression that I think it would be reasonable to garner, based on the information that we have available. The minister says no, that is not correct. I have asked him why that's not correct. Now, if he wants to. . . . We can spend more time on this, or. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members. Minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member has said three times at least, as I have, that neither of us wants to join in a conversation in which we talk about Mr. Robertson's competence, capabilities, etc. However, notwithstanding having made that point, he also is asking me now to say whether it is the case that I am faulting Mr. Robertson for the breakdown, and is that why I don't have confidence in him? Now, I'm sorry, but I hope the point is very clear that I do not want to talk about confidence, or lack of it, in Mr. Robertson. I think I've explained, in sufficient detail, precisely what happened. I've given a couple of illustrations of things where a prescient observer might well say: "Oh, maybe that had something to do with the fact that the reappointment didn't happen or why the minister didn't enthusiastically endorse Mr. Robertson or something like that." I am not going to comment further on Mr. Robertson's competence.

What I will say is this. I heard Alec Robertson interviewed on radio this morning and given opportunities to say things. Indeed, the reporter was trying to say: "Come on, Mr. Robertson, surely you've got some beans to spill." Mr. Robertson's response, to his credit, was: "No. I have no beans to spill." We had our disagreement, and that was clear. Alec and I had met subsequently, we had a pleasant conversation, and I said, "I'm sorry it didn't work out better," because I had enjoyed working with him up to that time. But life goes on, the treaty process goes on, the Treaty Commission goes on and we will eventually get a replacement chief commissioner. There is no question about that. I think there are probably a number of very capable people who are interested in doing the job. The difficulty, of course, is that we have to find somebody who is acceptable to the three parties, and that can sometimes be a little more problematic.

I wish Mr. Robertson well in his endeavours. I think he probably did very good service for us. I'm sorry that at the end of his term, things did not work as well as we had hoped and that he rejected our offer of a short-term appointment.

M. de Jong: Perhaps one of the reasons Mr. Robertson conducted himself as he did in that broadcast earlier today is

[ Page 9700 ]

I am still -- and I'm not going to go on forever -- puzzled by a process that sees a minister taking. . . . Let me present it in this fashion. If an employee or a person appointed by government is told that they are going to be recommended for reappointment, that's one thing. If they are told they are not going to be recommended for reappointment, that's another. That's something that falls squarely within the minister's ambit and authority. Part of what disturbs me when I read Mr. Robertson's letter is the notion that he was told he would be recommended for reappointment. Much of what I've heard from the minister now and since this issue was originally raised is: "Well, I kind of recommended him." When it was clear to me that that wasn't going to happen, that was fine as well. Did the minister recommend him or didn't he?

If he didn't, then I think someone like Mr. Robertson is owed a forthright response. I know the minister can easily say, "Well, those are the dynamics of the cabinet table," but I don't think he can have it both ways. I think he owes a duty to the appointee, and he owes a duty, obviously, to his cabinet colleagues. I think he's using one to try and shield himself from criticism about, perhaps, a failed duty with respect to Mr. Robertson. He either recommended him for reappointment or didn't.

I understand the embarrassment that can flow when a recommendation isn't accepted. The minister is right: I've not sat around a cabinet table. But that is what the evidence leads us to conclude at this point: that the recommendation simply wasn't followed.

Hon. D. Lovick: At last the member has said something absolutely correct. The recommendation was not followed; that's absolutely true. I commend him on picking that up.

M. de Jong: Before I move on, I have a last point on this. Assist the opposition; tell us. Give us something to cling to as we try to convince ourselves that cabinet has confidence in the minister's judgment on matters of importance. The minister says that this was not a fundamentally important issue. I beg to differ.

Substantively -- and, I think, symbolically -- the appointment of a head treaty commissioner is very important. But as we head into the finalization of the Nisga'a round, as we head into negotiations involving 51 different tables, it is an easy thing to say that the recommendation wasn't followed. It was the minister's recommendation. The minister at that table is supposedly the person with the best information and is best positioned to decide what is best for the treaty negotiation. So help us -- through you, hon. Chair. Give us some assurance that cabinet's confidence in this minister hasn't been irrevocably lost.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, hon. Chair, demonstrably the member needs help; I recognize that. I will try to assist. But I don't know, grappling with this as an intellectual problem, whether there is anything I can do to give the member the comfort he wants. I don't think there is anything I can do to give the member the comfort he wants. All I can tell him is that I feel absolutely comfortable. I feel no embarrassment whatsoever about what happened.

I feel badly that Mr. Robertson was unhappy and felt that he had not been treated as well as he perceived he deserved to be. I think that there may have been a small piece of the story that hasn't been covered here -- namely, that a letter that went to him perhaps went before a conversation or something like that, which may have added to his discomfort. I feel badly about that in human terms.

But in terms of the process that was followed in terms of what we did, I think that we -- the government and I, for my part -- all did the right thing. The reason I made a small grimace when the member quoted Alec Robertson's reference to decapitation is that I think it is not gratuitous but is just hugely inappropriate. It's the case, remember, that the Treaty Commission is made up of a number of different people and indeed has functioned very well with a part-time commissioner, and it continues to function very well. It did so in the past, when Chuck Connaghan stepped down. We had a period there when we didn't have a chief commissioner. The process goes on. The individual is not the centre of everything that happens -- okay?

I think that sense of -- what? -- place and of perspective is perhaps being lost by the member opposite, trying to make this sound like it was some dramatic moment when the minister walks into cabinet and says, "I insist we do the following," and they say: "Nay, we don't like you, we don't respect you, and we don't accept you." That's wonderful theatrics, but it's also wonderful fiction. It has no resemblance whatsoever to the reality. So if the member wants me to say that my confidence that I have the confidence of my cabinet colleagues is diminished by this experience, I will categorically say that that is not the case. Indeed, I think I feel very good about the support I've had from all of my cabinet colleagues in my role thus far.

Looking at the hour, hon. Chair, I'm going to suggest that we have a small recess.

The Chair: If it's the will of the committee, we'll have a five-minute recess.

Hon. D. Lovick: Is that okay for you guys?

Some Voices: Okay.

The Chair: Okay, we'll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:58 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

B. Barisoff: Just a question to the hon. member about a deal that was made with the Osoyoos band and the provincial government. I've got a letter here from the Southern Okanagan Sportsmen's Association, and their concern. . . . It's a short letter. I might just read it into the record. It's addressed to me:

[ Page 9701 ]

"Southern Okanagan Sportsmen's Association would like to voice our concerns in regard to the lack of conditions surrounding the recent land settlement agreement with the Osoyoos Indian band in the Oliver area with regard to acquisition of other lands by the band.

"Following an $11 million award, at least part of which is expected to be used to replace or add to reserve properties, we are concerned about the impact that many dollars could have on our area in two particular respects. Purchase of Crown lands could remove a substantial amount of land from the already dwindling supply of areas to which the public has access. Also, ownership of strategic pieces of property can deny access to other significant areas of Crown land vital to sport and conservation activities.

"Our club, which is also an associate of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, would like to have notification and input into any proposed purchases of this type of property by the band. Secondly, we see purchases of private property of this magnitude having a tremendous impact on the tax base of our district should they become reserve properties. This would provide a very significant financial impact on our district.

"Our organization feels very strongly that conditions to address these problems should have been part of the deal. But since they were not, we would ask that you assist us in keeping abreast of any such transactions, so that we might provide input.

"Sincerely,

Don Hargrave, President, SOSA"

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the question. I'm sorry, I should have asked you what the date of the letter was. My recollection of the Osoyoos issue is that the band was talking about purchasing private property with the money they got from the Haynes settlement and then using that land to add to their reserve land. I think that was the issue. If it's reserve land, then obviously it's entirely within the hands of the feds. If, however, the member's asking, as I think the letter-writer was, if we will be involved -- we the provincial Crown -- and if he can perhaps be of some help to answer questions and give the individual some notion of what is indeed being contemplated, what might happen and what his or her rights are, etc., then yes, we as the provincial government do see it as part of an obligation that we would accept to consult with the federal government and the particular band to find out exactly what's going on and to answer those kinds of questions. If that's what the question is, that is an answer.

B. Barisoff: I think, hon. minister, that the lands they would be looking to acquire would actually be Crown lands that belong to the province of B.C. So I think their concern is that if they are going to purchase Crown lands belonging to the province, what they really want to see is. . . . If, say, they decide to buy 100 acres east of Oliver and east of the reserve, what they're looking for is some kind of input on what's going to take place and what kind of effect this would have on probably their hunting and fishing, from the aspect of the Sportsmen's Association.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm struggling a little bit, and I want to make sure that I do have this correct. Is the question ultimately that if people purchase Crown land, because they have the resources to do so, ought there to be some rules to protect the neighbours of those properties in terms of what the land can be used for? If we did that, wouldn't we in effect be treating that property purchaser differently from ways we would treat others? Am I missing something? I don't ask that question to be aggressive; I just want to know.

B. Barisoff: I think that, in a way, what's happening is twofold. One is that if they purchase private fee simple lands, and if they automatically have the ability to put it into reserve lands, they take them out of the tax base for the area. The other side of the coin, which I'm sure is coming from the Sportsmen's Association, is that if they purchase Crown land, that automatically takes away the ability for hunting and fishing if they happen to buy an area that has a lake on it or they happen to buy in an area that would take away the opportunity for hunting rights from the other side of it.

[4:15]

B. Barisoff: A little bit, in the respect that if you or I were purchasing Crown land, we would be governed under whatever rules and regulations the Sportsmen's Association is. But if aboriginal people happen to buy 200 acres of Crown land, then they're not under the same. . . . Because they have the hunting and fishing rights, that land becomes reserve land. Automatically, then, there is a difference if somebody else purchases it. If you or I purchase it, we would be governed under the hunting regulations of the province of B.C. If it happens to be purchased, as in this case, by the Osoyoos Indian band and it is put back into reserve land, then they automatically have rights to hunting and fishing year-round.

Hon. D. Lovick: But again, then, the issue is very much a federal one, because the transfer of Crown or fee simple or whatever land to a federal reserve is done by the federal government. The rules governing reserve lands are exclusively the property of the federal government and the first nations. The rest of us -- provincial, Crown or other citizens -- don't have any control of that at the moment, in any event. I suggest that this is another argument for treaties, because in treaties -- as we've seen in the Nisga'a AIP -- there will be many, many possibilities for sharing and for multiple use of resources and so forth, which is different, as we know, from what obtains on reserve lands.

B. Barisoff: Not reading anything into the letter that the Sportsmen's Association is putting forward, the fact is that presently the land would belong to the B.C. government, and it is governed under the hunting rules and regulations that we put forward. I think their concern is that if the B.C. government is going to sell this land or transfer this land in any way, shape or form, whatever piece it might be. . . . If it happened

[ Page 9702 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: My apologies to the member. I think I now know what you're asking.

The provincial government, the member will be happy to know, has to give permission, if you like, for land to be transferred to reserve land. In other words, they would come to us and say: "Okay, here's a piece of what was Crown land, and it might become reserve land. Do you agree with that?" The position that the provincial government and the ministry are very clearly taking is that yes, we would obviously want to look at the thing and consider its impacts, and, as part of that process of review, we would guarantee to consult with those other parties affected by the possible transfer.

B. Barisoff: I think that's exactly what we finally got to, in the fact that. . . . I think what they're looking for is simply the guarantee that if their land is transferred, they would have consultation on what takes place and at least have their say. It might still happen, or whatever else, but at least they'd be able to say: "Listen, this is why we don't think it should happen" -- or "why we think it should happen," or whatever else. I thank the minister for the response that we finally got to. I'm sure it's partly my fault in going down through that question, because I know I went through it with the Hon. Jane Stewart, and we had a hard time trying to get that same kind of message out.

Following that, I guess the other side of it would be the implication of taxation -- the taxes if they bought fee simple land. Maybe the minister could comment on that. If fee simple land was bought and put back in the reserve, what kind of effect would it have on municipalities and regional districts in the area?

Hon. D. Lovick: If they are fee simple lands, then they remain fee simple lands, and our laws apply. If, however, they're fee simple lands that become reserve lands, then obviously the federal process obtains.

B. Barisoff: Sorry to belabour this, but what would happen, then, with the impact of the loss of taxation for the municipalities and the regional districts if that was allowed to take place? What kind of impact does that have?

Hon. D. Lovick: Precisely because there might be some negative impacts is why there would be that review process and that consultation required. That's why we would insist on having that process. The member is quite right to raise it. Yeah, it could have a significant impact, obviously, on the municipalities' ability to function. He's quite right to raise the point, and I hope my answer to the earlier question about the necessary consultation and the review before any transfer would occur is sufficient.

M. de Jong: The recess gave me a chance to collect myself after that unwarranted accusation that I was prone to over-dramatization. I've had an opportunity to collect myself and move forward now, and I'll leave that behind.

Just before we leave the whole issue of the treaty commissioner. . . . Coincidentally, I know that the minister had some other discussions with another estate on this point. I would like to ask the minister: what is the provincial timetable for presenting a recommendation for a permanent replacement of Mr. Robertson?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member is asking what the provincial timetable is -- right? Okay. Let me go through. . . just to make sure we understand what the dynamic is here. The commission can function indefinitely with an acting chief. At the moment, however, when nobody in the commission is prepared to serve in that role, the clock begins ticking, and it's a 60-day clock. The position we have taken -- to answer the member's specific question -- is that we are hopeful we will get the tripartite process back on track and everything working beautifully within the next month -- or perhaps two. I think we've written that somewhere, if my memory serves me, and obviously one of the first items of business would be to get a replacement chief commissioner.

M. de Jong: Is it the province's position that any attempt to fill the chief commissioner's vacancy should wait until an agreement of the sort that was almost obtained on May 7 is obtained? Am I understanding that correctly?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think that's a perfectly fair question. I don't have a definitive answer. My sense would be, though, that saying that it would wait until such time as we have an agreement comparable to the one is perhaps too rigorous. I think it would be an agreement on a protocol that we can all live with, saying, " Here's where we're going so we see progress as possible in the foreseeable future," rather than holding out, if you like, and saying: "Until we get our deal in terms of lands, resources, cash or something like that, we're not going to act on the chief commissioner re-appointment." We wouldn't want to do that; we wouldn't want to use the position in that way, because that would be more like blackmail, frankly, and we certainly don't want to be part of that.

M. de Jong: I think I understand that response. In the broadest possible way, though, is it the provincial government's position that depending on the model that is finally adopted, how the tripartite process is reshaped, if at all, and depending on how that plays out, that that might call for a person with a different set of skills? The question is: what is the logic behind waiting? If it is a question of finding someone whose skills are compatible with the new or changed roles of the commission and the commissioner, what are those skills? What is in the mind of the minister -- and the government -- as he looks ahead to that exercise and that appointment process?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm very reluctant to speculate in terms of a particular skill set. I think that obviously some negotiating ability, some considerable patience and some intellectual capacity to understand the complexity of the issues. . . . Probably some legal training would be almost mandatory. Ultimately, you know, who's to say? It depends so much, obviously, on the mood of the players at the table. If you're having wonderful, cordial relationships between your counterparts and the federal government, first nations and provincial government are all getting along famously well, then somebody whose style is to be convivial, friendly, open and all

[ Page 9703 ]

But remember that the three parties have to agree on the person, and I think part of the discussion will be: who are we looking for? What kind of person are we looking for? Together we will be looking for that magic set of skills that nobody's quite able to define off the top.

M. de Jong: I think I understand that, and I think all of us have to -- and I know the minister does -- understand that the commission is the keeper of the process. So we are not talking about -- in any way, shape or form -- someone who fulfils an adversarial role. It's quite the contrary; the nature of the beast is such that it is not an adversarial role.

This will be my second-to-last question on this. I'm still a bit unclear as to why we would wait in commencing that search process. Is the reshaping of the commission itself going to be so significant in terms of the type of person we're looking for? I'm not clear on why we would continue to wait.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the short answer to the question is that it may be so significant -- it may be. Then again, it may not be. I mean it is conceivable, you know, that we will go to the table three weeks from now and everything will work out wonderfully and the First Nations Summit and my federal counterparts will say, "Look, we think we have in fact come a long way in the last two months, and we've all decided that here is where we should go," and at the end of the meeting we will say: "Right. There's no point in waiting any longer. Why don't we put our minds to getting a new chief commissioner?"

But as I say, we're not wedded to any kind of timetable that says: "Yes, we're going to make sure we wait until all of these things happen before we're willing to talk about it." Indeed, I would venture to say -- though I certainly haven't given this instruction or suggestion to anybody -- that it's quite conceivable, on the basis of conversations I have on a weekly basis with people who are meeting with our counterparts, that we will say: "Yeah, things are looking good, so maybe it's time to start that process of looking for a new commissioner right away." I'm not closing that particular door.

M. de Jong: Is this exclusively the provincial position? Are the other parties clamouring to begin the search process? Or are they in agreement that there should be a period of reflection?

Hon. D. Lovick: To my knowledge, nobody is clamouring at the moment. I haven't heard that. I had a brief conversation a while ago with one of the commissioners, who was saying: "Can you give me some idea of how long you expect us to continue to be acting commissioner?" Quite legitimately, they would feel some extra pressure given that they are being asked to do extra duty, and more power to them. The feds and the First Nations Summit. . . . I'm sorry. I constantly use the phrase "the feds" and I don't mean it disrespectfully. It's just that growing up in classrooms talking political science or something, you get into those habits, so. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, that's the exact. . . . "The senior level of government" or "our federal counterparts," or whatever. . . . In any event, those guys in Ottawa and ourselves and First Nations Summit, in my recent conversations. . . . I've spoken with all of them in the last two weeks or so and nobody has yet put on the agenda the specific question of a replacement chief commissioner.

[4:30]

Hon. D. Lovick: My understanding is that it is the standard order-in-council appointment. The order-in-council appointment usually is a case of individual ministries and their staff working to make a presentation to cabinet in terms of, "These are the possible names," and there'll be some discussion. Sometimes a particular ministry may say, "These are our three choices," or "This is the one choice above and beyond," but I think the more common practice is to try and get as many people as possible who are directly affected and concerned involved in that process before it is finally decided by cabinet.

M. de Jong: What I'm getting at is: when a name does go forward, it will go forward to cabinet as this minister's recommendation. Is that a correct synopsis on my part?

Hon. D. Lovick: The loop closes. I finally see where we have been going. I hate to disappoint the member, but I'm not sure I would be making a recommendation. To be quite candid about it. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, no, no. That's a witty observation my colleague makes. He said: "Disappointed once. . . ." and gave a Pierre Trudeau shrug. It was quite charming.

I'll say why. Contrary to the mythology that tends to dominate in this place, I have considerable humility in certain areas. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, notice that I said "in certain areas" -- but I won't elaborate. My point is that when you deal with an area like aboriginal land claims and the difficulties and complexities of something like Delgamuukw and the complexities of negotiation, frankly, I am almost in awe of some of the credentials I see out there. I have met some people in the last year -- more appropriately, I guess, in the last three or four months -- who have just remarkable credentials and abilities. I would probably feel much more comfortable sitting around with a group of people with wonderful credentials, like Philip Steenkamp, for example, or Jack Ebbels or Trevor Proverbs and folks at various universities and first nations people, and say: "Give me your sense. Here's a list of names. What do you people think?" I would probably be much more inclined to defer to some others than to say: "Right, give me the list of three people, and I will decide, because l'état, c'est moi" -- or something like that.

[ Page 9704 ]

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The minister says it's been fun, but if he keeps providing such glowing endorsations of his staff, he'll be dealing with contract renegotiations very quickly, at least in the case of Mr. Steenkamp.

On the day this issue was brought up in response to one of the questions on May 21, the minister made a comment. I think it is worthy of a little bit of exploration. In providing his explanation for the circumstances around which Mr. Robertson left his post, he described the negotiations around the fast-track proposals and what not. He said -- and I am quoting from Hansard on May 21: "If we were to carry on with the approach that has been taken thus far and taken historically, we would probably, at a conservative estimate, still be negotiating a hundred years from now. Also, we would bankrupt the province in the process." That observation, quite frankly, is one that many of us have heard a great deal -- particularly those of us who travelled around the province on the select standing committee. What struck me is that the minister chose that point in time to say it.

I guess, in a general way, the question would be: how did the minister come to a conclusion which a great many people have harboured for a great many months, if not years? It was not something that his predecessor was inclined to acknowledge, yet there it is, in a very public forum -- the most public forum. I'll let the minister sink his teeth into that for a moment.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to thank the member very much for that question. I have been hoping for that question, indeed. The answer, I hope, will be brief. I think what the member is really asking me, though, is: what was I feeling when I said that? How did I feel that day or something -- right? A little hyperbolic is, I think, a fair description of the statement.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, not normally. I'm usually quite careful; I'm very careful indeed about what I say. I don't too often use words where I then think that, geez, I wish I could explain that in greater detail. I usually feel pretty good that my words speak for themselves.

I want to note, in my own defence, that when I said. . . . Notice that I added the caveat "historically" -- "the pace we've been going at historically," and "when we look at it historically." That's back to the point that I began with -- namely, this province has, remember, accomplished more in the last six years than in all of British Columbia history. We were in denial for most of our history. I was thinking in that context and also thinking in terms of one of my own vulnerabilities as a person responsible for this portfolio -- namely, that I am not a patient person. I'm not a process person; I'm somebody who likes to get things going and happening. I've had to learn a great deal of patience. How well, I don't know.

My point, though, and the reason I welcome the question. . . . What I want to clarify above all is that when I say that we would bankrupt the province, I'm not talking about only the provincial Crown. I am talking about all of us; I am talking about first nations people. One of the mythologies that everybody believes is that first nations people are having a gay old time sitting at the table, and everything is fun. It's not. They are depleting, at an alarming rate, the capital that might accrue to them at the end of a successful treaty negotiation. And they're scared, because it's costing them a fortune to be at the table and negotiate. There's one factor.

The other is the so-called third party. I don't think anybody in this room has any illusions that we are seeing some forgone opportunities as a result of the perceived absence of certainty -- no question of that.

The member for Okanagan-Boundary made the point just a moment ago in terms of his own particular area. They're concerned about that -- legitimately concerned. The longer we dither, the longer we delay, the longer we're unable to put in place measures like treaties -- ideally treaties, but certainly some kind of interim measures that are meaningful and worthwhile until we have treaties -- the more costly it is. It's also costly in human terms, in my view, for all of us who perhaps aren't directly affected economically. I think it's costing us, as well, because there is something like a collective psyche in this province, and most of us have come to the conclusion -- I certainly have -- that this is unfinished business and that we are lesser people until we finish that business, or at least until we commit to finishing that business.

My reading, not just in the last few months but over the last 25 years, I guess, in terms of my academic career and all of that. . . . Everything I've ever read about first nations and the treatment afforded and accorded first nations people leads me to two things. One is frustration, because I don't know the answer; I don't think there are easy answers. The second is something, frankly, like shame. We have a great deal to answer for. The notion, then, of carrying on as we are and saying, "We'll be there forever, and we won't have any more treaties for at least ten years," because we're going to all sit down at the table and begin by saying, "Let's put aboriginal title at the head of the agenda, and then we'll see you in court five years later. . . ." I am horrified by that prospect, and I don't think we can afford it. I don't in all honesty believe that we the people can afford it. I think we must do something about it.

That, then, is what stands behind my admittedly, perhaps, hyperbolic comment. I would also just note the fact that question period is a terrible context, it seems to me, for anybody to make any kind of statement which ought to be considered to be a reasoned, carefully considered position. Question period, by definition, is a pressure cooker. It's also show biz, and it's also theatre, as my colleague across the way and I know very well, because we're both pretty good at it, frankly.

M. de Jong: Well, ask a general question and get a general reply; that's fine.

The minister, as a member of the government caucus and as a former Speaker of the House before being minister, thought about these issues. I guess I'm just curious about what prompted him. . . . I want to be fair to him; he's talked about the context within which he made the comments. But people think that; people believe that. They look at an exercise that seems to go on perpetually and that has created a legal industry that is profiting, thank you very much, from the whole exercise.

Even when we meet in the Nass Valley. . . . A member of the Nisga'a nation will say to me: "I'm a treaty negotiator like my great-grandfather before me." They see that. They see amounts of money involved -- hundreds of millions of dol

[ Page 9705 ]

The opposition at times says to the minister in the debate between cash and land -- and we'll get to this, I hope, at some point later -- that we should side more predominantly with cash, but that's a lot of cash; there's a lot of money involved. I can't help but make the observation that perhaps. . . . I recognize the presence of the word "historically," but what the minister was acknowledging was a realization that if the tripartite negotiating framework we have set up and have been relying upon for the last five or six years is allowed to run its course -- or if it continues to run its course, this will be the result. We won't be making the progress. Presumably, that is what gave rise to the negotiations that culminated at the May 7 meeting and the ravelling and unravelling and those ongoing discussions.

[4:45]

Hon. D. Lovick: First, if I might, let me clarify a point. What I referred to was not the problem with the tripartite process but rather what we are doing in the name of the B.C. treaty process -- in other words, all those tables around the province going through the six-stage process and all of that. That was my reference. My frustration is that left to its own devices, that will do all of these awful things -- in other words, it will keep us here forever and cost us more than we frankly believe we can afford. The reason I want to emphasize that is because the tripartite process we have referred to -- namely, the principals meeting -- was designed entirely for the purpose of solving that problem. That's perhaps one of the reasons I feel so strongly about the tripartite process.

The job there was to say, because all of us recognized it. . . . All three of us -- the federal government, the provincial government and first nations -- recognized that we can't go on like this. I'm sure the member -- because you served on the select standing committee and travelled the province -- has heard some of those horrible, sad stories. As you say, the Nisga'a one: "Yeah, well, I'm the negotiator, like my great-grandfather before me" -- that kind of thing. Joe Gosnell had that wonderfully moving statement once: "I have given my youth to this process." He's right, and it's a horrible price to pay. All of us probably ought to say: "Enough already. Let's get on with it." That's my starting point.

So the tripartite process, then, was designed with a view to saying: "Let's find a way to accelerate and streamline. Let's find a way so that we don't consign generations of people to negotiating for ever and ever and ever. Rather, let's try and get some closure, as it were, on all of this." All right, if you're going to do that, and you start talking about doing it in a shorter time frame rather than a long one -- when you could say: "Well, 15 generations from now they'll still be paying for it, so don't worry about the cost" -- the quid pro quo, if I may, in terms of saying you want to accelerate it is that you have to grapple with those cost dimensions. The answer is tough, really tough.

I can say two things. One is that the early study -- and I think the member is probably familiar with it -- the Peat Marwick one, effectively said: "It'll cost you big dollars, but you'll get $3 for every dollar in the end." It's a formula we've all heard quoted a thousand times: it's a 3-to-1 ratio. I suspect that calculus is probably pretty close. It doesn't solve the problem of getting money upfront.

Part of the tripartite process we've been referring to is also very much focused on the cash question. One of the reasons -- I tell this a little bit anecdotally, but I think it's worth telling -- that we've been having some difficulty laterally with our federal counterparts is that the penny, if I may put it that way, just recently dropped that Delgamuukw doesn't just mean B.C. It means the whole country. The federal government, I think, has suddenly said: "Wait a minute. We have unfinished business across this country, because the old so-called treaties ain't going to cut it. They aren't going to work. They didn't give the finality, the certainty, that people thought they would have." So Delgamuukw has opened that door. We are all struggling with it and saying: how do you do it?

I'm hoping that we can be more concrete and more specific in a relatively short time. I feel, however, a certain obligation, because I want the process to succeed. I don't want to pick a figure that seems like a good one today and that scares the whatever out of everybody so we'll never have a treaty. I think we have to commit to the fact that it is going to be expensive but that the cost of not doing it would be hugely more. Also, we have no choice, it seems to me, but to do treaties. That's what the law of the land effectively has told us.

I'm sorry, member, that I can't give you a nice, direct, specific answer. I don't think you expected one anyway. But I think we're closing in closer and closer to actually giving more finite, specific and concrete dollar figures to what it is we're doing.

M. de Jong: I think what people do have an expectation of, though, as we look ahead and rely -- as the minister and the government do -- on studies like the Peat Marwick one, which makes a submission about the costs and benefits of signing these treaties, is that at least a similar amount of energy would be directed at speculating about the cost over the next two or three decades, and that those types of studies would take place.

During these estimates we're not going to talk about the federal royal commission, but they had no hesitation attaching a huge price tag to what they. . . . In fact, it was such a huge price tag that they rendered their own document irrelevant, in the minds of many Canadians. I say that with no disrespect to the people who devoted a great deal of time and energy to putting that document together. But few people got past the price tag, and that's unfortunate.

Nonetheless, I think there is an expectation that at this stage of the game the provincial government, deep within the recesses of the ministerial bureaucracy -- recognizing that it is not a large one that this minister commands -- has begun that kind of analysis. I would like the minister to offer, on the record, some assurance that if that analysis isn't available yet, to the extent that it is being prepared, when it might be.

[ Page 9706 ]

So I think the member will agree with me that one has to. . . . On the one hand, you want to be as fair and frank and candid as you possibly can with the people who are going to pay for all of this -- first nations as well as the rest of us, and remember that we all pay for it -- but on the other hand you want to not do something that will have the effect, ironically, of destroying the process and making it not work.

Frankly, I have to say that I accept the member's insight vis-à-vis RCAP; I think you're probably right. I think that because of the magnitude of the royal commission, everybody just said: "I don't want to talk about that" -- because how do you deal with that? I think there is perhaps an object lesson in that for all of us.

M. de Jong: Maybe, then, the minister could respond to this submission that if there is a danger in speculating about final costs. . . . It's interesting, we were speaking about Mr. Penikett earlier, and I am. . . . For some time now it has been a source of frustration for me that in territories for which they still maintain some responsibility, it seems that the federal government appears to have adopted a rather different approach to some of these negotiations than they have been prepared to adopt in British Columbia, particularly with respect to the land base and resource management. For example, the minister is aware of the fact that in the Yukon, the starting point was an understanding of the total land base available and negotiations thereafter related to the allocation of that land amongst the various aboriginal participants. That is not something that the federal government has been as doctrinaire about with respect to British Columbia. I know that some time ago the minister's predecessor talked about a percentage of the land base beyond which he didn't think. . . . And he got into some trouble for that, although I think unfairly in some instances.

Maybe the minister could respond to this submission: perhaps we should be thinking about this more in terms of establishing a formula as it relates to the numbers of aboriginal peoples in the province, recognizing that the land-cash mix -- whether it is an NDP government or a B.C. Liberal government or any other party -- in these settlements is going to vary depending upon where you are in the province. The challenge relates to establishing that notion of equity across the board so that the several thousand Nisga'a that call the Nass Valley home feel they have a deal that equates roughly with what members of the Musqueam nation in Vancouver have. When we start to talk in terms of adopting a formula as it relates to individual first nations people, first of all the sums at least on their face appear more manageable -- although at the end of the day I suppose when you add up all the numbers, it comes down to the same thing -- but it provides some reference point from which to move forward in these negotiations and at the same time recognizes the reality that if you are a member of the Squamish nation, you're not going to have 1,900 square kilometres of land as an aboriginal group elsewhere in the province has.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't disagree with what the member says. I would just make two points. Number one, I think de facto that is what we have in place. Everybody knows that if you took a Nisga'a final settlement -- or even using the AIP -- and you costed out how much money that is in terms of the land base, you could very readily duplicate that with 1/250 of the Musqueam territory with -- and that's probably too conservative an estimate. I think everybody knows that, just as they also know that government is grappling with those kinds of things. Ultimately, I think the issue is about strategy and tactics. It's part of what you do. When you're negotiating, you don't go in and say: "Right, here's the formula we're going to use for you, because you're in the Fraser Valley; and here's the formula we're using somewhere else." You may want to at some point, because you find that it will be helpful to you in your negotiation, but intuitively, I guess, I'm a little afraid of talking about: "Let's broadcast the formula."

The member made reference to the fact that my predecessor. . . . Actually, I'm not sure whether he did it of his own volition or felt pressured to do in terms of: how much are we talking? What I do -- and the line I've used with first nations as well as others on this question before -- is simply go back to the principles-for-negotiation document. The last point on that page, you recall -- and I'm sure the member knows it as well as I -- says simply that when the treaty process is complete, the total area of land held by first nations will be proportional to their population. Anybody can do that arithmetic readily. We know that in certain areas, land will be a much bigger part of a settlement than it will in certain others. So that's the guiding principle, as it happens. I don't know whether one wants, frankly, to endeavour to be too much more either formulaic or specific than that.

M. de Jong: Well, that is the dilemma, of course, that is facing the minister and his government as they embark upon these negotiations: the need on the one hand, I'm sure, to maintain maximum flexibility with respect to the negotiations they're undertaking and, on the other hand, to alleviate the fears, concerns or reservations of the population they are representing at the negotiating table, who see these numbers -- these thousands of square kilometres of land and millions upon millions of dollars -- and ask the question: "My God, how are we going to do this without bankrupting the province?"

[5:00]

What I'd like to do now, hon. Chair, is present to the minister. . . . There aren't a lot of them, but earlier this year -- in January, I think it was -- the Marktrend research company conducted a poll. Polls are always suspect. But in the context of the timing in which we are having this discussion, on the eve, presumably, of the Nisga'a treaty, maybe I can present this data -- and it's not a ton of stuff, but it's five or six areas -- or this material to the minister for his response.

I'll do it in this way. The questioner or researcher in this case said to the person being questioned: "I would like to ask you some questions about aboriginal treaties and the proposed Nisga'a settlement, which will likely be the first of many treaties in B.C. With respect to the proposed Nisga'a

[ Page 9707 ]

Of the 500 respondents, 3 percent said they were very informed, 37 percent said they were somewhat informed, 33 percent said they were not that informed and 26 percent said they were not informed at all. Much of the discussion around this is related to that notion of consultation and informed public opinion. That is, in fairness, probably a better result -- from the point of view of people who suggest that the public has achieved some greater understanding of this -- than you would have got four years ago. It's still troubling, in my view, that the majority of people would say they are either not at all informed or not that well informed about a document and a process that involve hundreds of millions of dollars and that have the precedential value we have discussed, about which I won't go on at length. I think it is worthy of a response from the minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure if the member is asking me whether I want to offer an opinion about the apparent ignorance out there. I'm dismayed by it. I think it makes the case. . . .

Well, I'm not surprised by it, however. I mean, the world we live in, in terms of. . . . You know, people stretch to the maximum as they perceive it in terms of careers, children, families and all of that, and any kind of overarching social consciousness or commitment to citizenship à la John Ralston Saul is sort of a secondary concern. That's been a phenomenon developing in this country for at least 20 years. I think a number of us are struggling with it in various ways.

I think, though, that those figures. . . . First of all, I commend the people for their honesty. I would probably be more alarmed if large numbers of people said, "Oh yeah, I feel really well informed," because those are ones I'm really scared of normally. My experience is that those who claim to be well-informed are frequently not. I make no effort to point at anybody, myself included. However, I think the figures that the member reads into the record are perhaps the primary reason and justification for the budget we talked about in terms of an information campaign to make sure that everybody does indeed know what the Nisga'a deal is when that finally happens.

I think, by the way, that governments have an obligation to do their level best to educate and to inform, not in a propagandistic way but rather just. . . . That's part of our job. One of my great delights when I was Speaker, for example, was to try to use the 100th anniversary celebration as an opportunity to make it an educational event. I think it worked; I think it helped. I would dearly hope that all of us in our responsibilities as MLAs probably take that responsibility seriously and go and talk to school children and so forth about: "Here's what my job is as an MLA and here's why it matters." So there's the short answer.

M. de Jong: The commissioners of this poll. . . . On the next go-round, I'll try to alert the minister to the name of the agency that commissioned the poll, because, in fairness, I think he should have that. In any event, they asked this question of 500 British Columbians -- and this gets to the question of ratification and we may come back to this. I've got the document here now, so let's deal with it: "Some people have suggested that there should be a one-time provincewide referendum on either the precedent-setting Nisga'a deal or the province's negotiating position on all aboriginal treaties before any treaties are introduced for a vote in the B.C. Legislature. Would you approve or disapprove of this approach?"

Let me ask the minister. . . . I know what his position and his government's position is on the question of referenda, and that strikes me as a fair question to ask. It's not a trick question. It asks people whether they think there should be a referendum or not, without, in my view, sort of suggesting what the reply should be. Does the minister. . . . Well, I don't want to be cute with him; I'll tell him what the results were: 68 percent approved of that approach and 25 percent disapproved. It suggests, obviously, a feeling that there is a greater role for the populace, for the citizenry, to play in the ratification process. It strikes me as a fair question; the minister may disagree with the results, but the question itself is eminently fair. The minister and his government's position run contrary to the results of this, and he, I know, will want to defend that position in the face of fairly overwhelming numbers in one poll.

Hon. D. Lovick: I won't give the elaborate defence, unless I'm pressed to do so. But, yes, I will, and would. . . . I would just remind the member that I know the poll to which he refers. It was done by Marktrend, commissioned by the Citizens' Voice on Native Claims. He is quite correct; that particular question I think, is absolutely fair. I know just enough about polling and statistical analysis, however, to know that if the five questions preceding it all have a particular flavour, then the sixth question -- the fair one -- may well have already been effectively set up, to a degree. That's a. . . . I'm not saying that, but it's certainly possible. I know that just from my own experience and knowledge of the field. I will also just point out that there have been a number of other polls that have been commissioned that certainly suggest quite different results.

To the member's particular question: am I mindful of that? Am I concerned about that? Yes. I'm well aware that the government's position, at least as far as the people who responded to that particular poll are concerned, is clearly out of sync. That's a fact, and there's no sense in pretending otherwise.

M. de Jong: I wasn't going to ask this, but something the minister said prompts me to. If on this issue there is other empirical evidence that says British Columbians are opposed to the notion of participating via plebiscite or referendum in the treaty negotiation process, if the minister has that information available, I'd happily examine it. Does he have that information?

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The minister indicated that he had seen other polling results that indicate a different opinion on the part of British Columbians with respect to the issue of a referendum. I have not seen those polling results, and if he can reference them, I'd be most obliged.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry. Let me clarify. No, I wasn't referring specifically to a referendum, but rather, to the larger question of aboriginal issues and whether we should or shouldn't have treaties, etc. There are a number of different polls like that with which the member is perhaps familiar; but on the specific referendum question, no, I don't know of any others.

M. de Jong: We've done this in the past, and I'm not going to belabour it, but as we perhaps get closer to the

[ Page 9708 ]

Nonetheless, I try to put myself in the position of negotiators who sit at the table, confronted by their aboriginal negotiating partners who make demands, who want the best possible deal for their communities, and who say to the provincial government representatives and to the federal government: "You can do this. Agree to these terms. You have that mandate." Sadly, in many cases those negotiators are ill-equipped to deny that because in many cases they have a very ill-defined mandate, or a mandate that has changed over time. If you are representing a group of people -- the clients, if you will -- I would submit that the ability to say to your negotiating counterparts: "That's a hell of a good offer and it might even make sense to me, but I don't have a mandate to agree to that. That is inconsistent with the principles that I was charged with as a negotiator for the province of British Columbia, as ratified in advance by the population. . . ." Now, when you begin to think in those terms, it seems to me that you are talking about a referendum that is much more general, by necessity, because you are talking about asking people to express their opinion on broader negotiating principles.

For the life of me, as we have examined that from the opposition side, I have been puzzled, yet again, by the absolute refusal of the government to even consider that. It puzzles me from this perspective: I think it can be utilized in a way that will enhance the negotiating position of the provincial negotiators and provide them with additional strength at the negotiating table. I'll stop there. I may have an additional submission to make to the minister, but if it is presented to him in that light, I wonder whether the opposition to it changes at all.

[5:15]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Was that too oblique? I'm sorry.

I want to make one point very clear, however, because I think the member slipped something into that preamble, as it were. Our negotiators go to the table, whether Nisga'a or somewhere else, and they do have a mandate. It's not as defined as we would like in terms of all those other tables, because we're getting to the point in the AIP where you get down to the substantive stuff. We haven't been able to get land, resources and cash on the table, therefore we have that difficult negotiating proposition. In that sense, yeah, I have some sympathy for the proposition. Wouldn't it be nice if we could give a clearer set of guidelines, etc.

But let me remind the member -- and he knows this, because he was on the select standing committee with regard to the Nisga'a AIP -- that we had a very definite mandate that we took to that table. One good illustration of it -- it's now very much a public record -- was the taxation stuff. The thing almost blew apart on the basis of taxation -- the end to that tax exemption status. That was the stumbling block, as I recall, in getting to the final AIP with the Nisga'a. But the negotiators went with that and were told: "Look, we have been told that this is our position, and there's no point pretending that we can come off it; we won't. We have, in fact, a mandate."

In other words, I guess my point, to be more clear, is that I don't think you have to get your position from a referendum. I think you can go to the table with a strong position without necessarily having a referendum. I recognize that in the abstract, certainly, that's a convenient thing, because then you can simply say, "Well, the people will never accept this, and here's the evidence. We've got a poll that shows. . . " etc., etc. You can do it by polling, by the way, just as easily as with a referendum, if you want to know. I'll slip that in.

M. de Jong: It's not just convenient -- to pick up on the minister's word; I think it's more than just convenient. I think the taxation example is a good one. Surely, though, there is something to be said. . . . That was a governmental mandate, a good one. There is a feature of the Nisga'a AIP that I think is good. It is moving philosophically in the right direction, and negotiations can take place around the notion of whether the transition period should be two years, seven years or five years. But directionally, thematically. . . . The minister said it was purposeful; that was the mandate. Surely, though, you enhance the strength of that mandate and therefore the strength of your negotiators by being able to have them point, during negotiations, to the fact that that is a public mandate -- a mandate that they have been handed by the people they represent and who are going to pay for the deal. If you can conceptualize this outside of specific negotiations -- I've already said to the minister that I think that is unfair -- then it seems to me to be a much less threatening exercise.

Having said that, let me present to the minister an argument that I have heard that does resonate somewhat with me. It comes from aboriginal groups who, by and large, are dead set against this notion of a referendum. When you discuss the issue with them in the way that I'm trying to present it to the minister, if you're lucky you can draw a quizzical look and perhaps an expression of interest in further information. I wouldn't presume to have swayed anyone on the aboriginal side to the wisdom of the official opposition's position, necessarily, but one of the responses that you get is: "How come just aboriginal issues?" I hear that: "How come on this issue you guys want to get a mandate directly from the people?"

Maybe there's a broader issue at work here. Maybe the thing that aboriginal peoples find so offensive is that it's on this one that a political party -- or a part of the provincial political establishment -- feels compelled to go to the people for a more specifically defined mandate.

I understand that, but it seems to me that that's a different argument than the notion that I have heard from colleagues of the minister: that this is just bad, bad, bad. I can differentiate between those two positions. The idea of "Why are you picking on aboriginal people when it comes to suddenly seeing the wisdom of a referendum?" is a different argument than saying: "There is no place for going to the people to secure a more publicly embraced mandate."

In the former case, the impression left with aboriginals is a legitimate problem for those who would advocate the use of

[ Page 9709 ]

So there it is; there's the data. The minister began by saying: "I will address the issue at the appropriate time." I'm not sure that there is a more appropriate time than when the Nisga'a AIP comes. I've already said that I don't think that's the appropriate time; I think that would be unfair. We are going to deal with that -- I'm obliged to the minister for stating right at the outset of these debates -- clause by clause in the Legislature with a free vote. In light of how those negotiations came about and unfolded, I think that's good. But this might be the best time we have for the minister to make his case against the submission I have just made for greater involvement by the people via plebiscite or referendum, in the context I have used it.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am normally one who is eager and enthusiastic to leap into discussions about abstractions, concepts, hypotheticals and all of that. But I'm not sure that this is the appropriate forum to say what I do think, how I feel, how I react to the member's suggestion of a referendum in certain circumstances, as long as they are not perceived to be only directed to the circumstances of first nations people -- because then they will be considered to be discriminatory. What I would need to respond to that, I suppose, would be a rather lengthy disposition from the member on the theory, practice and philosophy of referendum and why he perceives that as a superior system to parliamentary democracy. I happen to be wedded to the parliamentary democracy model. I believe in a representational model of democracy, of delegated responsibility in government. Indeed, I'd refer the member to a statement I made in the House some years ago, talking about Edmund Burke and all of that, if he wants to hear my full-blown articulation of that particular point of view.

A Voice: Do I look like a Bristol voter to you?

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, this is it; I'm wondering -- the electors of Bristol were thrilled at the time, you recall.

I want to say how much I appreciate the point the member made that trying at this stage of the game to impose a referendum on the Nisga'a settlement would be inappropriate. I think he's absolutely right, and I commend him for that. It wasn't clear to me until this moment that that was a position coming -- I hope -- from the official opposition.

Just very, very briefly, I don't feel that ministry estimates are the time to have a discussion in the abstract about referenda as a means of governance, of public policy-making.

A Voice: Mandates -- treaty mandates.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, okay. . . .

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: If treaty mandates is the context for the question, then let me start by simply saying what the member said. If you're going to do that, and you're going to say that referenda are required for treaty mandates, then you had better find a way to defend yourself against the proposition that first nations people will present to you -- namely, "Why do you single us out for this when you don't conduct the rest of your affairs in government by referenda?" I think that's a powerful argument. I think it's a very compelling argument. I sure as hell -- to be blunt again. . . . I certainly could not say to first nations people: "Well, yes, there is some good, compelling evidence why you and you alone. . . ." So that, to me, is probably sufficient unto itself to say that I don't think we should do it for treaty mandates. If we want to talk about a referendum policy that governs a whole bunch of public policy determinations, maybe we could.

M. de Jong: All right. I don't want to impose on the minister a position on this that he doesn't want imposed on him, but if the argument. . . . I tried to differentiate. If the argument is that it doesn't make sense in this case because we don't do it elsewhere, that's an argument. But that is an argument that one can overcome. That's different from the minister saying, "Under no circumstance do I see a role for consulting directly with people on establishing a treaty negotiating mandate," which is the position that many of his colleagues have taken. I think I want to move on, but I will give the minister an opportunity to respond to that. Those are two different approaches to this question. I have acknowledged the strength of the argument that you can't single out an area of public policy, that perhaps it is unfair to do that, but that is again a different thing than saying there is something inherently wrong with consulting people in establishing a governmental mandate. I draw a distinction.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to clarify that if the member is talking about an obligation on the part of government to go and talk to the people in terms of developing its mandate, to consult in crafting its mandate, I accept that entirely. That's what we have done. I would submit that that's one of the functions of the RACs, TACs and TNACs and others. That's how we develop, if you will, what will in fact become the final forms of treaties, by having that kind of process.

I would also submit that we had a pretty elaborate consultation in 1991, which went on for about a year and a half, leading up to an election. It was a document called "Towards a Just and Honourable Settlement," which the political party that I was associated with at that time used as a very major part of its claim to the people in saying why we thought we should be elected -- and received a mandate, accordingly -- in the same way that I think the Nisga'a AIP last time around effectively became part of what the governing party was running on at that time. So I accept entirely the proposition that establishing a mandate and consulting with the people is necessary and desirable, but I guess I was making the assumption -- and if I err in that, I apologize -- that that automatically meant a referendum, because that's where I'm drawing the line. Consultation, establishing a mandate -- you bet. Absolutely. But the referendum? I don't think the referendum is the best choice to do that, the best mechanism to do so.

M. de Jong: I won't belabour it. I guess I view the employment of referenda as a more formalized form of consultation, and therein may be the departure. However, the minister will know that that is an approach to this issue that I guess will distinguish us and will provide people with a choice when they inevitably have that major referendum that they have every four or five years, and so be it. That is, I suppose, as it should be.

[5:30]

[ Page 9710 ]

We can begin that discussion now about finality language. I understand the constraints, which the minister is about to remind me, of regarding negotiations that might be taking place at the Nisga'a tables. But it involved something that I alluded to earlier insofar as the willingness of the federal government to. . . . Right from the outset I thought it was curious that the federal government signalled a real willingness to demonstrate a flexibility on this issue that, quite frankly, I think Mr. Penikettt would tell the minister they weren't prepared to demonstrate in the Yukon. That was the language that was used.

Though we have canvassed this in the past in terms of discussing the finality language, and though it was the subject of the discussions the minister had at the tripartite table -- I know that those discussions were separate from what was happening at the Nisga'a table -- I think it is worth exploring where the minister as the provincial representative in these discussions intends to take this matter in the year to come, which we are dealing with insofar as his budget is concerned. Yes, the tripartite discussions and the Nisga'a are separate. But the minister knows better than I that he is going to have to reconcile those two positions, and I presume that there is a degree of coordination taking place now to ensure that this reconciliation is in place. But where are we today? The minister received a letter from the Leader of the Official Opposition indicating our position on the direction he was headed in prior to May 7. What progress have we made in settling this all-important question?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member will know, Madam Chair, that cede, release and surrender -- and remember that's a package. . . . This is the problem with the referendum question, I think. I don't think most respondents to the question understand that cede, release and surrender is a legal triumvirate. It's not cede and release and surrender; it's the package of the three. And, of course, lawyers and constitutional experts respond to that differently from mere mortals like us. But the member will know that our position in the two documents he has seen, the Nisga'a material as well as our Delgamuukw proposal for acceleration, is that we have said that it isn't on. I don't think there's any doubt we will deviate from that. We have said that that particular phraseology and that concept simply won't work, not because of what it's designed to achieve or not to achieve but largely because of the symbolism of it, to be quite blunt. It isn't acceptable; the federal government has distanced itself from it. First nations have made their bottom line very clear indeed: that they will not tolerate it; it's unacceptable. We think, quite frankly, that if you start with that proposition, you've effectively said: "We don't care about having negotiations; we don't care about negotiating treaties." It is truly the starting point for first nations communities, but it isn't on -- they won't allow that.

We also have to point out that even when they tried to use cede, release and surrender in certain circumstances, it didn't work. If they thought they had certainty, it didn't work. Nova Scotia comes to mind, where they thought they had that language, and it didn't matter. On the Yukon example, I don't have great knowledge of it, but my understanding is that they did what has been referred to as a modified cede, release and surrender. I think they hired a retired Supreme Court judge from Manitoba or something, who came up with the concept. I think it's unique to the territories. I've never had any detailed briefing on that, but it's apparently different.

As to the member's particular question, nothing has changed in our position beyond what was already on the table on the date that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to us commenting on our proposed model for achieving certainty, which, he said, appears to offer considerable promise. He was quite right to say: "Well, obviously our support for that will depend upon the legal wording actually used."

We are committed to achieving certainty; we need certainty language. That's the issue, obviously. We're as committed to that as anybody else is, but we recognize that using cede, release and surrender simply won't work to achieve that end. Why go through the motions of pretending that one can still trot out that age-old formula if it won't work?

To answer the specific question, as I said, we haven't altered the position that was enunciated around May 12.

M. de Jong: I just want to be clear. The minister referred to a couple of issues. My sense of why it won't work or why the provincial and federal governments are prepared to state that it won't work largely hinges on the fact that it is unacceptable to aboriginal peoples. For example, there are bands along the B.C.-Yukon border in the Teslin area that have been part and parcel of the Yukon settlements, where a modified version of that language is used. If we were negotiating with them, and they were prepared to agree to the use of that language, the province would say okay. The province would be content with language to that effect. So it is not so much that there is difficulty with the mechanics and legal implications of the language; it won't work because the provincial and federal governments accept that it is a non-starter. I think that's important to clarify, because the language itself does, by and large, work.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member's conclusion is fair.

M. de Jong: Is it also fair for me to proceed on this basis: that the first opportunity we are going to get to see what language satisfies the provincial and federal governments -- and I'm more interested in the provincial government in this sense -- will be perhaps in several weeks when it appears in the documents that are to be initialled in the Nass Valley? I understand those signings are going to take place in the Nass Valley. Should I gear myself towards looking to that document as the embodiment of the legal position that the province is adopting?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, the member should gear himself to that, but he should also take comfort in the fact that he will probably get some other information before that. I think he is connected with TNAC. Yesterday TNAC looked at the most recent version of what we think is acceptable certainty language. I'm sure that that information will be made available to him before long. So he'll have some comfort along the way before he must gear and gird himself.

M. de Jong: Thanks, that's helpful.

When we talk to first nations, they go to great pains to point out that they will not feel in any way bound by what

[ Page 9711 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the question. It's one that should be asked. My view, frankly, is that though it is absolutely correct that we must not pretend that Nisga'a will be the template or the model, as some have called it, for everything that will follow, that will not be acceptable to first nations. They will say: "Wait a minute. We're different." As the member pointed out earlier, some will be urban ridings as opposed to remote ones.

While that is absolutely true, it is just as true, however, that we will accomplish certain things in Nisga'a, we hope, that will in fact have real significance for others. I would be willing to say that whatever the certainty language we ultimately get in Nisga'a, it will, it seems to me, be almost of necessity the language that we will use for every other treaty.

M. de Jong: I think that's very helpful. I won't expect the minister to answer this in detail now, but I think what has been partially missing from this whole equation from the governmental point of view is the willingness to stand up and say with certainty. . . . Just as I understand first nations negotiators saying, "This is the floor, and we won't be bound," I think it is equally legitimate for government to say: "Look, understand that that's our position on issue A, B, C or D." The minister has pretty much said that with respect to the certainty language now.

Hopefully, it's language that we as the opposition are comfortable with, can live with and are satisfied with, and then we can move on. We can battle on the other issues, and we will know that the provincial government is moving forward with a position on certainty that, to the best of our collective knowledge, protects the provincial interests and the interests of people in B.C. So that's good, and I think we need more of that, quite frankly. I think that's been a feature that's been missing from the discussion thus far.

We'll also speak later about some of the developments that have taken place with respect to self-government. This survey addressed that issue and put this proposition to people: "That before any model for aboriginal government is entrenched in the constitution as a treaty right, it should be subject to a ten-year trial period to see how it works and to Ïallow for adjustments by legislation. Do you approve or disapprove?" Again, I am prepared to say to the minister that a question of that sort on a matter that is relatively technical might invite a certain response, but in this case, it's pretty overwhelming. Seventy percent approved of that proposition versus 23 percent who disapproved and only 7 percent who didn't know.

[5:45]

But this is an experiment. This model of self-government we are going to see shortly in a final Nisga'a treaty is going to have an element of constitutionality about it. Maybe it can be worked out in the Nass Valley. But when you start to apply this model at 51 different tables with subtle and not so subtle differences, the minister must surely agree that the potential for litigation and confusion that will arise is absolutely tremendous. You can't possibly anticipate the ramifications of the jurisdictional issues that we are dealing with -- resource management, development issues. . . . To place this within the binder of a treaty, which they purposely didn't do in the Yukon. . . . I should say, in fairness, that we have talked about this in the past in these estimates debates prior to the minister's arrival in his post, but I've not heard a response to the query about why it is good enough for British Columbia if it wasn't good enough elsewhere. If there is a feature to this that is going to come back and haunt all British Columbians, it is this. The largest glasses will be raised, I think, down at the Old Bailey Pub the day the Nisga'a treaty is tabled, because it will only be a matter of time before the litigation begins.

The Chair: Noting the hour, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: Is that a subtle way of saying perhaps I should move the motion, Madam Chair, and then come back to this after? Is that the preference? I can do that. I will take your subtle signal, then, and simply move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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