[ Page 9713 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House, at its rising, stand recessed until 6:35 and thereafter sit until adjournment.

The Speaker: A motion has been put, and I recognize, entering the debate, the member for Shuswap.

[6:00]

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Perhaps I should give a moment for the members who have other business to find a place to do it.

As I said, I do rise with some regret to speak to and oppose this motion to recess the House. I want to underline the seriousness and sincerity with which I speak to this. I think the events of recent days and. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm sure the members can find another spot to sort out the business that they need to sort out.

G. Abbott: . . .recent sessions demand some comment. I want to take this opportunity to say some things which I think need to be said about the conduct of this House, and this debate is one of the few opportunities which we have to express some views around these questions.

It certainly has been an honour for me over the past two years to serve the constituents of Shuswap in this chamber. It is an honour which has been bestowed on relatively few people.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: I know we had this problem last night, hon. Speaker, of some members not extending the courtesy of listening to the arguments of others. I appreciate that at times heckling has its role here, but it's a serious subject that we are talking about, and I do hope the members will give me the benefit of listening to what I have to say. Because it is such an honour to be here -- relatively few have enjoyed that honour -- I want to say some things about the way in which the chamber conducts itself. I'm increasingly disappointed. . . .

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. Another member has risen. On a point of order, Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The motion before us is to rise for a recess. That motion is debatable on the narrow perspective of the appropriateness of date and time. I would ask you to direct the member to narrow his comments to that if I could, please.

The Speaker: Thank you. I'm sure the member is aware of that and will take that into consideration in his remarks.

G. Abbott: I am entirely aware of that. If the hon. Government House Leader would take a few moments to listen to the arguments, they are headed exactly in the direction of why it would be inappropriate for us to recess until 6:35.

As I was saying, it is a great honour for us to be here, and I think that in many ways the conduct of this chamber could be improved. The efficiency and productivity of what we do in this institution could be much improved if some of the relationships which we -- reluctantly, I must say -- don't enjoy in this chamber could be improved. Again, it is a great honour for us to be here, and in order to better serve our constituents we need to give some consideration as to how we conduct ourselves in this House and in the processes, the arrangements around which we proceed. My remarks are dedicated to exactly the point which the Government House Leader raised about the appropriateness of adjourning until 6:35.

The stakes in the debate here are not small. In many respects the reputation of this chamber and of all its members -- regardless of party, regardless of whether we are government members or opposition members -- will be affected by the debate. I have no intent in my remarks to embarrass any member of this House. What I want to do here is not only to offer some criticisms and some observations about the way in which we have been carrying on business here; I hope also to offer some useful, constructive suggestions as to how we might better improve this House. Whether it's when we recess, when we adjourn, or so on, all of these things come into play.

The important thing, based on the recent events in this House, is that it's very clear that we are all diminished as members of this House. We are all reduced in the eyes of our constituents when the business of this chamber is not conducted in an efficient, productive and businesslike manner. Recently we have seen too many examples of the business of this House not being conducted in such a manner. I'd be glad to point out a number of these to the Government House Leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Clearly, we need to find ways in this chamber to more responsibly conduct the business of the people of British Columbia. As I said, it's an enormous honour for all of us to be here, and I think sometimes we lose sight of that fact -- that it is an enormous honour to be here. We tend to get caught up in the partisan fray that sometimes overtakes this chamber. While it is part of the history of this province and of this chamber that we have frequently had colourful and indeed sometimes rather raucous debates, we have in recent days particularly, and in recent sessions, gone beyond what is appropriate and acceptable to this House -- and I suspect you would share my views, hon. Speaker -- and indeed what is acceptable to the people of British Columbia. I'm offering that up not as a criticism of any member of any particular group in this House. I think this problem has grown, in recent days and in recent years, in a way which, as I said, diminishes us all as a consequence.

We need to regain sight of why we are here, which is to serve our constituents, to serve all of the people of British Columbia in an efficient and businesslike manner. At times, this chamber, this institution, has come close to paralysis as a consequence of what some would describe as rampant partisanship. We have lost sight, because of that, of why we are here. . . .

[ Page 9714 ]

G. Abbott: I'd be very happy to do that. . .

The Speaker: Sitting time and date.

G. Abbott: . . .hon. Speaker. I think that our relationships in recent days and the debate in the last few hours and particularly of last evening reflect this. We have lost our ability to communicate with one another. We have lost the ability to cooperate in even basic ways. Again, that goes to the heart of when we should recess. Should we recess to 6:35? In my view, no. We have developed some problems and issues here which I think need to be resolved in the debate we're having respecting the time of a recess.

When this institution doesn't function as it should, a couple of things happen. One is that we don't serve our constituents as we should. The second is that the reputation and prestige of this House are reduced. As a consequence, we are all demeaned and reduced in public esteem.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member take his seat. I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it is with the greatest of respect to the members of this House. We are debating a narrow motion here. It would be very helpful in addressing the point of conduct if the member himself would keep to the narrow debate of this motion, which is the advisability of the date and time of recess. I would urge the member, in the silliness of his debate, to do that.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. The member continues.

G. Abbott: The Government House Leader describes what I'm doing here as silly. Obviously that reflects her view of the relationships we should have in this House. It's unfortunate. I know that some comments were made last night with respect to people, which were, I think, most unfortunate. I hate to see that kind of talk continue here. We are on precisely the point which you have laid out to me: the appropriateness of recessing until 6:35. Again, I am arguing here as clearly as I can that there are very good reasons why we should not recess until 6:35.

I appreciate, hon. Speaker, that my argument may seem rather more elaborate than one might like, but I think it's important to make that argument so that all members of this House understand very clearly why this debate is occurring and why, in my view, it is not appropriate to recess until 6:35.

There are two questions I want to raise in order to answer the question of why we should not recess until 6:35. Those two questions are these: in what ways are the dysfunctional operations of this Legislature reflected. . .and how can the operation of this Legislature be improved -- not in our interests; our interests are not of particular importance -- in the interests of our constituents and of the people of British Columbia? I want to talk about a couple of instances which I think come directly to bear on the government's motion to recess and on my opposition to recessing until 6:35.

I think all members of the House would recall that back in late June the government decided to extend our sittings in this Legislature into the night.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Maybe I could put it in plain English -- on a point of order, if I may -- about what we're debating. We're debating the advisability of the date of time and recessing. That means we're debating whether or not we should have dinner before we resume debate. I would ask, once again -- through you, hon. Speaker -- for the speaker to limit himself to that scintillating point.

The Speaker: The member continues.

G. Abbott: I invite the Government House Leader to go and enjoy dinner. She can have a relaxing dinner, because I've got lots to say. . . .

M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Speaker. Hon. Speaker, the motion that we're debating here is with regard to recessing until 6:35. We can only debate the advisability of the time and the date to which we should be recessing our debate. The hon. member is outside the scope of the rule when he starts talking about supper or relationships, or babbles on about any other matter except the advisability of the time and date for the recess. If the member takes issue with 6:35, he should say so. But he's not saying that; he is going well beyond the scope of the rules.

[6:15]

The Speaker: I thank the member for the intervention and would encourage all members to be conscious that constant interruptions aren't helpful either. I ask the member to understand that the rule is clear. It's at the top of page 90 of the rules, and it's very clear what is said there. That's what the member must adhere to: "pro and contra the suggested sitting time or date." It's very narrow.

G. Abbott: I understand that, hon. Speaker. I appreciate your guidance on this, and I've appreciated your guidance in other debates of this sort that we've had in the past. Again, I appreciate that the government members may be impatient to get at their dinners, and I invite them to depart the chamber to enjoy their dinners.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the member is out of order. The comments he made are clearly outside the scope of the rule. I'm sure that now, with the presence of his House Leader, his House Leader will take the time to explain to him the very narrow parameters here. There is no scope in this debate to talk about whether this member or the Government House Leader should be going for dinner. That is not within the scope of the rules, so I would ask that you bring the member to order.

[ Page 9715 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: This isn't the first time this House has ever debated this motion. In fact, there are dozens and dozens of precedents, many of which happened weeks ago -- and last week. The precedents for the scope and the tenor of this type of debate of this type of motion are well set, and the member for Shuswap is well within the guidelines that have been set before. I think he should be allowed to continue, as has happened for years in this House.

The Speaker: I thank the member for the intervention, and I recognize again the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I hope that everyone is feeling satisfactory with that now. I certainly do intend to address, as I have been doing up to this point, the advisability of the House recessing until 6:35. I have been making my arguments in that direction. It has been difficult, given the interruptions, but I'll endeavour to undertake that again. The reason I think it's inadvisable for this House to recess until 6:35 is. . . .

I'm going to give you an example of why it's inappropriate. Back in late June, this government decided on its own to extend our sittings into the night. The important point, and it goes to the heart of what we're talking about, is that there was absolutely no consultation between the government and the opposition on that decision to extend the sittings into the night.

M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The issue of consultation with regard to when hours are extended does not go to the matter that is within the confines of this debate. This debate is on the advisability of recessing -- the pros and cons, as the Speaker has pointed out. It has nothing to do with consultations that may or may not have taken place in the past. Again, the member goes outside the scope of what is permitted when he does what he is doing at this point.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll respond to the wisdom of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and will just remind him, as I said earlier, of the dozens and in fact hundreds of precedents for this type of motion to be debated. The particulars of the House agenda, the timetable and allotments for the completion of the business of this House are well within order for the. . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the Government House Leader wants to rise and make her representations on the point of order, she is more than welcome to do so. Clearly the comments by the member for Shuswap are well within order as to the advisability of this House deciding whether or not it wishes to recess for a period of time and then sit until adjournment -- a wide-open time frame. It could last for five weeks straight, 24 hours a day. That's a very broad power that the Government House Leader asks to be given to her.

For the member for Shuswap to engage in his discussions, some sense of the parameters of that and of how much work there is still left to be done on the agenda and on the order paper, and of the way we might manage to get through that, is well within order. It's been within order every other time it has been discussed this session. It has also been in order every other time it has been discussed, certainly in the seven years I've been here. The member for Shuswap is well within the parameters of what's been done in common practice in this House for some time.

The Speaker: Seeing no further. . . . I recognize the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I will pick up where I left off: the discussion around the order of what we were doing. As I was noting, there was no consultation between the government and the opposition with respect to going to night sittings back in late June. In fact, not only was there no consultation, there was not even any notice given by the government to the opposition of the intention of the government to extend the sitting hours of this chamber. That change without notice and without consultation occurred despite the honest, open efforts of this opposition to move very efficiently and very productively through the estimates process.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Some members opposite scoff, but that is a fact. This opposition worked very diligently and in a very focused fashion to move through the estimates. At no point prior to the government arbitrarily and without notice going to night sittings was there any dissatisfaction on the government's part with the pace of the conduct of estimates or, indeed, of the bills moving through this House.

Perhaps just to refresh the government on that point, at that time -- late June -- we hadn't in fact seen many government bills, and the ones that we had seen. . . .

M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Speaker. The motion before this House is to recess until 6:35. There is a rule that is placed upon all of us as members of this House, and that rule confines us to a very narrow debate on that kind of motion: advisability issues that I referred to earlier on. There is a reason as to why the rule is that narrow. The reason for that is that there ought not to be an abuse of that rule. The rule is there, and the reason is that one ought not to be able to mock the rules that exist in this House. The hon. member knows that he has the capacity to talk beyond 6:35 on this matter. If he talks beyond 6:35, then he mocks the rule. He mocks the rule that requires very narrow debate. The reason we have narrow scope on this debate is to prevent members from doing exactly what the hon. member is trying to do here, which is to extend it beyond 6:35. That ought not to be permitted. The rule I am citing does not permit that, because it has such a narrow scope.

For that reason, I am asking you again to bring the member constantly to order the moment he strays beyond the very narrow parameters of this rule. The moment he goes beyond advisability and talks about any matters that occurred in June or last night, or about relationships or any other issues, he goes beyond the scope of what he can talk about. It's important that we respect this very narrow rule. If we don't, we make a mockery of this House by engaging in a debate that can go on for days about the advisability of recessing until 6:35. That would offend the House, and it offends this member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin misses the other part of the motion, which is that the House then sit until its adjournment, which is very broad.

[ Page 9716 ]

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll wait until. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. Let the member finish making his point.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member talks about the House being offended by speaking past 6:35. I didn't notice that the member was offended the tens of other times that this issue has happened -- or the times that the NDP, when they were in opposition, did exactly the same thing when the government tried to obstruct the regular business of the House, take control and use their majority to dominate the minority and drive their agenda through.

If I may advise the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, I think this is the fifth or sixth time he has been up, and it's the third or fourth time for the Government House Leader in about 26 minutes. The standing orders of our House talk about the abuse that the member himself is engaged in. Indeed, under "Conduct of Members," standing order 17, MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice makes this point -- in fact, Erskine May talks about it too. It says: "The misuse of points of order and matters of privilege. . .as deliberate interruptions has been denounced in many Commonwealth jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker Brand declared that interruptions on points of order and fraudulent points of order are very often themselves disorderly" -- and unparliamentary in the extreme. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is engaged in exactly what he accusing the member for Shuswap of doing. In fact, there is a standing order that prohibits what the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is doing, but there is not one that prohibits what the member for Shuswap is doing, which is debating a debatable motion -- something that has gone on in this House for decades. The member for Shuswap should be allowed the respect to continue with his comments without having six or seven or eight points of order within 25 minutes.

Hon. Speaker, I think the member from Esquimalt is out of order, is disrespectful. Quite frankly, he is disrespectful of the Speaker, because he has raised those points time after time, and the member has been allowed to continue with his comments. The member from Esquimalt continues to raise those points and in so doing is, in effect, challenging the ability of the Speaker to maintain order in this House. The member from Esquimalt should himself come to order.

The Speaker: I thank the members for their remarks and would encourage all members to consider the dignity of the House and to give consideration to the fullness of the motion that is before us. The point has been made. The motion does include the phrase "and thereafter sit until adjournment." In addition to that, certain latitude has appeared to have been allowed on this motion in the past. However, within that, I want to encourage all members who are speaking to the motion to keep their remarks tight to that motion, and others who are concerned about it should limit points of order and interventions to a reasonable number. In the last half-hour, we've had quite a few of them.

The member for Shuswap continues.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I do appreciate your wise guidance with respect to this matter. I hope I can proceed with my comments now. My chain of thought has been interrupted on a number of occasions.

There is a very important point being made around the time of recess, the time of adjournment. I hope, too, that the government members opposite can, for a time, try to understand the argument I'm making. It's not one which I hope offends them; I hope it's one which can help us advance as a chamber in dealing with the people's business.

The point I was speaking on when the last point of order was raised was the situation which confronted the opposition in late June, when we went, as I noted, without consultation and without notice, from an 8 p.m. adjournment, which we had mutually agreed on, to night sittings -- that is, extending to 10 p.m. When that occurred, I don't think any member of the opposition would have been offended by the suggestion that we should sit beyond eight, that we should sit until ten in the evening. What offended us and what offended us again very seriously last night was, without any kind of consultation or any kind of notice and indeed without any kind of argument or rationale, going beyond what we had agreed to as our hour of adjournment to some unspecified hour of the night.

[6:30]

It was interesting to note, in looking back at that evening in late June when we were discussing the issue of adjournment, that suddenly going to the late-night sitting prompted some comments on my part about the way in which relationships are conducted in this chamber. It was interesting that later that day and indeed the next day, not only did various people around the House say that they thought what I had said was very appropriate; indeed, some government members and one or two members of the executive council, as well, indicated that they viewed very positively the comments and suggestions which I had made.

I think that there is some disposition to try to improve our relationships in this chamber. I think that if we are to avoid situations in the future where we are debating whether to recess at 6:35 p.m. or we are debating at what hour we should appropriately adjourn. . . . We need to move beyond those kinds of debates; we need to move on to productive debates, where the business of the people can be more appropriately conducted. It seems that we have to get beyond what we are currently doing. As I said, I want to make some suggestions, hopefully, which will help us change things in this House.

I had hoped, particularly in light of the comments by some government members in response to my comments in the little House, or Committee A, in late June, that perhaps things might change -- that a different disposition with respect to these kinds of issues might come about. Regrettably, the events of last night certainly disappointed my hopes in that regard. Again, I think it's important, in light of the debate on recess and adjournment that we are having here, that we talk briefly about what happened last night.

[ Page 9717 ]

While I see that the green light is on, hon. Speaker, I am the designated speaker with respect to this motion on our side of the House. I won't abuse that, obviously, but I have some suggestions which I really feel I must make before I take my seat again. There have been, I regret, some interruptions along the way which have slowed the progress here.

Last night we were into a very late night debate in this chamber. I can understand to some extent why the government is unhappy and why they would want to go later into the night. I know that the government doesn't like the extensive debate around Bill 26, and I guess that's. . . .

The Speaker: A point of order has been raised by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'm mindful of what you had to say earlier on, and I've listened to what the hon. member has been saying. I agree that perhaps the issue of lack of consultation falls within the parameters. But when we get into a debate around Bill 26 and the hon. member starts to discuss Bill 26, he starts to cross the line. So, hon. Speaker, I would ask again that you bring the member to order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I think, again, that the wisdom of your earlier ruling still stands. If the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was listening attentively, he would have noticed that the member for Shuswap didn't mention anything about the content of Bill 26 -- only the willingness and eagerness of the government to move it quickly through the Legislature. It certainly falls within the parameters of whether or not we should be sitting late, because that would be the exact reason why we would be sitting late. I think the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is doing, once again, exactly what the Speaker cautioned him against doing in her ruling of about eight minutes ago.

The Speaker: I would again remind members -- and the speaker, particularly -- that similarly, on page 90, under "General Restrictions on Adjournment Debates. . . ." I know it hasn't happened yet, but I want to let everyone know that it's here: "Matters which have already been discussed on the same day in debate" are not part of what an adjournment debate can include. I know the member is not going to do that, but I just want everyone to know that that's part of the rules that we're working with here today.

I recognize that the member is the designated speaker, and the lights will now reflect that.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Again, I appreciate your wise ruling. I had merely mentioned Bill 26, and I can assure you that I have absolutely no intention of pursuing the merits, or lack thereof, of Bill 26.

The reality with respect to Bill 26 -- and it's just an example here -- is that we have within this House very powerful differences of opinion. It's something which the opposition feels passionately about, it's something which the government feels passionately about, and as a consequence, we have had an extensive debate around it. It is probably the most contentious -- at least to date -- bill of this session. As a consequence, we have had a vigorous and prolonged debate on that. I know that the government may be unhappy about that, but on our own side, we are passionately opposed to that particular bill and are using the time-honoured opportunities to express that opposition.

No amount of browbeating and certainly no amount of threats of late-night sittings are going to dissuade the opposition from that course. We are fundamentally and passionately opposed to that particular bill, and we are going to rightfully use every tool available to us under the rules of the House to attempt to delay, block or defeat that bill. That, in reality, is what we do in this chamber when we feel passionately that something is wrong. We feel that that particular one is wrong, and it determines the course which we have conducted here. Again, the course we're conducting is entirely within the rules. You yourself, hon. Speaker, have noted on occasion that there are three standard amendments that an opposition is entitled to make to bills. Indeed, earlier on we were conducting debate around one of those three. The debate we had around the issue of the dropped order was, I think, largely a surprise to us, but again, it is a rule, it is a fact, and it is a precedent of this House that we have been following.

I can appreciate the frustration of the government -- they don't want to be here in July, away from their families. They want to be at home with their families. They want this debate to end. But, hon. Speaker, it's not going to end. Because of our passionate views with respect to this issue, we feel that we must use every tool that we possibly can to delay, block and defeat this particular piece of legislation. We know the government wants to see it passed. We know that we want it to fail. The issue is: how do we reconcile those? Well, we're obviously not going to. But that, I think, doesn't mean that we lose all of the civility, all of the courtesy and all of the cooperation which should exist between parties in this House. We have differences of opinion about a matter. The whole foundation of what we do here is based around differences of opinion on matters. Currently our differences of opinion revolve around Bill 26. Another time it may be Bill -- whatever. That changes over time. For hundreds of years, in parliaments just like this, members have debated with vigour, with passion and at length issues which they feel powerfully and passionately about. Bill 26 is just another example of that.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Where do we go from there? Do we take that power, that passion and those feelings and use them to throw the House into disarray and further undermine the relationships between the government and the opposition? I hope we don't have to. Regrettably, in recent weeks and days and, I suppose, in recent sessions, that has been the case. What I've been arguing -- and I know the debate has been broken up somewhat -- is that we need to move beyond simple head-butting over moving business through the House to better ways of dealing with that, where we can acknowledge that the government has their views, feelings and passions around the passing of a piece of legislation, but that so do we.

We need to say that despite those differences, despite the fact that we want two different objects which can't be recon-

[ Page 9718 ]

Again, those relationships follow from the fact that we are letting our passions and feelings around the content of our debate take over the processes as well. We have lost the ability even to say that we want to get this bill done and get out of here before the end of the summer, and therefore that we want to talk to you about when the House is going to be sitting, when the adjournments are going to occur and when the recesses are going to occur.

I think that that's fundamental. I don't know if there is any other legislature in Canada or indeed in the world that is quite as dysfunctional in that sense as we are here. We have lost the ability for the government to inform the opposition that we are going to change the hours of sitting. I mean, that is so fundamental and so basic that we should be able to take it for granted -- that there will be some consultation, notice and a discussion around when we will be sitting. It seems fundamental, but we have let our feelings over the content of the debate overrule our discussions about process.

I do again want to make some suggestions as to how we might improve things. I think that if we can at least develop once again the ability to talk between government and opposition, it will be a step in the right direction. There are lots of things about the conduct, the processes and the relationships that we have in this chamber that need to be improved. Indeed, I think that at least talking about when we sit and how long we sit would be a big step in the right direction. We need to talk about some of the other problems we have with respect to the conduct of the House.

[6:45]

One of the other ways in which we clearly have some problems is in having only a few days' notice of when legislative sessions begin. We're talking here about adjournments and recesses, but even more fundamental is when we sit. Indeed, were it not for the requirement of the government to produce a budget by the end of March, we would not even know that we were going to sit in March. I think we need to do better. I know that the federal House of Commons has in recent years developed agreements around sitting schedules, and I hope we can do the same here.

I don't think this is something that reflects badly on any party. It's not something that is going to diminish or enhance the opportunity of either government or opposition in this situation. It's something that very clearly will benefit our constituents and the people of British Columbia -- knowing when the legislative sessions will start and end. If we know that basic thing -- that we will be starting, for example, on March 1 and ending on July 31, and agreed on that -- then perhaps within that length of time, we can develop more elaborate arrangements and cooperative agreements around how the time within that span will be devoted to the different debates which are required. Again, that's not going to take away from the vigorous and passionate debates that we're going to have at times -- just as we are currently having one -- but it will allow us, hopefully, as mature human beings, to agree that while we disagree, we are going to conduct the debate within these parameters so that debate can be concluded by a certain point. I think the fixed schedule is something that we really need to move towards so that we can avoid situations like the debate we're currently having, like the debate and difficulties we had last night and indeed, like the difficulties that have popped up on all too many occasions in the past in this House.

It's curious, I guess, that our sittings have moved closer and closer to the end of March in recent years. It's unfortunate because, with the workload we have in the House now, it means that inevitably we work well into the summer. Perhaps we need to have that honest and frank discussion between the parties about whether we can move the timing of the House up so that, as used to be done when there were more farmers in this chamber, we would sit more in the late winter months -- February, March and so on -- and less in the summer months. I think we need to have that discussion so that we can have more cooperative agreements around the use of time once we get into session.

The other area where there's real concern and frustration on this side of the House -- and perhaps on the other side of the House as well -- is that as opposition, we frequently have no idea from day to day or week to week what the government's agenda will be. I guess that's been the case almost through this entire session. Again, we may get only a few minutes' or hours' notice on which estimates are going to be up for discussion or what bills are going to be up for discussion and how late the debate will occur on those. I think that when we don't have a clear idea of the flow of estimates and bills through this House, we reduce our ability as legislators to give that mature, sober and, I hope, intelligent reflection on the business that is before the House.

Also, hon. Speaker -- and we've noted this before -- we don't know from day to day how late we may be sitting into the night, and I think we really can, with a minimum of cooperation and discussion, develop a far more amenable way in which to deal with this.

Finally, in terms of the problems around these issues, I want to note the committee system which we have in this House. Again, I think it's something where, with some discussion, some negotiation, we can make better use of our time and our energies in this House and, hopefully, better serve our constituents in the process. With respect to the committee system, it is the fact that while we appoint 14 legislative committees near the start of every session, in recent memory, only four have actually met and conducted business. The great majority of the legislative committees have never even met. I think the House is the poorer for that. Committees would be an opportunity for members of this House, regardless of whether they are the government side or the opposition side, to meet, to talk about issues in a different environment and to perhaps relate to one another as human beings, rather than as adversaries across the House.

[ Page 9719 ]

Those are some of the problems that we have, some of the things which I think we really need to deal with to make this chamber, this Legislature, a more mature, more functional and more productive institution for our constituents and for the people of British Columbia. I want to just briefly offer up a few suggestions as to how we might do that.

First and most important, I think. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I hear the member for Skeena, who obviously wants to enter into this debate as well. I actually like the member for Skeena. I find his interventions almost invariably amusing, although not always terribly enlightening. I think that he might want to enter this debate and talk about some of the issues which I'm going to raise here. Perhaps it's an opportunity for both sides of this House to come to grips with some of the ways in which we can get the conduct of this House onto a higher level.

I think an annual parliamentary calendar would be a huge step in the right direction. Obviously, if we could agree that the House would sit for X months and agree on what we would be doing during those months, I think it would be an enormous benefit to this House. It certainly would be an enormous benefit to us as members. We would know, for example, that we had an opportunity to meet in our constituencies on certain dates. It certainly would be a great boon to our families as well, who, particularly once we get into the March-through-August period, never know when we are likely to be home to enjoy the spring and summer with them, and when we are not. A fixed parliamentary calendar would be an enormous benefit in that respect. Again, I think it's something that would not in any way diminish the opportunities for or the right or ability of any party or any group in this House to serve their constituencies.

Secondly, I think if we could move towards a weekly legislative plan which outlined the government's priorities for the week -- if we knew, through consultation between the House Leaders, that the government really wanted to move on a particular bill or to complete a particular set of estimates -- it would be most valuable, not only to the government but to the opposition as well. It allows our critics to prepare themselves for those estimates and those bills, and we can therefore move through them -- as indeed we were doing earlier in this session -- in an efficient and productive manner. Again, I don't think that a weekly legislative plan would in any way diminish the right or the ability of any group in this House, be it opposition or government, to do its job. I think it would in fact greatly enhance it, and our constituents would be far better off for it.

I think there are also some things we need to do to try to break down some of the fierce partisanism that I think has overtaken this House. One of the suggestions I want to make is a private members' day, when private members' bills have some real possibility of advancing through three readings and adoption. I think that would assist in breaking down some of the partisan rancour and division that sometimes overtake this House, as we have regrettably seen some examples of.

In making this suggestion, I am reminded of the bill that has been presented for perhaps two or three sessions in a row, by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and a member on our side of the House, on coloured chewing tobacco or something. At any rate, it's a bipartisan private member's bill. While the bill has gone nowhere, it is the kind of thing that I -- and I hope others -- would like to see more of. I would like, along with a member opposite, to move a bill that we both felt would in some way enhance the interests of our constituents. Something like a private members' day, where bills -- bipartisan in nature or otherwise -- could move through the House, would go some distance to allowing us to relate as something other than political opponents or adversaries. I think we need to develop that.

It has not always been the case in this House that there were the fierce partisan rivalries that we have today, and I think we need to develop some mechanisms to break down some of those barriers to members of the government and members of the opposition working together to try to improve this province. Notwithstanding some of our obvious differences of opinion, I know that my friends on the other side of the House ran for election with the view that they could enhance the interests of their constituents and that they could leave their province a better place than when they came, and we certainly ran with the same view. I would hope that through mechanisms like a private members' day, we could move to better relationships in that respect.

[7:00]

Finally, in terms of my suggestions to all members of this House, but particularly to the government side, I would like to see -- as I noted earlier -- a reactivation of our legislative committee system. I think it is strikingly unfortunate that we have a system of 14 committees developed, of which only a very few ever meet. We could go a long way, I think, in improving the situation in this House and in enhancing our role and our reputation as legislators if we could reactivate the committee system. On important health issues, education issues, Attorney General issues, constitutional issues -- whatever it happens to be. . . . If we could have those committees meet people around the province and hear their views and thoughts on the important items of legislation which the government either has on the table or is contemplating. . . . These things would in large measure enhance our ability to act as legislators.

[ Page 9720 ]

The Opposition House Leader has framed some proposals of this nature to the Government House Leader. Regrettably, they seem not to have gone far, but I hope that is a reflection of the partisan rancour which tends to pervade this House rather than any kind of view with respect to the value of the proposed reforms. I do know from my discussions with members opposite that they believe, just as I do, that much can be done to improve the nature of this chamber.

To conclude here where I began, the thing that we have to bear in mind as we think about legislative reform is the enormous honour which has been conferred upon us as legislators: to sit in this chamber. Perhaps naïvely, as a newly elected member of this chamber, I had hoped that there would be opportunities for me to work with members opposite toward achieving goals in a more productive way. We've seen scarce examples of bipartisan cooperation in recent years. Hopefully, as our relationships mature in this chamber, we can take some small steps toward legislative reform and build some momentum toward larger steps. Hopefully, in the months if not the years ahead, we will see definitive and useful reforms which will enhance the esteem of this House in the eyes of our constituents and enhance our performance and our accountability to all of our constituents as well.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to make these comments. I trust that government members opposite will give some consideration to this. I hope that you can encourage, can stimulate, some thought on the government side that perhaps we can get together and do things in a better way that will in no way diminish any advantage that anyone may have in this House but will simply improve our relationships and our performance in relation to the needs and desires of our constituents.

H. Giesbrecht: I couldn't help but listen to those words, and as they were said with all sincerity, I felt compelled to respond.

I've been in this House now for some seven years, a little bit longer than the previous speaker, and he's quite correct: we seem to get along most times quite well. So every time we have a procedural motion and the member for Shuswap gets up and makes his very constructive suggestions on how we might improve the production and the constructiveness of this House, I listen. But perhaps I'm a little bit cynical listening to the member, because to me, it's a little bit like the child who murders his parents and then tries to plead for mercy from the courts because he's an orphan.

I have to go back to the history a little bit. With all the suggestions that the Legislature is dysfunctional, one really has to start considering why that is the case. It's very nice for the opposition to levy that criticism on this side of the House because there are some things that traditionally happen, but one really has to consider, for example, that we are now debating for the third time a motion to recess for half an hour. The first time we debated it for three hours; that was to recess for half an hour and then continue with the business of the House. Not that long afterwards, we debated a motion to recess for half an hour until 12 midnight. That was about six hours. Now here we are again, and for one hour we've been debating a motion to recess for 35 minutes, which is one of the things we've done in this House for seven years, so people can grab a quick bite to eat and get back up here and do the people's business. So one wonders a little bit whether all of this -- on the surface -- very sincere pleading about how one makes this House more productive is not somewhat self-serving.

Go through the process in terms of what time is allotted for debating a bill -- for example, second reading. If every one of the opposition members spoke on that for their allotted half-hour -- and, of course, the designated speaker gets two hours; I think it's two hours; it seems that way, anyway -- that's a total of about 165 hours that one can debate a particular bill. That would be great, and I don't deny them that. But it would be nice if the speeches changed once in a while. I've heard the same debate from the hon. member about this Legislature being dysfunctional at least five times. It's the same thing; it's the standard speech trotted out each time.

I think it's probably worthwhile, but don't be that critical unless perhaps you're looking in the mirror, because some of the fault lies with the opposition. At least the fault in terms of the delay, the length of speeches, how long we debate some of these things certainly lies with the opposition. You can't complain about the Legislature being dysfunctional while at the same time adding to the problem. So if you want a reason, hon. members, look in the mirror.

There's nothing wrong with having a good debate. There's a notion out there, among my constituents as well as others, that in the House we debate issues on the basis of their merits. We have this debate, and people are actually persuaded from time to time to change their opinions. Now, if we are going to be persuaded, then you have to use persuasive arguments for a particular issue. For example, we have to debate the bill, not debate for six hours procedural motions to recess for half an hour. That's not very persuasive. There's nothing there debating the merits of a particular bill. If you're going to debate and you're going to say to us that you want to persuade us that you have a point, fair enough. But you debate the bill; you don't debate a motion to recess for half an hour and do it for six hours or, as we've done it now, for an hour and ten minutes.

An Hon. Member: And you're helping.

H. Giesbrecht: I'm going to make this short.

After you've exhausted all your debate, democracy means that you then have a vote. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. So, hon. Speaker, let democracy reign.

The attempt to talk about a motion to recess for 35 minutes is a kind of subversion of that. It isn't going to work, hon. members, I assure you. The general public is very well aware of what is going on. I've had calls from folks back home, and after I explain it to them, they're almost appalled at why we would do this. It costs about $11,100 every day to keep everybody here doing this, and that's an awful lot of money that could be put to better use.

I had a meeting today, for example, in terms of the fish industry. There's a problem in the decline of salmon. We could be debating that. No, we're debating a motion to recess for 35 minutes, and we will probably do it -- I mean, the next speaker got up -- for at least another hour. We could be

[ Page 9721 ]

There are some major issues. We would like to get on with debating Bill 26, but the opposition is content to make the issue that workers have to work for less and not be unionized, and that is the only way to get out there to face these challenges. It isn't going to wash, hon. members. We could just as well be here and spend the time talking about the member for Shuswap's old dog. It would have just as much effect out there. It certainly isn't what we should be doing, and I don't think it's what our constituents want us to do.

In the course of my research -- and this was some time ago, of course -- I had occasion to look at Hansard. There was an interesting comment I thought we should probably consider from time to time, and it has to do with the comment made by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. I bear him no ill will; he's a fine, honourable gentleman. In one of his comments on June 29 -- and this was where he seemed to catch the government in confusion -- he moved a motion to adjourn debate rather than adjourn the House. As the members will recall, we almost got that one here yesterday, except that the Speaker had to correct you on that, so she saved the day.

There's a quote in here that I found kind of interesting. It is about the debate about pulling a fast one on the government. Granted, I'll give him that one. This is the quote: "That, as I said, was an opportunity I'd literally been praying for. I didn't think it would get any better than that." I had some difficulty with that quote, and it was something like this. Imagine all the people in the province and all the people in the world who are praying for some resolution of some issue. There are people praying for peace; there are people praying simply for food on the table to feed their children; there are children praying for their parents or their families to have work so they can feed themselves. There are all kinds of serious prayers. The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson is praying that he can pull a fast one on the government so we can have at least 165 hours more of debate on a procedural motion.

[7:15]

A. Sanders: I'd like to rise to speak against the motion to recess. I heard what the member for Skeena has said, loud and clear. I think it's important at this time to take a moment to really pay some respect to what he has said and to give just a little clarification to that member. It is important for that member to recognize that this is not just a motion to recess for half an hour. If it were a motion to recess for half an hour and then to sit until 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock on a schedule that had been pre-planned by the government and opposition House leaders who, together in a consensual fashion, had come to the agreement that that would be the time and that we would then adjourn, then the member for Skeena would be absolutely, 100 percent right.

The thing that is critical to this particular motion, which the member has not mentioned, is that the motion is, yes, to recess for 35 minutes and then come back, but then to adjourn on the government's whim to adjourn. The government is giving the opposition the opportunity to adjourn at some time in the future. There is no schedule there; there is no cooperation; there is no consensus between two groups to try to mutually work together in some kind of cooperative fashion. The member for Skeena has neglected to mention the most important part of the motion to recess, and that is that along with that comes the proviso that there is, in addition, some agreement when you come back about when you're going to end. Quite honestly, that in itself is the thesis, the most important distillation of all of the information that the member for Skeena has quite rightly given, without the most critical engine, the heart of the argument: that is, that we need a government in this House that works with the opposition, that will provide that when we do recess, we know when we come back that there will be some kind of stated time for adjournment, not an open-ended thing where the government can take a very concerning piece of legislation and run it until three or four in the morning -- literally to the point of exhaustion of all members -- without the opportunity for the public to be properly heard.

I rise to speak against the motion to recess for that reason. I'd like to speak to the narrow scope of the debate and refer solely to the pros and cons of why the motion to recess should not occur. I'd like for us to look at the pros as to why it might be sensible for us to take some time. There's always the need for sustenance or hiatus, and for all of us to have a bit of time on our own is probably not a bad thing, but I think that when we're doing the business of the people, it has to be put in the context of whether we feel that this is in their best interests at this time.

I think that another good reason for this debate to occur is that if it does create a little pain on both sides and it recognizes the lack of modernization of this House and the lack of humanization of the rules of this House, then this is worthwhile. If people in here have to sit a little angry or a bit put out and have to think about why they're here, then I consider that to be a good thing, because that may be what is necessary for us to get reform. To get reform in this House so that we have something we can rely on in terms of a schedule would go a long way towards making this a functional place to work and a place where the business of the people is carried out properly.

As well, I think one of the pros of discussing the motion is that we need to rekindle some kind of spirit of cooperation between opposition and government. The events of last night and tonight have resulted in what almost appears to be some kind of abusive relationship. If we are truly to function as a group of 75, I think we need to take a step back from that, look at what is going on here and look at what kinds of productive rules could be put in place to change the course that this House is taking.

There are a lot of reasons not to recess. There's the urgency of many other issues, and there is much to do in this House and there is much to do this session that cannot be done in haste. It may be done with thoroughness and necessity, but it cannot be pushed through. Some of the legislation

[ Page 9722 ]

The message of the argument against recess at this point has to do a lot with the labour bill and the need to put that aside now and deal with the other business of the people. There are many things that we have to do. The Legislature is the forum for the debate on those issues. The issue that we're dealing with now is so large and so contentious that I really feel that it needs to be curtailed, put away for a period of time -- perhaps until the fall. At this time, we deal with the other business of this House.

It's hard for the people of British Columbia to get their issues heard in this House. They have to wait quite a bit of time between sittings of the House. They never know when those sittings are going to be. When they go to their local MLA, the MLA can't tell them when those sittings are going to be. This is the time when their MLA has the opportunity to discuss those critical issues and do something with respect to those issues.

There are a number of urgent issues in this House that we have not had the opportunity to discuss. We have been here since March 24. At this time, we must look at what is on the legislative plate that needs to be put aside and what needs to be brought forward. Perhaps the particular discussion tonight, speaking against the motion to recess, will do something to add some light to that particular issue.

We urgently need to look at Nisga'a. In this House, we urgently need to look at the education amendment act which will be coming to all of us in this House and certainly will be featured in our schools in September of 1998. We need to look again at the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. We haven't done the estimates for Health, and the estimates for Health alone could take two, three or four weeks. There is much to be said and to be done in the estimates of Health for the province in this session. Because of the contentious information in bills that have been before the House, this information has been neglected.

Children and Families is another area that I pay particular attention to. We haven't had a concerted effort to really have a forum for the estimates of the Children and Families ministry. I'm concerned that it hasn't been done at a time when there is much to be learned -- for example, the report that the minister brought down yesterday. These things need to be discussed in our estimates, and I look forward to the opportunity to do that.

The other piece of legislation that we haven't had the opportunity to discuss and that I feel is urgent -- and many others in the community do, because we've been discussing and spending a lot of time, necessary time, thoroughly going through the labour bill -- is the Mental Health Amendment Act. This is a bill that will bring in sweeping changes to the mental health system. It is of huge concern to many civil libertarians and is awaited with bated breath by many people from many of the health care professions and by families and friends of schizophrenics.

This year in this House the opposition has run a tight, encapsulated and thorough canvassing of the issues that have been brought forward to date in estimates. But there is much that remains, much that needs to be done. All of these need to be done with the cooperation of the 75 members of this House, and especially in the last week, there has been an absence and a paucity of cooperation in this House.

What I see when I watch -- and unfortunately, sometimes when I participate -- is an atmosphere of antagonism. There is very little harmonious activity between both sides of the House. Things are often punitive in action, very seldom based on friendship or goodwill. Things are often adversarial in nature. I think this has poisoned the functioning of the House. It has poisoned the functioning of the House on a day-to-day basis, on a week-to-week basis and certainly on a session-to-session basis. When I look at what goes on in this Legislature, there's a tremendous absence of order. You know, the second rule of entropy is that everything proceeds toward chaos. But in fact, parliamentarianism is the opposite of entropy. It is taking situations that are constantly evolving and trying to make sense of them, to make sense of the rules, so that those rules can apply century after century to those who participate in a parliamentary democracy. What I see here is very much the second law of thermodynamics. I see us moving closer and closer, as the sessions have gone by since I've been in this House, towards absolute entropy.

I would be very keen and interested to move away from that chaos that we see in the day-to-day and session-to-session functioning and to move more towards a harmonious atmosphere ruled by the parliamentary process and fixate it into some kind of constellation where we can actually have an expectation. We have the expectation of what we're going to see in the northern sky, depending on what time of the year it is. It would be nice to have that expectation when I look at the schedule that I have to try and maintain as the MLA for the area I live in, far from Victoria. There are many who are much farther from Victoria than I am, and I know how difficult it is for them to travel back and forth.

In the last couple of days there has been very significant disorder and significant partisan action and reaction, and to me, that is not rational. I think we need to develop from that some kind of credibility for this House. By doing that, we'll get rid of the total cynicism and contempt that seems to have resulted between the House Leaders in terms of how the House is running. There are a lot of good reasons for that. I don't think that at this time it's appropriate or necessary to go into them. I think it's important for us to work on them and to certainly move away from that.

[7:30]

We need new rules in this House. I think this debate tonight really does signify that. We need rules that will avoid the fierce partisan nature that this House has arrived at. We need to avoid the rancour and the stonewalling that have gelled. We need to have some opportunities to work together to give a voice to all 75 MLAs in this House.

Many of the people who watch the business of the House are absolutely appalled and amazed when I tell them that only

[ Page 9723 ]

One of the other things that I am concerned about is the lack of order and discipline, rules, fixed sittings, committees, weekly schedules. All of the suggestions that have been made over and over by the opposition and that in fact were part of the platform for the opposition in the last election are. . . . The exclusion that these lack of rules create for people out there in the communities who may actually wish to run as MLAs in their community. . . .

One of the things that concerns me the most, perhaps because I do have a family of my own, is that. . . . To me it is clear that if I look at the single parents in my riding or at the parents with young children, they are not welcome in the House that is the B.C. Legislature. They are not welcome here. Those two groups, in my riding and in society in general, form a huge portion of our society. They are actively excluded from the B.C. Legislature. Not only is that a shame, it's undemocratic. I don't think that this House has actually sat down and thought about. . . . Because this House is run in absolute, total chaos and disorder, without any kind of schedule, we have actively said to single parents and people who have young children without large support systems that they're not welcome here. From a government that purports to stand up for women's issues, I consider that to be a very shortsighted look at the future of those people, who I think should be participating in the democratic process that is the Legislative Assembly.

In most places in Canada, provincial legislatures -- and, in fact, our federal Parliament -- do have what we call fixed sittings. Quite simply, these are where elected members have exact notice and calendars stating when they will be expected to participate in parliament in the capital city and when they will reside in the constituency. That's a huge help for single parents and for parents who have young children at home who might consider being a member of government. They can look at that fixed calendar, and they can tell their constituents or their families when they are and when they are not going to be in the place where they reside -- in their home.

In most parliaments, a calendar is comprised of a spring sitting and a fall sitting. This allows for the certainty that comes with the pre-planning that single parents and young families require before a parent must vacate a home for several months in the capital. I can speak about this personally. This year, when the House was coming in, as usual we did not have any idea when the House would sit. Within three days of the House proroguing, the MLAs in British Columbia were informed that they were required to be in Victoria. Hon. Speaker, I can't tell you how hard that is for small kids. They don't have the time necessary to prepare for the fact that their family member is not going to be there for a period of three, four or five months. In most jobs we have the luxury of going home at night. You may have to get out of bed again and you may have to work night shifts, but you do go home. You don't live in Smithers and stay in Victoria and go home on weekends. You don't live in Vernon and stay in Victoria and go home for two days or one and a half days, depending on what flight arrangements you have.

We are actively excluding people with children and single parents from doing the job of MLA because of this huge oversight. This is absolutely wrong. This discourages women from entering politics, and we need more women in politics. They represent 51 percent of the population, and their views on health care, education, children and families and many, many other areas are absolutely critical. Yet we have a shortfall when it comes to women at the age when they have families or when it comes to single parents, and those issues are important. In B.C., with the way that we do not have a fixed schedule, we are in fact excluding them from serving the public.

The only good reason that could be given for being governed in a province where calling back the House is done at the whim of the Premier is the desire for control. That control must be so absolute in the circumstance that it gives the political advantage to the person who has the ability to call back the Legislature and give us three days' notice. This desire comes with a big price tag. It's not just a price tag for the opposition. We have all been elected to do the business of the people, and so we must. But it is a price tag for all the MLAs and their families who come to this House.

In Victoria it has not been uncommon for me to see young children wandering the halls here. They've been entertaining themselves in a child-unfriendly place. They wander around in order to make contact with an MLA parent in a job that, while the parent is in Victoria, may have no beginning or no end. There is no schedule for that parent to tell when they are going to be done, when they are going to be home and when they are going to be finished. I see MLA parents who do have young children unable to do both jobs, and I see the considerable angst that occurs from that.

I also feel for those people that we create to be single parents. For example, in my case my husband is now a single parent, and he is the one responsible for all the needs of the family. They may ask me when I'm coming back, but because we don't have a fixed parliamentary schedule, I can't tell them. I can't tell my family when I will be back. You know, hon. Chair, that's wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it's archaic. It's not done in other provinces, which have modernized and moved into a more humanistic look at how their governments should be run.

It is my belief that we must encourage the best and brightest to enter into government. This will never occur in a parliamentary system such as British Columbia's, which is good for perhaps the government and the Premier but bad for almost everyone else. It's not going to occur in a government that doesn't have fixed sittings, where we actively exclude women, single parents and parents of both sexes who have small children. Their families do not feel that they could possibly cope without that parent at home. I think my advice to this House and most specifically to this government is to put power and control aside and look in your own back yard when you go home.

When the summer is here, many people work, and there is no reason that they shouldn't. But I think that they should be working for what is best for all people -- that is, in their own constituencies, with their families at the times when families and children may go on vacation but, more importantly, when their families are out of school. If we had fixed sittings, there would be the opportunity for us to do that. If we had fixed sittings, it would empower single parents -- both men and women -- and people who have small kids to

[ Page 9724 ]

When we discuss health care or the education system, these aren't just things that I need to discuss. These are absolutely critical things, because I look at them and ask: are they going to be there for my kids when they need them? Is the education bill that's going to come in going to serve the best interests of my kids, who are in elementary school? When I read that, I don't read it for the language or for whether or not it's going to be good for one interest group or good for any interest group. I look at it because education is here to serve children. What more power can we give to the people we elect to this chamber than to have the lens that they look through. . . . They are in this chamber at a time when these issues could never be more important. That is when they need those services. Health, Education, Children and Families and Social Services make up 75 percent of our entire budget that we debate here. We need women in this chamber. We need young women in this chamber. We need women in this chamber who have families; we need people in the chamber who have young families.

We are actively excluding those people by having no fixed sittings. If fixed sittings did occur, then we would pick up an entire part of the population that also includes single parents, and we would say: "The British Columbia Legislature welcomes you. You are welcome to come here. You are welcome to run for MLA in the area where you live, even though it's not Victoria, not convenient. You are welcome to come here, because you can pre-plan. Guess what. We're going to tell you when you start, when you finish and what you're going to do while you're here. Maybe you could even bring your family over. Maybe you could even maintain some semblance of normalcy for that family. You have a schedule in front of you, and that schedule tells you when you'll be home. It might be 10 o'clock; it might be 12 midnight. You might have to get a babysitter the same way that you have to do living in Williams Lake. But you will have the option of order and the lack of chaos in your life so that you can maintain some kind of normalcy for your family." It would thereby bring families into the Legislature.

[7:45]

In the real world these are not normal things. The member for Skeena described it quite well -- that people would watch the proceedings of this House on TV and say: "What is going on there? What are those people doing?" "Well, it's 10 o'clock, and they're arguing about whether they're going to recess for 35 minutes." "Are they crazy? Why are they doing that?" That's when you have the opportunity to say: "They are doing that because they need order in the chamber. They need a fixed schedule; they need to know when they're coming back. They need to know that they're not going to be delayed from discussing the important and pressing issues of government until two or three days before the budget needs to be pushed through by the Premier."

They need to know and believe that we are responsible. They need to know that their MLAs are responsible people who are doing what is best for them in their constituencies. We have been asked to come here and do that. Only when we normalize the circumstances here for ourselves, for each other, for both sides of the House and for the society in which we live so that they can participate, only then are we going to be in a circumstance where we can actually say: "We do good work in this chamber. The work we do is representative of society, the work we do has been the result of decisions by people who are representative of society, and no one was excluded; we made the rules so that they could all be included."

M. de Jong: I'm not pleased to be participating in this debate -- probably no more pleased than members on this side of the House and, I suspect, members on that side are to be listening to the debate. But maybe something good can come of it. Maybe people that are watching or, heaven forbid, reviewing the record of this debate at some point in the future will understand a little bit better how this chamber operates, how this Legislature functions and how it can perhaps be made to function better.

One of the things that people are not often aware of is the extent to which members are assisted upon their arrival here with regulations, guidelines, rules and orders that govern the operation of this place. They are rules and regulations that have evolved and arisen over truly centuries of parliamentary history dating back to the early days in England, in Westminster, the Mother of all Parliaments. Those rules are embodied in a series of documents. One of the documents is what we here in British Columbia term our Standing Orders. They are contained in a little green binder that we find when we arrive here for the first time, on the desks that we stand at and sit at when we are not on our feet engaged in debate.

For those who are new here or who wish to understand how this place functions, they need really look no further than the green binder and the standing orders that it contains. It's interesting that you don't have to look far to determine when this place sits and what the business hours are. You need look no further than standing order 2, and I'm going to read it. It says, under "Daily sittings":

"The time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:

Monday:
2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Tuesday:
Two distinct sittings:
10 a.m. to 12 noon
2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Wednesday:
2 p.m. to 6 p.m. as hereinafter provided

Thursday
Two distinct sittings:
10 a.m. to 12 noon
2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Friday:
10 a.m. to 1 p.m."

[ Page 9725 ]

Hon. Speaker, when you review those provisions, it reminds you in a very subtle way that this is not the government's House. The simple fact that we can meet and engage in debate on Wednesday occurs not because the government wants it to happen or thinks it should happen but because the government has complied with these rules. When they don't comply with these rules, it doesn't happen, and the people's business comes to an end. The rules that I just referred to also say that the people's business will come to an end unless other arrangements are made at 6 p.m.

Now, that is not to say that there is not ample reason for this House to sit beyond 6 p.m.; I don't think anyone objects to that. But it reminds us that that is something that the government must come to the House and seek permission to do. It does that by virtue of the motion that we are now debating. At 6 o'clock it comes to this House, the House Leader stands in her place and says: "I seek approval of a motion for the House to resume sitting later today, after the end of the usual hours of business, as provided in our rules. I ask the House to approve that."

You know what, hon. Speaker? Most days the House does approve that, because there's important work to be done. But lately there's been a problem, because the government takes that approval from this House very much for granted -- particularly this government and particularly this Government House Leader. She comes to this House believing that it is her right, and this government's right, to dictate when the people's business will be done, as if this is their private sandbox and they'll determine who will play, when they'll play and what the rules of the game will be. This little book says otherwise. It says that it is not for the government, it is not for the NDP and it is not for the Government House Leader to set those rules. When they want to vary from them, which on many occasions there is good reason for them to do, they must get the approval of these members.

Should that approval be withheld, as the opposition is doing now? That is what the opposition is doing. The people watching at home will know that we are debating a motion that the House recess until 6:35. Well, it's 8 o'clock now. The opposition has said no to the government. Why have they done that? They've done that because this government has attached to that motion we are now debating the words "and thereafter sit until adjournment." The unspoken part of that motion is: "to sit until we say we're going to sit, to sit until we think we can ram through all of the legislation we want to ram through." And this opposition has said no. This opposition has said that is not how the people's business should be conducted. That is not what centuries of parliamentary tradition, as embodied in this book, stands for. Yeah, we've brought the work of this House to an end, but we think that the principle involved, the principle of protecting the notion of sound legislative debate, is important enough to defend today and, if necessary, tomorrow and, if necessary, the day after tomorrow.

Let's talk about management of this House. I should say that I'm obliged to the member for Skeena, who participated in the debate and offered his views and established beyond any question the wide-ranging parameters the debate can follow. I will be a little more focused than he on the motion that is before us, but I am obliged to him for his contribution. These rules that I have referred to establish the regulations by which this House must conduct itself. I will say this in fairness: they bestow upon the Government House Leader a tremendous amount of power. With few exceptions, they bestow upon the Government House Leader responsibility and authority for determining how, in large measure, the people's business will be conducted. To some extent, timetables, priorities, all of that rests with the Government House Leader. It is a weighty responsibility, and in many instances a responsibility that I do not envy the Government House Leader. But our participation, our need to force this debate tonight represents, I have to say, an indictment of the manner in which this Government House Leader has conducted the business of this House. She has been a failure, an absolute failure, as the legislative officer who is charged with taking these rules and making the business of this House work.

Now I look across, and what a difference a day makes. I am looking across at significantly fewer faces than I did last night, demonstrating a significantly different disposition than last night. But I have noticed over the past number of days, if not weeks, a degree of anger and frustration on the part of government members. I have observed a sense of resignation. I have heard from government members who are frustrated at seeing their personal timetables upset, at seeing their plans for activities later in this month and next month come apart. They're talking quite openly. They're angry, because they recognize in their hearts that the cabinet, their legislative officers, have failed them, and when they fail members of the government back bench, they also fail this House as a whole.

[8:00]

It occurred to me, hon. Speaker, that leaving aside the differences that might separate the government from the opposition insofar as support or opposition to these bills might be concerned, these are detailed pieces of legislation, technical pieces of legislation, difficult pieces of legislation to understand and worthy at a minimum of considered, informed debate. The question that I ask of all members is: is that considered, informed debate something we can expect to occur at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. or 4 a.m.? Is that the time for this chamber to be considering amendments to the Mental Health Act, a bill that members of this government and the Health minister tout as being so worthy, so necessary? Surely, if this legislation is what the government says it is, it is something that deserves to be considered and examined literally in the light of day, not at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Health minister, of all people, should be in a position to acknowledge that after engaging in the debates and the business of this House for 12 hours during the day, no member is in a position to devote the kind of attention that this

[ Page 9726 ]

The opposition said from the outset that it intended to oppose Bill 26 with all of the mechanisms and all of the vigour available to us. There is no mystery about that; there is nothing new about that. But I think the debate today provides us with an opportunity to examine how this House can be made to function better. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, the member for Skeena doesn't think that is a worthy issue to explore. That's actually the good thing. . . .

H. Giesbrecht: Point of order. I know the hon. member would not want to mislead the House. I want it made very clear that I don't agree with him that that's not a worthwhile endeavour; we may just disagree on how we do it.

The Speaker: I'm not sure that's a point of order. Member, continue.

M. de Jong: No, hon. Speaker, if I said something and misconstrued the remarks. . .I want to make a point of withdrawing those remarks. I wasn't clear what the remarks were, so if I could hear from the member. . . .

The Speaker: Member for Matsqui, it appears the words you heard earlier are all you're going to get.

M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Speaker. In fairness, if what I said offended the member and it comes to him some time later this evening, if I'm still available to withdraw the remarks, I'm happy to oblige.

So we engage in this debate, and it's not the first time this session that we've done it. It's really an opportunity. It's an opportunity for us to examine how we can make this place function better. I will put on the record that I think in the years to come when members of the NDP are occupying this side of the House, they are going to thank us for having these debates. I think they are going to thank us for having presented our ideas, as the member for Shuswap has done on a couple of occasions and other members of the opposition have done. They are going to thank us for having presented our ideas about how legislative reform can be acted upon to make this place function better. I suspect they will quote from these debates as a means of ensuring that we act upon those proposals. I think that's appropriate, and I think that will be wise. I can only say that I look forward to the day -- truly look forward to the day -- that they will be in a position to lobby to that effect from the opposition benches.

But here we are. People watching at home will be asking themselves how the Legislature has been brought to a point where it is now dealing with this very procedural component. There is business. . . . I've mentioned some of the bills that remain for consideration. Obviously Bill 26 is a big part of the puzzle. We were debating Bill 26 earlier today; I think we should be debating Bill 26 again. What we said to the Government House Leader is that the debate around Bill 26 and the debate around these other pieces of legislation should take place in a reasoned and considered manner. We said: "Hey, let's sit until 10 o'clock, and let's discuss these bills at a time when British Columbians might naturally -- those that are interested -- have the opportunity to watch that debate."

I ask myself, when we're having debates as we did last night at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, what is the government hiding? Why is it that the government wants these debates to take place in the wee hours of the morning? Are they ashamed of something? Are they ashamed of revealing their legislative agenda, of presenting their legislative package in a way that is available to be scrutinized by British Columbians? Are there exceptional circumstances, hon. Speaker -- through you to the Government House Leader -- that would require or justify this House to sit until 2 or 3 a.m.?

You see, the rules of this House have been amended. Opposition can't frustrate the legislative intentions of government forever. You just do the math. You count the number of opposition members. You know how many times they can speak to a bill, and that's it. It ultimately goes to a vote. Yet the government -- the Government House Leader in particular -- seems to want to conduct that debate when British Columbians are literally asleep. I think that's wrong, because there are all sorts of things the government could do that would preclude the necessity of engaging in that debate throughout the wee hours of the morning. What is it that they are trying to hide? That is the question that British Columbians are asking.

So we say to the government -- I've said it before and will say it again; we'll say it for the benefit of the people asking themselves why this debate is taking place at this hour -- bring on Bill 26. Bring on any of the bills that are yet to be debated by this House, and we'll debate them. We'll argue about them; we'll make our submissions. We'll try to render our improvements or what we believe are improvements to the legislation, and at 10 o'clock we'll go home. We'll come back tomorrow, and we'll do it again. But that's not good enough. Apparently, it's not good enough for the Government House Leader.

I know there are members of her own caucus who are puzzled, frustrated and confused by the manner in which she has managed this legislative session. I know that for a fact, hon. Speaker. One of those members put it to me this way: "Are we at war? Is there some great crisis hanging over British Columbia society that requires us to be sitting until 2 or 3 or 4 a.m.?" They haven't got an answer from the Government House Leader; we haven't got an answer from the Government House Leader. Yet she is singularly determined, apparently, to carry on in that fashion. It's puzzling, it's counterproductive, and it speaks to a hidden agenda that's not so hidden any longer. It's an agenda that says: "We will ram through the legislation we want passed irrespective of the costs, irrespective of the disregard it shows for hundreds of years of parliamentary traditions and irrespective of the disregard it shows for these rules that have been specifically designed to protect the rights of all of the members of this House -- government members, opposition members and independent members of the Legislature." Those rights are very much at risk when government says: "We can do anything we want, and we're going to take this Legislature around the clock if necessary to achieve our legislative aims."

The official opposition has some advantage in this matter. There's no secret to how this works. We send some people

[ Page 9727 ]

[8:15]

M. de Jong: I think it was the member for Skeena, but if it was the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke -- and I don't think it was -- I'm thrilled to hear him participate in any way, shape or form. But I think it was the member for Skeena -- I wasn't watching -- who said: "Why would they want to be here?" Well, because it's their job. They, we, independent members -- and I promised myself I wasn't going to get wound up -- were elected to come here and exercise the vigilance, particularly on the opposition side, that is part and parcel of critiquing and criticizing what the government is doing legislatively. If that remains so much a mystery to the member for Skeena, then I think he is in the wrong line of work.

Let me end by reminding members of the government and members of the public -- particularly members of the public -- who are asking themselves how this Legislature could have descended to a point where this debate is taking place now at 8:15 p.m., that our offer to the government to debate legislation, to debate it meaningfully until 10 o'clock tonight, was an offer made genuinely and that remains available to the government. Yet they wish -- and the Government House Leader, by her refusal to act on that offer, it seems to me. . . . They are signalling loudly and clearly: "We will not be bound by the rules of common courtesy; we will not be bound by the rules contained within the standing orders. We will do it the way we want because government can do whatever it wants." We reject that categorically.

G. Wilson: I tend to be drawn into this debate by the considerable discussion around the independent members. By the rules of this House, obviously any caucus that is smaller than four sitting members is deemed independent, even though we may represent political parties and those political parties may in fact have a broader representation provincially. I have to say at the outset. . . . I've long said, and people know, that it's not the size of the caucus that counts; it's how you use it. I've said that many times. Hon. Speaker, as we start to address rules around recess. . . . I have to tell you that from the perspective of an "independent member," even though I like to remind people that I am the leader of a political party. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member says it's still one member. That's true, and as I've said before, I don't often have disagreements in my caucus. But when I do, they're profound, let me tell you, and they take a long time to discuss and debate.

What I want to get to is that it's a little bit like watching a Warner Bros. cartoon. Do you remember the cartoon where you had the sheepdog and the wolf? They went to work together, and they carried their little lunchbuckets, and the sheepdog went down and protected the sheep, and the wolf went off and then tried to attack the sheep for the full day. They beat up on each other all day. At the end of the day, they walked out and said: "See ya, Ralph." "Yeah, see ya, Sam." And off they'd go, all beat up and hobbled up. What we sometimes do in this Legislative Assembly is not unlike that kind of situation, where you get people who come in. . . . We know what the rules are, we know what the positions are, and we know that we have to in some way make our points clear. But what we're debating in this chamber are issues that are critical to British Columbians. I've heard many members of the official opposition say that they would like to have a more structured, more orderly presentation of bills in this House. And I have to second that. I say that we simply must amend the rules of this chamber so that we have a legislative calendar, so that we know that we start on one day and we end on another day.

When I talk to members opposite, members of the government -- and I argue this point strenuously, because I've believed in it for many, many years -- they agree. They say: "Absolutely. We have to amend these rules. Let's have a legislative calendar where we come in in the spring on this date, we go out on that date; we come in in the fall on this date and go out on that date. Let's use our committees more effectively. Let's stop the inane and wasted time in this chamber. Let's have a more structured, more ordered presentation of material." It doesn't happen, for some reason. Members opposite blame the official opposition, and the official opposition blames the government. I don't know who's right or wrong; I just know that it doesn't happen.

I know that the members of the Liberal opposition have taken a stand on Bill 26. That's their legitimate right. I don't personally think it's as bad as they say it is. That's my right to disagree, and I put that in debate. I don't think that it warrants the kind of delay that we're seeing, but the official opposition do. They have a right to use the rules, and they're doing so effectively on that debate.

But when we get to debating a recess, it gets a little silly. Quite frankly, if we are going to get through to some really critical pieces of legislation. . . . For example, I cannot wait to hear the rationale from the members opposite for legislating a collective agreement for teachers. I'm curious to know how they, the champions of free collective bargaining, are going to defend that. I'd like to get into that debate, and I'd like to get into that debate soon, because I think that it's worthy of debate.

Also, with respect to the Mental Health Act amendments, I think that there are some very, very critical issues that need to be fleshed out and addressed in that debate, because there are a lot of people in British Columbia who are nervous about what this act is going to do to their individual rights. We have to talk about that soon in this chamber, because the longer we delay, the more anxiety that's going to be out there and the greater the rumour mill that will get going, and then people will believe it to be what it actually is not, or some may believe that it is more than the bill purports to be. So these are issues that we need to address.

With respect to a tactic, the Liberal opposition has an opportunity to introduce several amendments to Bill 26. My guess is that they're going to use them; my guess is that they're going to effectively use them for delay. That's legitimate. Personally, if I were to look at the tactic, I think that the time for that to have been applied would have been under Bill 42. Bill 42 was the Supply Act (No. 2), 1998, which gave this government the authority to spend $1.691 billion. It seems to me that that would have been the time that we would have seen a far more detailed kind of discussion and delay, given the need for government, before the end, before midnight June 30. . . .

[ Page 9728 ]

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Oh, I didn't realize we were following rules of order. I listened to the debate; I thought that this was wide-ranging.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Richmond East says I know better, and that's probably true. I probably do.

Hon. Speaker, I think that it's time, if there is a rational presentation made with respect to an adjournment hour, that the two House Leaders need to get together, and they need to agree on an adjournment hour. We need to make sure that the orderly business of this chamber is done properly. I think, frankly, that we have had sufficient debate on a recess. I would suggest. . . . Under standing order 46, I move that the question now be put.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I will recognize a point of order from the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Under standing order 46 there are two distinct things that have to happen before closure can be voted upon. I'll quote from Mr. MacMinn on standing order 46, on page 95, where he says:

"Firstly, the Speaker must accept the motion on the basis that it is not an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority. There are clearly no hard and fast rules which govern the Speaker in coming to a decision, but the Speaker would consider such factors as time already occupied on the debate in question, the weight of the question. . .how many members have already spoken and whether or not it appears many more wish to speak."

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's a point of order, and a point of order is always in order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know the House Leader doesn't get it, but this is a point of order. It's not a debate; it's a point of order.

The opposition does wish to speak to this matter. I think there is a more important point here, when you gauge whether or not it is an abuse of this House. As Opposition House Leader, I have been, for the last week, extending a number of suggestions to the Government House Leader, to acting Government House Leaders and to members of cabinet on ways to progress with the rest of the legislative agenda, including Bill 26, in a meaningful manner. . . .

I'm going to wait until the Speaker is available, because I want her to hear this.

The Speaker: I would like to draw the member's attention to the nature of the comments he's making. I would recommend that he not stray into matters of our discussion at another point.

G. Farrell-Collins: Right.

The Speaker: This is particularly on the standing order 46 motion that has been moved.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will take your advice carefully.

It's important for the Speaker, when determining whether or not it is an abuse of the minority of the House, to determine whether or not the normal procedures in the scheduling of the agenda of this House -- because that's the subject matter of this motion -- are functioning, and whether or not the opposition is being given its due respect and ability to help in planning the debate and the way the legislation progresses through that. That's clearly not the case. That has not been the case, and as a result, if this motion is allowed to pass, if closure is brought in on this motion as to when the House will adjourn, we might as well take the standing orders of this House -- the sitting hours and the rules around it -- and throw them out the window, because there will never be any sort of discussion about when the House will sit. The government will have free and unfettered access to this House anytime it wants, and the opposition will have no ability for discussion, for involvement in the times and sittings of this House -- which is contrary to the practice of every single House in the British Commonwealth for the last hundreds of years.

The last point I wish to make. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The last point I'd like to make is to refer the Speaker to a ruling by the Parliament, by Speaker Jack, in appendix F of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, where the Speaker made a ruling: "Although it is competent for an opposition member" -- that would be the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- "to move the closure motion, it would be premature for the Speaker to accept the motion after only five speakers." I would draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was the fifth speaker this evening.

The Speaker: If the Government House Leader wishes to make a point of order. . . . Then I will hear no more points of order. But I'm ready to make a ruling.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just wish to address the point of order, but if the Speaker doesn't need that information, I won't.

The Speaker: I'm happy to receive it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just want to clarify, under the point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader, that we are debating a motion in which the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast suggested the question be put about whether

[ Page 9729 ]

[8:30]

Interjection.

The Speaker: You have an introduction to make, hon. member? We are in the middle of a procedural issue here.

M. Coell: Madam Speaker, I just wish to inform you that I wish to continue with the debate, as the House Leader has mentioned.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not appropriate. Take your seat, please.

Hon. members, with regard to the motion that has been put, I'll make a couple of comments about the arguments that have been made. First of all, in terms of the point made about arrangements between House Leaders, it is not within the purview of the Speaker to make judgments about that or to necessarily be aware of it; that is a matter that happens elsewhere.

Secondly, the motion that has been under debate is a procedural one, not a substantive one, and the hour which was named in that original motion has indeed passed. On the basis of that, given the nature of the motion under debate, I am going to allow the motion to stand and to be put to the House. So, hon. members, I'll put the question to you that the question now be put.

Motion approved on the following division:

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

NAYS -- 25
Sanders	C. Clark	Farrell-Collins
Abbott	Reid	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Whittred
Jarvis	Nettleton	Penner
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hawkins
Coleman	Stephens	Hansen/
Thorpe	van Dongen	Dalton
Masi	Krueger	McKinnon
	J. Wilson

The Speaker: I recognize the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Again, I'm quoting from our own Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. The second part of the process is the one you just did -- the vote. In fact, it refers to the procedure here in British Columbia and talks about the numbers of the vote and how they have to be judged by the Speaker. It's not a simple majority. It says, on the question we now have:

"There is still a note of caution in the United Kingdom Standing Orders relating to the closure motion which is expressed in the wording of U.K. Standing Order 36: 'If a division be held upon a question for the closure of debate. . .that question shall not be decided in the affirmative unless it appears from the numbers declared from the chair that not fewer than one hundred Members voted in the majority in support of the motion.' "

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Let the member finish his point.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

. . .650 members in the House of Commons in Great Britain. They require a significant majority of about 375 to 275, or something like that -- I haven't done the actual figure. Certainly the numbers that are represented today do not reflect a significant majority of the nature. . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member. . . . The Government House Leader. . . . The former -- I don't know what he is. . . . The Deputy Premier. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister. . . . Member. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm trying to make my point of order, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: And I am trying to make sure that you get to do that. I'm trying to get the government ministers to come to order and let the member finish his point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The point I'm trying to make is that items are not put in the rules and procedures for this House without reason. They are there for the guidance of the 75 members, and that includes the Speaker. That's why I bring that issue to your attention. Closure on a motion is not a simple majority; there needs to be a significant majority. That precedent is clear.

The Speaker: In response to the points made, I have two points to make. First of all, on the point about the British Commons, it is an interesting point that has been related in the notes. It has not, however, ever been the rule in this House, in

[ Page 9730 ]

The Chair will now put the main motion, which is to recess this House for a certain specified period of time -- and the rest of those words.

[8:45]

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

 

NAYS -- 25
Sanders	C. Clark	Farrell-Collins
Abbott	Reid	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Whittred
Jarvis	Nettleton	Penner
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hawkins
Coleman	Stephens	Hansen
Thorpe	van Dongen	Dalton
Masi	Krueger	McKinnon
	J. Wilson

G. Robertson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Robertson: With us this evening we have Larry Rewakowsky, president of IWA Local 1-85; Bill Elder, president of the Tahsis IWA sublocal; and, with Bill, Doug Cullen, first vice-president of the Tahsis sublocal. They're here this evening to watch and listen to the proceedings. I would ask that the members of the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I too ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: In the chamber this evening is a lovely woman, Helen Onorah. She is the sister of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Evans: Now that the conflict-of-interest commissioner says it's okay for me to actually know him, I'd like the House to make Murray Rankin welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 26. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

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

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to have the opportunity to partake, for the first time, in the debate on Bill 26, which was started almost a month ago -- three weeks or a month ago, I guess. It's interesting that we're still here doing it at this point in time, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Yale-Lillooet tells me it was two and a half weeks ago. I know he's been counting the time far more closely than the members of the opposition have, so I'll take his word for it.

The debate that's before us tonight is the hoist motion on Bill 26. So that people understand what we're actually doing here, the hoist motion means that we're trying to stop the government from passing this bill, for the nominal time of six months. But in effect, it's a motion to try and kill the bill, to try and stop the bill from proceeding.

I know that other members of the House have spoken to this bill and to the hoist motion at great length and will do so at even greater length as time goes by. If one looks at Bill 26 carefully, one can see why the opposition is trying to delay the passage of this bill and kill this piece of legislation. All that the members here have to do is go back to their constituencies and talk to business people, small business operators and young people and get a sense of how badly B.C.'s economy is performing of late, compared to the rest of the country -- compared to the rest of North America, quite frankly. Bill 26 is going to be one more nail in the coffin of B.C.'s economy.

If you look at the situation we're in today. . . . When the NDP took power in 1991, British Columbia was the number one province in economic growth. We had an unemployment rate that was significantly lower than what it is today. We had a province where people knew that if they came to British Columbia -- they came with their money, their brains, their energy and their hearts -- they could invest that money, work hard, make a living and create jobs for other British Columbians who were already here to work.

But it's not like that anymore. If the government was trying to introduce this type of legislation back in 1991 or 1992, it might be different. I probably wouldn't feel differently about it, but I know that certain members of the public might feel differently about it. But the thing that's interesting to note is that the government didn't try to introduce this legislation in 1992, when they made all the other changes to the Labour Code. That's when the economy was good. That's when British Columbia was booming.

Now we've got Bill 26 before us -- sitting there, waiting eagerly to be passed -- and the economy is on the skids. Unemployment is skyrocketing. We have the highest youth unemployment rate west of the province of Quebec. That is a shame, but those are not even the true figures. That is not even the true sense of how bad things are for young people in this

[ Page 9731 ]

That means that fewer than 40 percent -- in the high thirties, low forties -- of the young men of this province are working, and the rest aren't. The rest can't find work or have given up on finding work. I don't know if that concerns any members opposite, but it sure concerns me. It really concerns me. I haven't seen anything in Bill 26 that's going to make any difference. There's nothing in Bill 26 that's going to make a change.

Of course we should be hoisting this bill. Of course we should be doing whatever we can to try and stop this piece of legislation. Of course we should be doing everything possible to ensure that we turn that around and change that. I can't understand why the government is so determined, after seven years in power, to ram this piece of legislation through. Why, after seven years in power, is this piece of legislation their reason for being here this spring? It's the issue that the government is determined to push through. They pushed off every other item on the order paper: "Get it out of the way. We don't want to deal with it. We've got to deal with this Labour Code."

The changes to the tobacco acts, the tobacco legislation that the Ministers of Health. . . . I don't know -- I think there have been about five or six NDP Ministers of Health in the last six or seven years. They have all talked about dealing with the tobacco industry. All of a sudden that crusade, that fight in favour of young people and against the tobacco industry, which the government puts forward has been sidelined. It's been pushed aside. I don't have the order paper in front of me to see exactly what day the tobacco legislation was introduced, but it's been pushed aside in the urgency to get this labour bill through.

You look at the changes to the Mental Health Act -- pretty significant changes to the mental health system in the province of British Columbia. It's something that I know the members opposite feel strongly about, because they actually spoke to it in second reading, which is a rarity.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know. They actually got up and spoke to it, and spoke in favour of it. That was good. I was glad to see them do that, but I thought that meant it was important legislation, a priority for the government. But compared to the construction unions, it doesn't even come close, doesn't even register. We haven't even begun to move that bill through the House in any meaningful way, in committee stage or otherwise.

I would think, if I were sitting on the government side -- given what they say they're all about, given the way they pretend to wear their heart on their sleeve -- that those two issues would be the ones that would be at the top of the agenda, not at the bottom. I would think they'd be standing in this House fighting to get those bills through, fighting to make changes to the Mental Health Act, fighting to make changes to the tobacco process in this province. I thought that's what they'd be fighting about.

Instead, what are we fighting about? We're arguing about the Labour Code, a giveaway. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I see the illustrious and luminous member from Port Moody. . . . Or is it Coquitlam-Ottawa? I'm sorry, he's the minister. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: Point of order.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm a member of this House, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, and I'm entitled to be referred to as that. I think that's pretty basic. I'm also the minister. He can refer to me as the minister or the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. I do him that propriety, and I ask him to do that and follow the rules of the House.

[9:00]

G. Farrell-Collins: I actually wasn't talking about that member; I was talking about someone else. So I don't know what it is that he's concerned about. I can see that members in this House were angry about it. I heard members opposite. . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't remember where they're from; I'm not sure where they're from. If I'm mistaken, I apologize, hon. Speaker. But I'm not sure where they're from.

They actually did get up and debate Bill 26. In fact, it was the only bill for which those members continually and regularly put up speakers in this session of the House. It's the only piece of legislation that they'd have the guts to get up and actually fight for. They matched members from the opposition speaker for speaker in that debate. It's the only one where we saw them up cheering, where we saw them up debating day after day in second reading.

So we know where the priorities of the government are. We know what it is that they're really here for. We know what the priority is for this legislative session: it's to get the labour bill through. It's to get the payoff to the Building and Construction Trades Council. We know, because it's been part of an orchestrated campaign. The Building and Construction Trades Council has been out there collecting massive amounts of signatures on petitions in members' ridings in various parts of the province. In my riding they had 190 or 200 members that were supporting Bill 26, out of -- I don't know -- 46,000 people in the riding -- a massive, overwhelming landslide of support for this legislation. So I know how badly the government wants to get this through. I know how hard they're trying to get this legislation forward. That's why they're bringing it today; that's why they continue to bring it. And that's why we need to pass this hoist motion.

If you look at what the priorities are for the government -- I thank my colleague from Shuswap, who handed me the order paper, the motions -- Bill 22, the Mental Health Amendment Act, was introduced on May 20. What's that -- almost two months ago? Two months ago it was introduced in this House. The member for Yale-Lillooet has informed me that the labour bill has been here all of two and a half weeks, and we've been debating it. So one has to ask oneself where the priorities of the government are.

I remember the donation-of-food act, something that the members on this side of the House have been pushing for a

[ Page 9732 ]

Those are supposed to be things that the government feels strongly about. We know that because they were trying to use it for fundraising purposes. We know how strongly they feel about it because they had the unmitigated gall to send out a fundraising letter on the backs of the kids who they said in the thing were being forced into tobacco: "Give us money and we'll fight for you." What disgraceful behaviour by a government! They hadn't even introduced the legislation yet, and they already had the fundraising letter out. They introduced the legislation in the House five or six weeks ago, and we haven't even seen it. Instead, day after day, night after night, early morning after early morning, the government drives forward with Bill 26, the labour bill. If it was such an important piece of legislation, why didn't the member from Esquimalt, when he used to be in cabinet and was the Minister of Labour, bring it in at that time?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know what the recommendation was. The minister is telling me. I also know what the recommendation was last year when it said: don't bring in the legislation that's in front of us today. I don't know if the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has kept up with the labour issues since he vacated the first of his many portfolios, but if he had. . . .

Hon. H. Lali: And you will never get that opportunity.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Yale-Lillooet tells me that I will never get that opportunity. I hope I never have the opportunity to be booted out of cabinet twice.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin should get up and ask the Minister of Highways not to help him out so much, to not engage in the debate, to not rush to his defence. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin can do quite fine on his own.

Let's look at what it is we're dealing with here tonight. It's a government that is intent on and so urgent in driving this legislation down the throats of British Columbians because the members of the building trades unions -- the heads, the top guys of the building trades unions -- are demanding, they're beating the drum. . . . I've been told by members opposite that it would be a disaster for them internally if they didn't get this bill through after failing to get it through last time. I know that this bill has hung from the cliff by its fingernails for the last couple of weeks. Who knows? The debate is not over yet. Maybe something else will happen and this bill will be back, climbing and clinging from that cliff.

I know the government is determined to pass this legislation. I know where it fits on their range of priorities. I know where it sits: at the height, at the top of the mountain of issues that need to be dealt with by this government, so much so that they would sacrifice the legislation on tobacco, so much so that they sacrificed the legislation on mental health, so much so that they'd sacrifice the Family Relations Amendment Act. All of the other provisions that they've been bringing into the House in the last little while -- establishing parks, the public education. . . . None of those even comes close to the determination this government has to pass this legislation.

I would have thought, if the government members were so strongly supportive of the construction labour unions in this province, that when they built their homes, they would use union labour. I would have thought they would do that, but we know what happens when they're paying the bills. Then, all of a sudden, they can't afford to hire the union workers. They have to find non-union workers to do the job. If I remember correctly, I think that was the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin while he was the Labour minister. Maybe it was after he was the Labour minister; I can't keep track of it. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. I'm not sure. Maybe one of these days when he gets up on a point of order, he can tell us exactly what it was that happened.

I know how hard the government is trying to get this bill through. I heard the member for Langley, my longtime colleague, say in my ear -- I give full credit to her -- that this bill shouldn't be called the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. It should be the NDP Election Insurance Act, because that's what it's about. It's an attempt by. . . .

An Hon. Member: You get all the money from business.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear that we get all the money from business. I seem to remember a $300-a-plate dinner. It wasn't very well attended, but it was eagerly attended by the Premier -- a $300-a-plate dinner for all the bigwigs in Vancouver. He couldn't. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Given all the interruptions, I'm going to have to ask for extra time.

What's clear from this legislation and the motive behind it -- the motive behind the government -- is what the member for Langley said: it's election insurance for the government. Hon. Speaker, you know what? They're already getting it. The B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council has been out there signing up petitions. Well, I'm quivering, because those election workers for the NDP managed to sign up 200 people in my riding. Out of all the people in my riding, they managed to sign up 200 people. I'm worried. I'm really worried, because I know that the people in my riding understand what's going on in the economy. They understand what this government has done to the economy, and I know that whoever has the courage to run for the NDP next time -- not just in my riding but in the other 74 ridings in the province -- is going to be hearing from the people of British Columbia. They're going to know exactly what the people of B.C. think about the way they've managed the economy.

[ Page 9733 ]

If I can come back to the hoist motion. . . . I know the members would rather I talk about other things, but I'd rather talk about the hoist motion. The hoist motion is what it all comes down to, because that's what this House should be doing. It should be hoisting Bill 26. It should be sending it to the rubbish heap with all the other crazy and ridiculous things this government has done in the last seven years that have damaged the economy in this province and that have turned us into the last-place producer of economy activity and given us one of the worst unemployment rates in Canada. That's why we should be hoisting this bill. We should take this piece of legislation, the government's sole priority for this session, and we should throw it out the window.

The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture today tabled legislation, had a big press conference and talked about a whole bunch of things he was going to do to help improve small business, reduce red tape and the regulatory burden. What he doesn't understand, because he wasn't here for the first term of the NDP, is that the vast majority of the regulations they're tossing were regulations brought in by this government. There are still hundreds and hundreds of regulations, costs, fees and licences that are being charged to small and medium-sized businesses that were brought in by the NDP. He's got a long way to go before he even comes close to undoing the damage that his predecessors caused in British Columbia.

[9:15]

The former minister from Esquimalt-Metchosin can't afford to move into a condo because the cost is so high, because it was built with inefficient building labour. It works inefficiently and drives up cost, as the former Minister of Labour knows full well, given his experience building his own house. So he's going to have to do that; he's going to have to come back and repeal this piece of legislation. A year from now it will be on the docket. It'll be the construction industry improvement act; that's what it'll be called. The minister will stand up in the House and talk about what a wonderful thing he's doing for the economy of B.C., how he's reviving the construction sector, how housing starts have dropped off precipitously and that it's a terrible disaster, and how the industries in this province can't afford to build their pulp mills -- can't afford to fix the pulp mill that the minister opposite purchased. He's going to have to stand up and talk about how bad things are and how he's got to bring in this act -- but isn't he courageous for bringing in this piece of legislation? It'll be the labour code improvement act; the construction industry improvement act, it'll be called. It'll have one section in it; it'll say: "The Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, is hereby repealed."

We're trying to do the Minister of Small Business a favour; we're trying to help him. We're trying to stop him from having to bring in another piece of legislation next year and trying to defend it. We're trying to stop him from having to negotiate a piece of legislation through this House, with all its mysterious standing orders and funny things that happen to bills in the middle of the day. I'm trying to alleviate that burden on him.

The opposition members are trying to do their best to save the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture the job of cleaning up another mess from another minister of the Crown. He should be aware that new ministers sort of have to do that in the NDP. I know that the Minister of Employment and Investment has spent the last year -- I think he calls himself the chief janitor for the province -- cleaning up various messes left behind by the Premier, the Deputy Premier, some other minister here and another minister there. He's got to go in there. He puts on his coveralls and gets his broom, and he sweeps up the messes. That seems to be a rite of passage for new ministers. So I'm just trying to help the member opposite, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

An Hon. Member: How entirely selfless of you.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know. I'm trying to help that minister to not have to do that next year. I'm trying to save him the trouble, because it's a hard thing, negotiating a piece of legislation through the B.C. Legislature. The member knows that now, so I want to try and help him with that.

That's the reason for the hoist. That's the reason we on this side of the House think that this bill has to be hoisted. There has to be some way that the government is going to realize the damage that they're going to do. It's funny to watch them. Today is a perfect example, because two ministers -- the Minister of Finance, who is the Government House Leader, and the Minister of Small Business -- stand up in the House and introduce legislation, and they talk about getting out of the way of business, creating an environment for the economy to prosper, creating jobs, creating opportunities. At the same time, the minister is tabling a report, and in that report he tabled today that came along with that legislation are recommendations from the business community -- his task force -- not to proceed with the Labour Code.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: He says he didn't table it. It's been made public, then. So in that report, the very report that he's

[ Page 9734 ]

He stood in this House tonight and voted a couple of times to help push through Bill 26 -- the Labour Code changes. At the same time, on the same day, he introduced recommendations from the people who are advising the government on how to get this economy fired up again. They told him: "Don't introduce the bill. Don't proceed with the bill." Well, which is it? How does he decide what he's going to do from hour to hour during the day? How is he going to decide what it is that he's going to do today? "Today am I the saviour of small business, or today am I the saboteur of small business?" Or does it happen after 2 o'clock? Is it in the morning, up until 2 o'clock when the bills are introduced, that he's the saviour of small business, and after 2 o'clock he's the destroyer of small business? It's hard to tell which it is.

This bill should be hoisted. It's bad for the economy of British Columbia; it's bad for the people of this province; it's bad for the young people of this province. We're just doing our best on this side to make the government understand that, to make the public understand that and to make the ministers understand that, and to save them the burden of trying to pass legislation through this House next year. I know that year after year we spend half our time in this House undoing the damage that was done the previous year. I know that we'll be back in this House next year or the year after with the construction industry improvement act on the order paper awaiting passionate debate by the members opposite. They'll stand up and tell us what a wonderful thing they're doing for the province, what a wonderful thing they're doing to get the housing starts that have collapsed started again and to help the minister from the pulp mill up north get his mill fixed up and back into this century. We know that they'll be talking about all the wonderful things they're doing for the construction industry, and we'll be having a very similar debate a year from now.

I think the government should take the advice of the members of the opposition. They should take the advice of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson in this hoist motion, rally to his cause, support him in his attempt to aid the government of British Columbia of yet another stupid, damaging, ridiculous piece of legislation that's going to ensure that they're assigned to the opposition benches for the next 40 years after the next election.

The Speaker: I recognize now the member for Shuswap.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure for me to rise and join in this debate. The member for Vancouver-Fraserview suggests that I've been in the debate before. I haven't, actually. The minister obviously enjoyed my comments earlier this evening with respect to the motion to recess. But it is a great pleasure to be able to. . . . He's observant, if not particularly oriented towards details. That's excellent that at least he took notice that I had been up previously, and I do appreciate the interest in my comments.

Like my colleague, I very much welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion that was put by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. Certainly, the motion that that member put to hoist this bill for six months is an entirely sensible motion. I'm just delighted to be able to participate in this debate and to add my reasons why I think that is the right thing to do. I think it is a sensible response, as the hon. member said, to another stupid, idiotic, goofy initiative on the part of this government. It's not as if they hadn't done enough in the past seven years to disrupt and undermine the economy of British Columbia. Now they've had to add one more thing to further undermine the investment confidence in this province, to further diminish the employment base in this province. This government, obviously for their own political ends, is happy to move ahead with a bill at a time when clearly the great majority of the public is not at all interested in anything like this and, further, at a time when I think it will, in a very direct way, further undermine the business confidence in this province, the investment confidence and, of course, the confidence of every person in this province who wants to be gainfully employed. So I'm really delighted to support this amendment.

The hoist motion is a time-honoured means for the opposition to attempt to delay or block a legislative initiative which they oppose, and we very much oppose this one. As I said earlier this evening, we are passionately opposed to what's going on here. It's not only the wrong thing to do; symbolically it's the wrong thing to do, as well, at this point in time.

Of course, tonight I don't want to debate the merits of this bill. We will do that at other points. What I want to do tonight, hon. Speaker, is lay out as clearly as I can why this bill should be hoisted for six months. There are really 3.7 million reasons why this bill should be hoisted -- one reason for every British Columbian. Clearly, every British Columbian is concerned. They want to have a job; they want to have an opportunity to work, to invest, to produce jobs -- if that's what they wish. All of those hopes and aspirations will be further undermined if Bill 26 proceeds. So, as previous members have suggested, this is a wonderful opportunity we are offering the government here today. It's certainly generous and selfless on our part to be offering this wonderful opportunity for the government to rethink, reconsider, a piece of legislation which I think is going to be very much contrary to the interests of all British Columbians.

Let me lay out the reasons why I think this bill should be hoisted. I want to say, too, that from our perspective, the motion to hoist is really a compromise; we would very much like to see this bill hoisted forever. We would like to see it hoisted into the garbage can of unnecessary and ill-conceived government legislation. That's where we'd like to see it hoisted to, and we'd like to see it hoisted there forever. Given that we cannot do that with this motion, we are here offering up a compromise of sorts, where we're suggesting: "Take six months. Rethink this bill. Look at what it's going to do to British Columbia, and think about what's really going to be achieved by putting this bill in place." Let me briefly outline the reasons why I think it should be hoisted. Then I'll explore those reasons in rather more detail.

First -- and I think this is important -- I think that hoisting Bill 26 would prevent further unnecessary damage to the provincial economy. I'll obviously go through some of the measures that are around that show the very frightening damage to the provincial economy in British Columbia over the past seven years. I'll do that in a moment. I just want to briefly outline the other reasons.

I think it's important, as well, to note that hoisting Bill 26 would provide for the restoration of a more positive investment climate in British Columbia. As my colleague from

[ Page 9735 ]

[9:30]

Interjection.

G. Abbott: The member for Vancouver-Burrard over there is animated for a change. It's a delight to see my friend the member for Vancouver-Burrard so animated and excited, as one so rarely does. While we haven't received a speakers list from the other side of the House, I suspect that the member for Vancouver-Burrard is going to jump to his feet after the conclusion of my remarks and provide his reasons why this bill should be hoisted as well -- or is it the reverse? I'm not sure at this point. He's still making up his mind. I take that as a sign of encouragement that the member for Vancouver-Burrard is possibly rethinking his position with respect to this, so I'll continue to offer up the persuasive arguments that I have here in order to bring him around completely. I view that as a positive challenge.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think that's a maxim that this government ought to think seriously about as they contemplate the hoisting of this bill for six months. This is a government that in that last few months has absolutely broke something that ain't broke in the silviculture industry on the coast of British Columbia. We had an efficient, productive silviculture industry. . . .

T. Stevenson: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I would just direct the Speaker to note that, again, we're way off the topic of hoisting. We're on to silviculture or something now, hon. Speaker -- if you would remind the speaker.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point. Thank you very much. I'm sure it was also heard by the hon. member for Shuswap, who has the floor.

G. Abbott: Actually, I really appreciate the guidance from the member for Vancouver-Burrard. He is a circuitous thinker, and I guess my argument has essentially short-circuited with him. He doesn't appear to be grasping the logical loop I'm attempting to make here.

What I was offering was an example of this government's attempting to fix something that ain't broke. I don't want them to make the same mistake with Bill 26 that they have made with the No Forest Opportunities Ltd. outfit that they put in place on the coast. I'm saying here that the reason to support the hoist motion on Bill 26. . . . I can see you're starting to be persuaded here, so I'll soldier on.

The reason you don't want to try to fix the Labour Code is the same reason you shouldn't be trying to fix something that's working really well on the coast of British Columbia -- which was the silviculture industry before this government chose to inject No Forest Opportunities Ltd. into the mix. I see, hon. Speaker, that I may perhaps be straining the limits a little bit, and although the member for Vancouver-Burrard wants me to provide even more examples, I am going to move on at this point, because I think it's important for me to continue to outline the reasons why we should hoist this bill.

This hoist motion would provide this government with an opportunity to listen to the people of B.C. This is something they haven't done yet, and we're seeing the consequences of that today with the groundswell of opposition to this bill growing up all across the province. It would be an opportunity for this government -- and I think this would be entirely appropriate and consistent with my remarks earlier -- to refer this bill to a standing committee of the Legislature or to a special committee. Get some MLAs out there to listen to what people across the province of British Columbia have to say with respect to Bill 26. It's an important opportunity, and I don't think the government should miss out on that opportunity. It's something that will go a long way to restoring some confidence of the people of British Columbia in the direction the government is taking. Let's hope that that is persuasive and that the government will agree that for that reason, this bill should be hoisted for six months.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

A fourth and final broad reason why we clearly should hoist this motion is that it's vital that we take steps to restore competitiveness to our economy and our industries. Presently I want to talk about the forest industry and the construction industry, particularly as it relates to forests. I see the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard coiling like a cougar about to strike, so I just want to assure him before he pounces up with another point of order that I will be talking not only about the forest industry generally but also about the construction portion of the forest industry, which actually used to be a very important part of the provincial economy. As a consequence of the actions and the regulatory and tax framework of this government, it has really been rendered to almost nothing. But it could, theoretically at least -- with a new government perhaps -- again become a very important factor in the provincial economy. I want to talk about the forest industry and the construction associated with the forest industry. I think part of that restoration of competitiveness is a reversal of the overall decline we have seen in the B.C. forest industry under this government. So that's the fourth area I will want to talk about tonight.

Others have noted the damage to the economy that has occurred under this government and therefore the importance that certainly can be attached to a motion to hoist another element that is going to do further damage to that economic environment. As others have noted, this province has gone from number one to number ten in economic growth in Canada. That is a remarkable -- remarkable in a negative sense -- non-achievement of this particular government: to take what was the strongest economy in Canada in 1991, the British Columbia economy, and render it one of the weakest economies in the entire country. It is some achievement for a government to take a province which has been blessed with

[ Page 9736 ]

In British Columbia we've seen damage to the economy and a decline in new investment. This has been striking in the forest industry, but throughout the economy we've seen a decline in investment. It's most unfortunate. People are reluctant to invest in British Columbia with the socialist government that's in place here. I guess the members opposite say: "Well, why should the fact that we are a socialist government necessarily dissuade people from investing here?" That's true, and that would be a remarkably powerful argument on their part, because we can look at Saskatchewan and. . . .

An Hon. Member: The United Kingdom.

G. Abbott: We can't really look at the United Kingdom, because we've only recently had a social democratic government elected there.

We can take all kinds of examples, I suppose, but the fact is that in addition to being socialists, these socialists are also incompetent socialists. That's the important thing. At least the Romanow government appears to have some competence. Here we have a government that ignores all the information, all the evidence, and puts in place a legislative agenda, a regulatory framework and a tax framework that literally discourage and penalize anyone who is bold enough to even consider investing in the province. Given the attitudes we have here, it's not surprising that we've got the enormous fiscal and economic problems that are so evident in British Columbia today.

In relation to damage to the economy, we have seen as well a decline in housing starts. We've seen an exodus of population. I know we've talked about this recently. Folks are moving elsewhere to find jobs because they're just not here in British Columbia anymore, as a consequence of the policies of this government. We have seen startling growth in unemployment in British Columbia since this government ascended to power in 1991. I think it is particularly sad that we have seen a striking growth in youth unemployment since this government came to power. On a whole range of measures, this government has undermined the economy of the province.

I just want to quote briefly from another source. This is a source which even the Minister of Labour, when he introduced the bill, described as one of the bodies of reason and logic and so on that he had listened to in terms of the bill. This is from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. I just want to quote briefly from this letter from the coalition. It reads as follows:

"The Coalition of B.C. Businesses, which represents 30 organizations speaking for small and medium-sized businesses, is urging you to stand up for the job creators in your constituency and urge the Premier to stop the amendments to the Labour Code. Small and medium-sized businesses from the entire cross-section of B.C.'s economy believe these changes will have a negative impact on jobs and investment.

"B.C. 's economy has already gone from number one to number ten in Canada. B.C. now has the highest unemployment rate of any province west of Quebec."

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, member.

G. Abbott: Oh, I'm sorry. Pardon me, hon. Speaker. Let me just continue:

"B.C. now has the highest unemployment rate of any province west of Quebec. Our youth unemployment has been at or over 17 percent. Businesses are leaving B.C. for Alberta, Washington State and Ontario."

We need jobs in British Columbia. What this government hasn't grasped, and I suspect never will grasp, is that government can't sit down here in Victoria and arbitrarily wave a magic wand and say, "We're going to create 40,000 new jobs," or whatever number they happen to pick out of the spin barrel on that particular day. A government can't sit down and say: "We're going to cause to be created so many tens of thousands of jobs." It doesn't work that way. Jobs are produced by people believing that they can get a return on investment. Without that, they don't invest in the province.

This government has taken away all incentive to invest in the province. Right from the corporation capital tax through to the highest marginal personal tax rates in North America, this government has taken away all incentive to invest. As a consequence, they have taken away all incentive to create new jobs in British Columbia. No amount of suasion, no amount of coercion, no amount of argument, no amount of magic wand-waving here in Victoria is going to induce people to invest here, to create jobs here, unless there is some prospect of return. Regrettably, this government has taken that away; they have taken away the positive investment climate we need to compete in Canada and, indeed, in the rest of the world.

I want to talk briefly about the hoist motion, hon. Speaker, in terms of its value in restoring a positive investment climate in British Columbia and that entrepreneurial spirit which has been so dampened and shackled by the actions of the current government. What we have seen since 1991 is a startling reduction in business confidence, business optimism, investment confidence and investment optimism in the province.

[9:45]

"It is inappropriate for the interior and for the Shuswap in particular. Our local construction industry operates without widespread unionization. The requirements of Bill 26 would add regulation, complexity and expense to our local builders, increasing their competitive disadvantages, and inevitably they may also increase their cost to consumers.

"We at the chamber see Bill 26 as an imposition on our small construction company members, who will be forced to accept a contract that has been negotiated on behalf of their larger competitors, most of whom are in the lower mainland."

"Bill 26 appears to send the wrong message to the investment community. Its introduction at this time is certainly not telling the world this provincial government is seriously interested in creating a business-friendly economic climate in B.C. The economy of B.C. is not in such good shape that it can afford an increase in the costs of construction. As the costs of construction go up, the number of jobs it creates go down, and Bill 26 will drive the costs of construction up across the board."

[ Page 9737 ]

I know that some members opposite may proceed with: "Well, you know, the chambers of commerce don't reflect our constituency; they don't reflect the views of the people that we think we ought to be representing in this Legislature." Let me further make the point around the reduction in economic confidence in this province by quoting from the Angus Reid "B.C. Flash Report," summer 1998. This is from their section on the economic outlook. I'll quote, and then if it meets the favour of the member for Vancouver-Burrard, I'll editorialize a little bit in hopes of further persuading him towards support of this hoist motion: "Currently, 26 percent of the B.C. public evaluate the provincial economy as being in good shape. This represents a stark drop in confidence from our December sounding, when more than half the people surveyed, 55 percent, expressed positive views of the B.C. economy -- a 29 percentage point drop in the past six months." Remarkable! The economic outlook of British Columbians. . . . The Reid report sample reflects what people are thinking in British Columbia. Only a quarter of the people think our economy is in reasonable shape. The rest think it's going into the dumpster -- not surprising, given that all the evidence points that way, given that the actions of this government have brought us to a point where we have lost all prospect of economic confidence.

A second point here in the economic outlook is: "Meanwhile, a full 73 percent of those surveyed expressed some reservations about the provincial economy, describing it as being in poor shape. This is up 29 points since December." Well, just as I was saying, three-quarters of British Columbians think our economy is in poor shape -- way up from six months ago. Is it surprising, given the dismal economic performance of this government? Clearly, though, this government doesn't care. This is a government -- as the Forests minister says -- which thinks it can do anything it wants. They don't care what the consequences of their actions are. It's no skin off them if the economy declines. They've got jobs here; they're happy -- and happy to continue it.

I see that the green light is on already. I'm absolutely amazed that that would be possible. I've barely scratched the surface of the reasons why we would want to see this motion hoisted.

Let me just close by saying this. . . . Perhaps I'll have an opportunity in some other part of the debate around Bill 26 to revisit some of these very persuasive arguments on why we don't need Bill 26. What would the hoist do to assist forestry, our most important industry in British Columbia? Well, we have a critical need in this province to restore international competitiveness. Even the Premier -- at least in theory -- recognizes that we desperately need to restore international competitiveness to our forest industry. The Premier talks in terms of, "Well, you know, we've reduced stumpage," even though it's three times as much as anywhere else in Canada. "We've reduced stumpage." He says: "Well, you know, we've reduced the regulatory burden." Yeah, right. They have saved maybe a couple of bucks a cubic metre over the next three years.

At the same time that they do that. . . . At the same time that these small steps are taken in the direction, theoretically, of restoring the competitiveness of our forest industry, this government introduces Bill 26, which is going to have exactly the opposite effect. This bill is going to make our forest industry even less competitive than it is today. We desperately can't manage that. What we're going to see is not 13,000 loggers unemployed in British Columbia; we're going to see many more. The consequence of this bill is that we are going to lose many jobs and new investment.

Thank you for your patience, hon. Speaker. I see the red light is on. I do support the hoist of this bill.

L. Reid: I am delighted to enter into this debate this evening on the hoist motion. I can give a myriad of reasons as to why this bill should be hoisted for a minimum of six months. There are some lessons this government needs to learn. I would trust that they can learn them in committee, while we indeed have an opportunity to review this bill over the next six months -- simple lessons, like what is an investor in British Columbia? Why should those individuals be cherished? Why is it the ambition of this government to drive every single one of them from this province, at the same time that they're giving a tax break to a large bank? I mean, what is illogical about the decisions taken on behalf of this government -- a number of which I will canvass in some detail this evening?

I want this hoist to allow us time for some lessons: lessons on how the economy works, vitally important lessons that any government should have under their belts before they come to office, not lessons they are continually scrambling to learn -- and, frankly, without success.

It's time for lessons in how the economy works, in how investment works -- time for lessons around the necessity for a secret ballot. Those three items alone would guarantee six months of learning time on behalf of this government. If they came back to this Legislature in six months, having attained mastery of any one of those three areas, I personally would be delighted, and I would be the first person to get to my feet to suggest that indeed they had made some progress.

I have been in this chamber for seven years, and I have seen zero progress on behalf of this government when it comes to understanding investment, economics or the importance of a secret ballot. This is about choice. This is about offering choice to individual British Columbians. It is not about imposing any regulatory practice, whether it's unionization, a teacher contract or any of those issues. Those issues are vitally important to the future success of this province. As a teacher, I believe absolutely in the notion that it is important to respect and regard the people who deliver service.

I'm offering this government a six-month opportunity, a basic opportunity, to learn some lessons -- not a complex set of curricula; fairly basic, but absolutely misunderstood by this government. That's a concern to me. I wouldn't mind a few weeks of that six months being spent on a determination of ICI construction, because the question was never answered by this government when it comes to: what happens for facilities to be constructed that are primarily residential but have one or two commercial spaces? What's the answer to that question? Overlooked, sidelined by this government -- it's a question. I would put on the official record that it is important to answer the question for British Columbians: what about residential construction that happens to contain one or two elements of commercial product? That answer is not before this chamber today.

There is nothing mild or moderate about tampering with the economic climate in the province. Frankly, it intrigued me when I referenced the debate on Bill 44; the exact same language was used to reference the changes contained in Bill 44. It was as untrue then as it is today.

I want to reference the Vancouver Sun of just a few weeks ago -- Saturday, June 20, 1998: "There is little doubt that the

[ Page 9738 ]

This government will know that that sentiment is growing across this province. They will know that because in many, many cases they receive the same correspondence that members of the opposition do. They know, in fact, that this is a bad decision. We are concerned. As free-enterprisers, as Liberals, we are concerned with the fragility of the economy in British Columbia. It is not in the best interests of this economy to tamper with it. This is tampering; this is fettering; this is hobbling. If any of you are familiar with any of those terms, this is about taking free enterprise and attempting to wrap it up, to slow its progress, to ensure that investment leaves the province. That is the direct result of the actions that this government will take.

They take absolutely no responsibility for taking our economy from the highest position and driving it into the tenth spot, driving it into last place in the country. They take no responsibility. They have every possible excuse at their disposal, none of which are valid. They have mismanaged the economy to the extent that they need a six-month lesson in how best to come back and create some balance, how best to create a level playing field in British Columbia.

There are archaic labour practices that this bill will continue to entrench. I absolutely support that contention. It seems to me that any government that professes to be democratic would in no way remove the most democratic element of unionization, which is the secret ballot. It would in no way remove that element. They have done so, and they appear to be proud of it. They do not intend to return a very sacred element to democratic practice, which is the ability to choose. This is not about imposition; this is about returning the ability for a free choice in the marketplace, in the workplace, in the world. This is about creating competition that makes sense.

I have had some extremely difficult discussions with this Minister of Labour when it comes to his understanding of what the science and technology community needs, in terms of being able to return useful products in a very speedy fashion so that those products are indeed hitting the marketplace in a timely fashion, so that those companies remain competitive. So again, speaking to the six-month hoist, I trust that there will be time within that six months for this current Minister of Labour to learn some things about the science and technology business.

[10:00]

What I am looking for in the next six months is an opportunity for some lessons in what deregulation really means. What does it mean to reduce red tape in the province? For me it doesn't mean bringing in a series of bills around regulation. That is what these bills will do: they will increase the cost of doing business in the province, they will increase staffing in those ministries responsible for putting in place that new direction for this government. Well, I can tell you, hon. Speaker, there's not much new after seven years. There's not much new emanating from the government benches after seven years. In my view, they're continuing to mismanage the investment climate in the province of British Columbia.

That's what I expect from a hoist motion. I expect people to learn some lessons about how to effectively manage the economy of this province. I'm skeptical, because I don't think those lessons have been learned in the previous seven years, and I'm not convinced that the aptitude is present to actually glean from a variety of events the lessons that are there to be learned. The number of people leaving this province, the number of companies reducing their number of employees, because they are frankly confounded by the layer upon layer of new bureaucracy, new regulation, new red tape that appears on one hand from one minister and on the other hand from another minister: "We're going to take care of that; we're going to reduce the regulation you find in your workplace. . . ." It's illogical; it's contrary. The positions taken by this government are completely and often at odds, minister to minister, ministry to ministry. It's a concern.

To continue with the lessons I believe are possible from a six-month hoist, what is investment to the future of this province? How important is it to the future of this province? If any member opposite could get to their feet and answer that question for me, I would be delighted. Economic climate: who is the economic driver in this province? For one member opposite to get to their feet and suggest that it is small business, that it is individual companies, entrepreneurs, risk-takers who invest their life savings to craft employment opportunities, to be competitive, to be the best in the world. . . . That is what the science and tech companies in my riding are doing today: they're being the best in the world. Whether it's the assisted-listening-device company on Bridgeport Road in Richmond or Stressgen Biotechnologies Corp. here in Victoria, any number of companies are prepared to pit their energies, their talent, their intellect against any company, any scientist, any researcher, anywhere in the world. They're prepared to take those risks, to seize the day, to take on those challenges with tremendous fortitude, and how are they received by this government? "Well, we'll strike a committee. We'll legislate a bit more red tape and we'll tell you we're really not legislating red tape. We'll tell you you're going to get a tax break in 1998, but it's really 1999." Mistruth after mistruth, hon. Speaker. It's not appropriate.

When I refer to a six-month hoist motion, I want to know that members opposite are learning some lessons about how to manage an economy, how to manage a province and, frankly, how to put in place some guidelines so that business can go unfettered into the world marketplace. It makes no sense for any government, least of all our own government, to hinder enterprise, to hinder business. Why would we do that to people we believe we share common goals with? This is not about competing with another province or country; this is about hindering British Columbians. Again, that lesson has not been learned.

To quote the Vancouver Sun of June 20: "The government is out of touch with economic reality if it believes these changes will not drive businesses out of the province and further undermine investor confidence." That's the issue on the table today. We're talking investor confidence. We want people to come to this province prepared to give their very best. That's what I expect. I expect that of the businesses in my riding; I expect it of the business people in every riding in this province.

[ Page 9739 ]

I want to reference an article that I keep near and dear to my heart, because it's a very clear distinction between where we are as members of the official opposition and where these individuals are as members of the New Democratic Party. We're fundamentally different in terms of how we believe business needs to evolve in the province. It is a defining moment. It references the Premier of the province. It talks about a growing gap between the government's version of economic reality and everybody else's.

"For years there have been grumblings that the NDP government's megaproject style of economic development is out of date -- a reflection of the 1950s instead of the 1990s. Jobs these days are created by small, usually high-tech businesses, not huge resource projects that may never come to fruition."

The article continues:

"Yet the Clark government cheerfully talks up its union-jobs-only, resource-based economic policy as if it actually works. Of course it hasn't and never will, unless you believe that propping up fishing and forestry is a complete economic policy. There are two-thirds of the puzzle missing when you look at this government. They haven't done the other side of the equation. They haven't looked at what needs to happen in the province. The New Democratic government has not shown that it is willing to attract new investment that would create modern-style jobs. Instead of encouraging diversification by enticing investment with friendlier tax policies, as has been so successful in other jurisdictions, the government tells us to look forward to gambling profits and user fees as revenue generators."

British Columbia is not immune; it is subject to the wishes of many other jurisdictions in this country and around the world. We cannot continue to have a government that doesn't see the value or importance of a strong investor climate. We cannot continue to have a government that doesn't understand how to foster strong economic growth or how to create a reasonable economic climate. Those are expectations that I have for my province. That is what I would like to see, because it's absolutely essential to the future of this province. Nothing else will do.

So again: will a six-month hoist provide that opportunity for these individuals to learn some lessons? I believe it will. I believe they have been granted an enormous opportunity. I only trust that they accept that that opportunity is available to them and move forward.

There's been lots of discussion about sectoral bargaining and where it's going to begin. The question for me is where it's going to end. Is it appropriate to continue to believe, as one would if one lived in the 1950s, that a one-size-fits-all solution is the answer? It is absolutely not the answer, and sectoral bargaining is only about one-size-fits-all solutions. It's not about anything else.

Indeed, for the government to suggest that they are flexible, resourceful and creative and then only offer up the remedy of a one-size-fits-all solution, is laughable. It makes more sense to actually commit to delivering on the talk -- and frankly, this government hasn't done it in seven years. It's an enormous concern to me. I referenced earlier that no decision has been taken on whether mixed-use projects will fall into one category or the other. That's an enormous concern. That is something that we should look at very carefully. It's a question that this government should have answered before they brought this bill forward. To leave the door ajar is only problematic.

We all know that much of the strength of this bill will be found in the regulation and in how this bill is interpreted. How these regulations are drafted will be a huge concern to many British Columbians. That number will only grow as more and more people fail to find work in British Columbia. This will not increase the level of employment; this will decrease the level of employment, because people will leave. This government has done nothing to create a vibrant investor climate. The words "investor confidence" seem to be completely misunderstood by these individuals. That's a concern for me.

When any group wishes to impose a master collective agreement, it's contrary to any recognition of individuality. That's what liberalism is about: recognition of the rights, desires and interests of the individual. We would hope that the contributions that individuals make will be found valuable by the members opposite. That hasn't been the case. Again, that's a concern, because there are many world-class one-off companies in this province doing things not found anywhere else: leading-edge research and technology, leading-edge development. Somehow this government would see the wisdom of ramping all of that together and suggesting that the interest of those varied, vital businesses can be addressed by a one-size-fits-all contract. Dead wrong, and not something that I'm prepared to stand by and see happen.

I come back to the contention with which I opened my remarks this evening. Indeed, this is about a hoist motion to delay consideration and passage of this bill to allow for consideration for six months. There are lessons that I believe this government needs to learn. Perhaps every seven years it's time to become more receptive, to finally open their eyes and ears and say: "Maybe there are some things that I can learn from other jurisdictions that are far more successful today than British Columbia." I don't enjoy seeing my province dead last. My constituents aren't happy, in the sense that they see this government having a dramatic impact on their ability to generate a living, to employ individuals, to create opportunities for their communities. It's not a decision that has been well thought out, and frankly it's not a decision that's well received.

There needs to be some further investigation of where we go next. Any tampering with the Labour Code is a disincentive to investors in the province. I have referenced many

[ Page 9740 ]

[10:15]

It brings me back to my point about the secret ballot. It's unprecedented in a reasonable democracy that somehow people would overlook the fact that a basic and fundamental right has been removed from British Columbians. That these folks can overlook something that is vitally important to democratic thought is a concern to me. There doesn't seem to be any shortage in British Columbia of small businesses that are being unionized. So why tamper with a fragile economic climate? That's an enormous concern to me. The speakers opposite -- who have interjected, who have come to their feet -- have not answered the question. They're still stuck on why we haven't returned the secret ballot. That's an enormous concern, and we are not prepared to lend our support to a situation that looks to a 1950s solution for a 1990s or year 2000 economy. Sectoral bargaining is a 1950s solution. One-size-fits-all is not practical. It's not useful and it's not thoughtful about where we need to be.

I look at what we talk about as being the businesses and the industries of the new economy: biotechnology, information technology, environmental technologies. Those will be the leaders in business development and job creation in this province and in many other provinces and parts of the globe. For this province to unfairly disadvantage our businesses, our scientists, our researchers is so shortsighted that it's unbelievable. It doesn't make sense that that stance can somehow be justified by the members opposite. It's ridiculous. This is about positioning our world leaders so they can be competitive on the world stage. It's not about fettering them with Labour Code changes at home, so that the dollars they need to craft business opportunities are not available, so that the venture capital dollars they need are not available, so that the best scientists don't want to come to this province to work, because they're not interested in building businesses when they believe that government will only hinder their growth.

All of those questions need to be answered. They haven't been answered by the Minister of Labour; they haven't been answered by the members opposite. It concerns me greatly, and this House knows that I am one who has stood many, many times in this chamber and spoken to the need to understand how important research and development is to the future of this province. Perhaps during this six-month hoist a few lessons on the importance of research and development. . . .

There are vital health questions that we haven't answered. Alzheimer's treatment, breast cancer research -- those things impact on British Columbians today. There is anguish in their lives because we have not found remedies or solutions to some very troubling questions. Will those questions be answered by a one-size-fits-all solution? Not by a long shot. It is simplistic in the extreme if these individuals opposite believe that that is somehow possible. It's not possible; it doesn't make good sense. It suggests that they haven't been truly thoughtful on these questions, and that concerns me.

I want to be in a province that believes in the people who create jobs -- a simple statement, and one that should be easily understood -- and understands that small business is the economic driver in the province. Those are the only people who do the job of effectively stimulating the economy -- not the big pendulum swings of the fifties, not the large-scale resource extraction projects, not a big announcement about an aluminium smelter, not a big announcement about waging another war somewhere, but being here day in and day out, ensuring that the incremental steps taken are not ones that hamper business in the province.

In my earlier debates with this minister, I spoke many times around cost-benefit analysis and around the need for research. I'm still concerned to this day that this minister has not done his homework when it comes to returning to the taxpayer, to this Legislature, some homework on the question of the impact of these changes to the Labour Code.

Again, I hope that the six-month hoist will engage these members, this government, in some lessons on how to conduct research on the impact of legislation. That should be basic. Anytime any legislation comes before this House, there should be an impact analysis -- what it's going to do to business, how much it is going to cost business, how much regulation is involved, how much red tape is new -- not the drivel that emanated from the benches opposite when they indicated they hadn't done any research. Frankly, they were proud of it. That is alarming, and it speaks to my earlier points that indeed they need the six months to learn some lessons about the economy, investor confidence, research and development, and ensuring that the needs of small business are recognized and delivered upon -- not the constant talk without the action. That's the concern that I raise in this House today and that I've continued to raise.

This government has had ample opportunities to do some wonderful things in the province of British Columbia. The only answer to today's dilemma is an election.

R. Coleman: Looking at the numbers in the House at this time, I'll call for a quorum.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

Deputy Speaker: I think we have a quorum now, member.

R. Coleman: I am pleased to enter into the debate on the hoist motion on Bill 26. I'd like to start out my remarks on the

[ Page 9741 ]

I have had the experience of working in both sectors. I have worked in both union and non-union construction. I was a roofer many years ago and worked in a union environment with regards to manufactured homes. I was fortunate in both situations to have good employers. Both provided benefits and fair wages for the work that I was doing. I never once felt that either one of those sectors prejudiced me in one way or the other. At no time did I feel that I was not able to provide myself with a decent income as a result of my involvement in working in either one of those sectors.

I mention that because earlier in this debate there were a variety of comments made back and forth across the House relative to the sectors involved, whether it be union or non-union. I think we have to caution ourselves about the fact that this should not enter into being a specific debate between union and non-union sectors. It should be relative to fairness within labour relations and a balance that allows industry and management and labour to work together to the point that they can successfully achieve the goals for their employers, their investors and their companies.

I think one of the most misunderstood facts about the non-union sector of construction and the non-union sector of business is that. . . . Oftentimes we hear that there are no benefits for the people in those sectors. I find it somewhat surprising that people keep making those statements in light of the fact that the fastest-growing group benefit plans available are through the B.C. Chamber of Commerce or the Better Business Bureau for employees of small and medium-sized businesses, whether they be union or non-union. Ironically, a lot of the benefit plans for the union sector are now taking bids relative to those same plans and finding them competitive and worthwhile for their employees.

I think we're dealing with debate on this legislation because the government has ignored the job creators in this province. The job creators in this province in almost all sectors I have spoken to, including large construction and heavy ICI, have told me that the best thing the government could ever do to the B.C. economy today would be to leave the Labour Code alone, that the Labour Code is actually functioning for the benefit of all sectors. I've sat down and visited with both the union and the non-union sectors and with the investment sector and the business sector in regards to my research relative to this particular bill. That's why I think we should hoist it. If I'm getting that feedback from those sectors when I'm speaking to them. . . . They're telling me the reasons that they need different things, whether it be better practices within construction or better practices within management or better labour-management relations. They're also telling me that for some time we've experienced very good, stable labour-practices relationship within this province.

What we're trying to do with this hoist motion is to get the government to take a sober second look at a piece of legislation that every sector I've spoken to, once they understand what's going on, tells me is not meeting their wishes. That includes the union sector of the construction unions.

The job creators say to me about getting the economy back on track. . . . The first thing they told me was: "Don't increase regulation; don't fiddle with the Labour Code. Allow us to have an opportunity to attract outside investment and financing into the province." As soon as we fiddle with the Labour Code, we add one more piece to an already complicated puzzle of the B.C. economy that is already in trouble. That particular piece of the economy. . . .

I want to say to you that as of today, I am actually aware that when this bill passes, $100 million in commercial construction by contractors and investors that I am aware of will not go ahead in this province, in the Fraser Valley. That's $100 million in investment, about 1,400 or 1,500 jobs during the construction phase and about 800 jobs during the operation of the various companies. A number of other factors come into this. Those are major players in construction in the province who are now in Texas, in California, in Washington State, and who have projects on the go there.

[10:30]

You know, when I'm looking to say that I want to hoist a piece of legislation that I know is not going to help, I've got to step back for a second to reflect on some of the statistics that I'm aware of -- not statistics that we have to throw around and play with, but real-life numbers in construction. I want to go back just to housing starts, because the ICI fill-over -- and maybe some of it is rhetorical fill-over -- scares the investor when you add regulation upon regulation to an investor and an employer.

What's happening in the sectors that are affected here? We already know that commercial construction is down dramatically. We also know that in the commercial construction sector. . . . I'm being told personally of projects that will not go ahead in this environment. But in addition to that, let me give you some bare, basic facts. In 1993, five years ago, we had 42,807 housing starts in British Columbia. Now, if you want to take the time and do the math, for every 100 housing starts it's 280 jobs. So it doesn't take long to figure out the math and how many people were working in construction in those sectors. In 1996 we had 26,641 housing starts. So we dropped from 42,000 housing starts to 26,000 housing starts.

That was a job loss to real people -- whether they be union or non-union employees of companies in construction -- of 31,000 jobs. The sad thing is that in addition to that, in 1998 the numbers have been adjusted downward for British Columbia by CMHC and other agencies, predicting that we would have 22,000 starts. That's another 17,000 jobs. So what we have here is 48,000 jobs lost in one sector of our economy since 1993. Now, 48,000 jobs are 48,000 families. They're 48,000 families with children who have to go to school. They buy their children clothing; they buy homes; they buy cars.

It doesn't take long to tell you that one of the major economic drivers in the province has been dramatically affected in the last five years and has been drawn down to its knees. If you're involved in this industry whatsoever, you would recognize that construction in the commercial and housing industry is at a very critical and serious point. All you

[ Page 9742 ]

I'll give you a couple of other quick examples. I know of a very good project that has equity, where the land is paid for and where there is about $50-70 million worth of construction involved. I know that the project will be bid and will probably be built by union labour. I also know that it went out for financing recently. I know the players and the partners. When they went to the chartered banks of this country to finance this project in British Columbia -- which already had leases signed and everything else for commercial construction -- only one chartered bank would consider writing a letter of finance to that particular corporation on their project.

Even when they got the one from the one chartered bank, the vice-president of finance in this province said to the borrower: "We now have to send this to Toronto. Cross your fingers, because our institution doesn't like British Columbia right now." Now, when we have chartered banks. . . . I've been there -- when you try and finance something -- and by George, they measure everything. They were very clear that they had very grave concerns about the B.C. economy, about the security of their investment. They were very clear that they didn't particularly like financing projects in British Columbia at this time. Now, that's not good. Whether we want to be partisan or non-partisan, it's just not good, because what that tells us is that we're having difficulty attracting investment to create jobs.

If we have trouble attracting investment to create jobs, the last thing we need to do is bring in legislation that's going to tinker with the opportunities for our people to attract investment, to attract the jobs. You know, it won't make any difference whatsoever whether there's sectoral bargaining in the construction sector or not, to anybody who works in any trade in this province, if we cannot attract investment and financing to build any projects in this province to begin with. There's nobody who's going to have any work, and it won't make any difference. The last thing we need to do is add something within our legislative grouping, with all the regulation and what have you that we've already tied up people in this province with -- the difficulty we've put on people's heads -- and tie them up again with another piece of legislation on top that scares investment away.

Now, when I look back at this. . . . Having received letters well in advance of the introduction of Bill 26 from various craft unions and different union and non-union groups, it was obvious that this legislation was coming to certain sectors of our economy. But it wasn't like it was brought forward in the open and they said: "Here's the legislation. We're bringing it forward, and it's going to hit the floor on first reading at such-and-such a date. Then we'll start debate on such-and-such a date." We started to debate this legislation the day after it was introduced. That doesn't bother me so much, except for the fact that I keep getting back from even the craft union people I've talked to, from the rank and file, what their issues are, what their real concerns are, and where their competitive edges are, and they have nothing to do with what's contained in this legislation. I'll get to that in a minute, as I go through some of the letters that I've received.

You know, we just did Bill 14, which amended the Workers Compensation Act, in this House. That added different regulation again. Then we had Bill 26. We do this while we've lost 48,000 jobs in construction in B.C. since 1993. I mean, I don't know where the thought process is coming from. But I do know that if a piece of legislation is going to further hurt this economy, it should be hoisted. That's why we're here tonight: to debate hoisting this and to try to get the government to take that second thought, take it to a committee and take a serious look at its economic impact. Take a serious look at its cost not only to business but also to labour. As I said before, there's a balance that has to be maintained for both sectors to survive successfully, and they cannot survive successfully if we legislators create an imbalance of legislation for one group or the other.

We're talking about hoisting a piece of legislation that's going to basically hurt investment and finance in a sector that's already reeling. We have to know something about the B.C. economy if we're going to make a decision on hoisting this thing. If somebody said to me that capital spending in British Columbia is declining dramatically, and that's happening in only two other provinces, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. . . . B.C. taxes and labour laws do not make investors around the globe want to invest here. Companies are fleeing this province at an alarming rate. In 1996, 145 companies left.

In my community, the results of the processes that have been built upon and built upon with regulation and difficulties with the economy from government's intervention. . . . In my constituency, this has hurt. I'm fortunate; I live in a constituency that has a stable base of economy, and it's hurting my constituency. I have very good friends out of work in all sectors of this province, and they're out of work because of the economy. If it's hurting me, I can just imagine what it's doing to single resource-based economies across the province.

What I've got to say is: if for a second we have a piece of legislation that we are told by banks, by business, by labour and by investors is going to hurt the economy because it's going to lessen the attraction of investment to our province, we should do the right thing and say: "Maybe this isn't right, right now." Maybe it's time for us to take that step backward, take a look at this legislation, really do the research on an economic impact study, instead of doing none at all or doing it marginally, and quit trying to be legislators for groups or legislators for interests or legislators for friends, but become legislators for the people of British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia are the ones that are reeling from the 48,000 jobs lost in the construction sector. They're the ones that are reeling because the commercial building in their communities can't be financed because there's no faith in the economy of British Columbia. They're the ones that are hurt by this. We're not the ones being hurt. We as legislators should be remembering that. We should remember that our role is to ensure balance within our labour laws, balance within our regulation and balance within our economy. We shouldn't be putting ourselves in an imbalance that scares investment and people away from the province.

And when they start to flee. . . . When I talk about businesses starting to flee the province, for a second I just get so frustrated. The reason I do is because it's not just the businesses that are leaving British Columbia; it's the people. It's our people. Hon. Speaker, if our people are leaving the province, and investment and business and labour are saying to us, "Listen, this piece of legislation could further hurt the B.C. economy," we should hoist it.

I have a 17-year-old son. He wanted a summer job. Well, next week he goes to Wainwright, Alberta. The reason he's going to Wainwright is because he made the conscious choice

[ Page 9743 ]

The other thing that we face in this province, as a result of regulation and the red tape and the cost of how we do business, is a very high tax regime. If any piece of legislation adds to that burden or adds any cost to government, it should not come forward at this time, simply because we can't afford it. When I say "we," I don't say we as government, I say we as the people of British Columbia. When you have the highest marginal tax rate in North America, it's very difficult to attract people. It's very difficult to attract business. I would be supportive tomorrow if the government says: "Whoa, let's stop for a second. Let's hoist 26 and let's go take a look at this."

[10:45]

At the same time, let's take a look at where they have actually taken tough moves to reduce personal income taxes to people and what it's done to the economies. If you look at those jurisdictions, you will find that when we reduce the taxes and the regulation, government actually got more money, because it generated activity in the economy. People were able to buy a house or a car or a fridge -- the major items.

Watch in your communities -- particularly those communities that are represented by members of this Legislature and are resource-based and are hurting today. You've seen it already. You can see your car dealerships that are in financial difficulty. You can see your grocery stores that are shutting down. You can see the businesses that are being affected by a downturn in the economy. You can see it, and you know what the pain is. It's not pleasant. You don't want to see it happen. If you feel that way, you have to take a look at Bill 26 and the reason it's before the Legislature and its cost and benefit to this province. It just doesn't measure up. It doesn't measure up, at a time when there's this much suffering in the province, to bring a piece of legislation before the House that's going to hurt investment, hurt business and hurt people at work.

I don't understand why the government didn't do impact studies on this legislation and its regulations. It's a bill that has an effect on a large sector of the economy -- that being the Labour Code and labour, both union and non-union -- that has a relationship with business, with investment, with finance, and with creating the economy that turns the dollars over to create the jobs and creates the opportunities for our people.

I have difficulty understanding -- having just phoned the people that I phoned, or people like the people I phoned, and got the answers back -- how a Minister of Employment and Investment or a Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture could look at this legislation and not say: "Whoa, guys. Just a second here. I think we've got a piece of legislation that is not well-timed and does not help this economy. We had better think about this, because if we don't we may push ourselves over the precipice into a much deeper recession than we're in already, and it's only going to hurt more people." I can't believe that the people who create jobs. . . . If you look at the polls, 70 percent of small and medium-sized business, who create jobs in this province, said: "This is not good for us. This is not good for the economy. This is not good for business."

The thing that you have to realize is that there are a number of factors that affect an economy. Labour legislation is a major factor, if you bring it at the right or the wrong time. You should make sure your research and your work is done when you make the decision to bring it forward. In this case, that just hasn't been done. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in their annual survey of members' expectations, revealed that business optimism is highest in Ontario and on the Prairies and lowest in New Brunswick and British Columbia. Business optimism, which has a direct relationship with labour and to the job creators in business and to finance, has a way of impacting whether an economy works. If there is no optimism, you don't take the risk. You're not prepared to take the risk to build a commercial building that you're going to rent out, whether it be a Subway, a McDonald's or whatever the case may be. You're not prepared to take those risks if you don't have optimism that the people you're going to lease the building to are capable or are going to have a stable business climate to operate in.

At the same time, the pro formas and the relationships in the business community that the financial community looks at have to work; otherwise, they won't finance. In my constituency, you can feel this lack of optimism in the business community, and I live in a pretty optimistic community. You can see the vacant spaces in particular commercial areas in my community. And what's worse is that you can sit down and have a coffee with your friends, with your constituents or at a meeting -- it doesn't matter what kind -- and you can see the fear in peoples' faces. The fear you see there is: how much worse can this economy get, and when is it really going to start to affect me? If you've ever been there, you know that's a terrible, horrible feeling.

When we deal with labour legislation, like any legislation, we have to look at how we do business, and a hoist would be the most commonsense decision that we as legislators could make in this session. People ask: "Why are you so vociferous in your concerns over Bill 26?" I say to them: "It's because I've seen the fear; I've seen the pain. I know this industry; I know how it works, and I know how financiers look at this industry and how they work. I know that it is damaging to that group of people."

It is absolutely critical that we wake up and smell the roses here. I have two children. I love my son. He's a good son, he's a friend and he's a buddy. He deserves a future in job opportunities in this province. He deserves a future, like all the children of this province do. If anybody thinks that it's right to bring legislation forward that hurts anybody in this province on a large scale like this piece of legislation will, because of the loss of investment, of opportunity and of the future, they're wrong. It's 48,000 jobs in construction since 1993. . . . That's 48,000 opportunities for human beings, and we have to start making some human decisions in this House that are good for the people we were elected to represent.

I support the motion to hoist this legislation, simply because it's right to hoist this legislation. It's right because this particular piece of legislation is one more nail in a failing economy. It's not the time to hurt an economy that's failing; it's time to make the decision, stand up -- both sides of this House -- and hoist Bill 26, for the benefit of all British Columbians.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 9744 ]

I also think that what has become apparent is that the member for Skeena has done something very, very bad within his own caucus, by virtue of his having been sentenced to be here for just about every waking moment of this debate. I know he tentatively delved into this debate some time ago. I say, with respect to this very important hoist motion that we are now considering, that if he has a contribution to make, if he has a submission to make to the people of British Columbia via this chamber, then let him make that submission, hon. Speaker. I see him rushing to his feet, and I will be happy to offer him a place after I have made my humble submissions on this point.

Tracking this debate -- which has gone on now for a couple of days, anyway -- has been a fascinating exercise, partly as a result of what has been said on this side of the House, partly as a result of what has been said on the government side of the House, but more particularly for what has not been said by members of the government, the cabinet and the government back bench. I was going through the Hansards and examining some of the speeches that I hadn't been in the House to witness personally, insofar as government members in particular are concerned, and one phrase jumped out at me time and time again. It must have been scripted, because each and every one of the government members who have participated in this debate have repeated it over and over again. According to them, there's nothing in this bill. That's what they say: nothing in this bill. It is a modest bill. That is what the bill's sponsor, the Minister of Labour, says time and time again. A modest bill from a modest minister.

When I examined the legislation, when I examined the implications it has for the construction trades, for the people who earn a living in that sector of the economy and for the economy in the broadest sense, the signals it sends. . . . We've heard that time and time again from members of the opposition. We repeat and bring to this House the opinions of our constituents, the opinions of the people who are involved in trying to restart an economy that this government has driven into the ground by virtue of its ill-conceived policies of trying to micro-manage the economy from the Premier's Office just down the hall. . . . We have brought that message to this House, and I am sad to say that it has apparently fallen largely upon deaf ears.

The minister says it's modest legislation. What does he mean by that? What does he mean by modest?

Well, we know that this government, over the span of a couple of weeks, was able to turn a mythical, modest budget surplus into a more than just modest deficit. We know that this is a government that, upon taking office, has magically turned an economy that showed signs of modest growth into something that's more than just a modest recession; it's bordering on a depression. To those people who have lost their jobs, make no mistake about it: if you're out of work in British Columbia, your prospects of finding work are remote, nearly nil. That is not just depressing; for those families, that represents a depression.

The government doesn't want to talk about it. Their response to those indicators, their response to the information that we have brought to the House. . . . My colleague the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove talks about housing starts, and I want to talk about that as well, because I believe that is as good an indicator of what's happening in the economy as anything. We bring that information to the House, and the government is in denial. The government refuses to talk about it. When you say to them, "Look, these are the facts; this is what's happening in British Columbia, insofar as the flight of investment capital is concerned," they don't want to talk about it. They're in denial.

They're in denial when you point out to them that in certain communities, people are being brought in from Alberta to highlight the opportunities elsewhere in this country. Can you imagine? We are now confronted by the reality in this province that recruiters from Alberta, Washington, Oregon, Ontario and other provinces are coming to British Columbia, which used to be the land of promise, the province where hopes and dreams were fulfilled.

[11:00]

Government members continue to this very minute to display the self-denial that has placed British Columbia's future in jeopardy. For them, apparently, it is a joke -- the fact that British Columbians, in order to fulfil their dreams, legitimate hopes and aspirations, are now leaving. Is there any more telling indicator than the fact that more people are leaving British Columbia than are coming to British Columbia for the first time in, I think, over 15 years? The migratory patterns, the demographic shifts in this country speak volumes about what this government has done to this economy.

No amount of denial or burying their heads in the sand can alter those economic indicators, and they're not just statistics. We're talking about real people every time we see someone leave this province, every time we see a U-Haul trailer attached to a K-car heading for Banff or Jasper or points beyond. Those are people, those are mothers, fathers and their children, leaving this province because it failed to deliver on the dream that has always been delivered in this province. That's a shame.

You look at housing starts. I know that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove referred to this. But that, for me, is another indicator, because I come from a part of the province -- the city of Abbotsford, the sixth-largest city in the province of B.C., although still maintaining a large rural component. . . . From the time I grew up there as a young man, that community has been growing, building, supplying housing for the people that have been migrating to that part of the province. It's stopping; it has not just slowed down. It's stopping.

Look at what's happening in terms of single-family detached residences in Abbotsford; they are down almost 15

[ Page 9745 ]

It's time British Columbians understood the processes by which this legislation has come before this chamber. A lot of people forget how the mother of Bill 26 was created. A lot of people forget the fact that the last people to talk to the minister before Bill 44 of the last legislative session came to the floor of this chamber were the big union bosses. Remember that? Remember how we discovered that just prior to tabling the legislation, the minister had to appear before the big union inquisition to make sure that the provisions of that bill were satisfactory? That was the former minister's answer to widespread consultation: make sure that Mr. Georgetti and his team were satisfied.

I don't think British Columbians should forget -- and I don't think they have forgotten -- the agenda that this government has followed to bring us to this point in the legislative calendar. It is deplorable, in my view, when you hear some of the language from the few government members that have stood up. They claim a higher purpose; they are the higher-purpose people. They claim to be speaking for working people. I made some notes of one of the government speakers. Well, fancy that -- it was the member for Skeena.

The member for Skeena, either during a speech on this matter or in what perhaps he thought was a witty aside, made the allegation that we on this side of the House had never had real jobs. Now, I think what he meant, because I believe he made the comment. . . .

An Hon. Member: Is that a quote?

M. de Jong: Well, I put it in quotation marks, so I'm trusting myself that it was an actual quote. I think he made that statement as part of his touching dissertation on life as a school teacher in British Columbia, working his way through the BCTF. He related to us the significance of that from a labour relations point of view. And indeed, it was not just a real job but a tremendously important job that that member had: a school teacher. Can we think of a more important job to be charged with than the responsibility for educating the children of British Columbia? Not only is it a real job, it's an extremely important job.

But there are other important jobs. I don't think a job should be rated in importance on the issue of whether or not the employee belongs to a union. And from speaker after speaker, that's what we heard from these government benches: "You've never had a real job, because the criterion for establishing whether you had a real job or not is whether you paid union dues."

Well, I take exception to that. I take exception to it for very personal reasons. The hardest-working guy I know is my father. He came to this country as a young man in his thirties, after the war, and he worked his tail off. He's 70 years old this year, and he's still working his tail off. I don't know if he'll ever retire. The fact that he's never been a member of a union doesn't make him a better man or a worse man than anyone in this province. It's just a fact that he chose a different course. I take exception to members of the government somehow equating membership in a union -- as valid as that is, and it is valid; in many cases, it's been essential -- with being a more legitimate form of making a living and providing for your family. Those just ain't the facts. That just ain't the truth.

What this province has been about is people coming here or being born here and knowing that if they worked hard, they could make a living. And if they worked real hard, they could make more than a living; they and their families could prosper. As I listened to these government members talk, I got this sense, this old sense. . . . I see the member for Peace River North. There's this socialist feeling -- I think that's the word used by the member for Peace River North -- that somehow if you deign to make a profit in this province, if you deign to think that you should somehow profit from hard work, that makes you a bad person. Somehow that makes you less of a person than the member for Skeena, who had a very important job as a school teacher -- but it was a different kind of job. He was paid a salary, and that's okay. I hope he was a good teacher. But I'm sick and tired of members of the government suggesting that people in British Columbia who think they should profit by their hard work are somehow bad people. That ain't the way it should be.

Maybe that's the important thing about this debate. Maybe that's the thing that will emerge from this debate: a clear delineation between what the people on that side of the House represent and what the people on this side of the House represent, between the socialists over there and the capitalist free-enterprisers over here.

An Hon. Member: Go ahead and continue, Wacky.

M. de Jong: In any other House to be called Wacky might be unparliamentary, but in this place I will wear it as a badge of honour.

I heard one of the members, who apparently is now searching through the parliamentary journals, scouring for those magical words -- I'll read them out again -- say: "You don't have real jobs."

An Hon. Member: I'll get to it.

M. de Jong: And he will get to it.

I wonder just how bad things have to get in British Columbia before these NDP members begin to take seriously the warning signs that are flashing everywhere. How many people have to leave? How many families have to have their futures destroyed, their dreams ripped away from them? Is it an overdramatization? Members might say that. But if you're from the north Island, if you're from Port Hardy, and you look out your window -- as I imagine the member from that community does, day in and day out, when he's there -- to see people packing up and leaving, to see them moving out of

[ Page 9746 ]

An Hon. Member: They're all trade unionists.

M. de Jong: They're all trade unionists; there we go again. I guess that if you're a trade unionist, in the mind of that member, you're either a better person or you're somehow immune to the recession that this government has inflicted on British Columbians. But they're not immune; they're leaving as well.

G. Robertson: Oh, really?

[11:15]

He laughs, hon. Speaker. When the member for North Island laughs, he laughs at those members of his community who ask the legitimate question: "Who will stand up for me and the British Columbians who want to have a future in this province?" That's who he's laughing at.

When you go to Port Alberni and you walk past the closed shops with taped-up windows, those people ask: "How can our member support a piece of legislation that is going to contribute to the acceleration of that exodus from British Columbia?" That member is in denial. He thinks that by saying that something is so often enough and loud enough, it will make it so. But it won't, because the facts speak for themselves.

Unfortunately, in this chamber we are by necessity restricted to dealing with statistics, figures and documents. But what you cannot deny, hon. Speaker, and what no member of this government can deny is that during the course of this legislative session, real people have been sitting in this gallery -- real people who this government's policies have affected in a tremendously negative way -- and have been looking down on this floor, beseeching this government and asking for an answer and for an end to the destructive policies that put them there in the first place. They were ignored. Well, almost all of them were ignored. The ones that weren't ignored were the ones that could bring stories to this Legislature that embarrassed members of this cabinet and backbench members of the government side.

The member for Peace River North has brought such an individual; the member from Penticton has brought such a person. Magically, when the plight of that young person who was promised a job by this government, and then, two days before it was supposed to begin, had that job ripped away from him. . . . When he sat up there in the gallery and confronted the Premier and asked, "Why didn't you tell me the truth, Mr. Premier?" suddenly, to avoid the embarrassment, it got fixed. That's the way you have to deal with this bunch. As the member for Peace River North says, that's the socialist way. God forbid some bad news should appear in Pravda. We can't have that.

So that is what we have been reduced to in this province: people parading to Victoria, to the provincial capital, to personally bring their difficulties to the floor of the Legislature via the opposition. That's the only way they get any action; that's the only way they get any answers from this government. Those members sit there on their hands, laughing, chuckling or silently supporting a piece of legislation that's going to make it worse.

I think this debate has been tremendously valuable, and we're not through yet. Rest assured that we're not through yet, because through this debate process, people are getting a clear indication of what separates us from them. I think that's good. I think it's about time, and I think that as that distinction becomes even clearer, you will see a movement in this province. You will see it confirmed in the minds of free-enterprisers right across this province that they want an election. They want an opportunity to pass judgment on a government whose policies are driving them to despair. That is what Bill 26 represents. That is why Bill 26 needs to be hoisted -- because British Columbians deserve another chance. British Columbians deserve a chance to save themselves from yet another policy that is going to make life more difficult for them.

That's all this is about. This is not a complicated exercise. There's nothing confusing about what's been going on in this Legislature over the last couple of weeks. We've been sitting late, debating recess motions, debating adjournment motions, debating procedural motions, Motion 50s, Motion 60s. Why? Because this is bad legislation, and we're going to do everything we can do to stop it from passing into law. "So defend it," we say to the government. "Defend this statute, this bill that you want to turn into a statute. Defend it if you dare." To this point, all we've heard is: "Pass this bill. It doesn't mean anything; there's nothing in it."

Well, if it doesn't contain anything, if there's nothing in this bill that isn't going to do harm to the province, then why were we sitting here at 2 o'clock in the morning and why are we sitting here now at 11:30 at night? Why has the government pulled out all the stops to reinstate it after their ministers fumbled the ball and it was dropped from the order paper? I have never seen a government so desperate to reinstate a bill, to save a bill, to throw a life jacket to a bill that apparently means nothing and has nothing in it.

Their actions demonstrate that there is a debt for them to pay. They don't want to talk about it. They don't want to acknowledge it, but there's a hidden agenda here. It doesn't matter to these members of the NDP what the cost of repaying that debt will be to the average British Columbian who only wants to make a living -- to earn a living, have a job and provide for their family. They don't care about that. What they care about is paying a debt to Mr. Georgetti so that come the next election, they can come calling and get what they need from him.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I'm going to ask the member to withdraw that. That is the second time during the course of this debate that a member of the NDP has asked me how much I'm getting paid to speak in this House. There is parliamentary jurisprudence on this point. Let the member withdraw that remark. It may be that other members on that side of the House think that's not a big deal. I'm here because I'm elected to be here to represent the views of my constituents, and if that member is suggesting that I'm being paid by someone else to make this speech or any other speech, let him stand up and say it out loud. I heard that comment, and I want it withdrawn.

[ Page 9747 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your first statement is appropriate, and the rest of it is not.

H. Giesbrecht: If the member feels offended, I would be happy to withdraw it.

M. de Jong: Although my time is up, I'm sure you'll give me a moment to wrap up, Madam Speaker.

An Hon. Member: Injury time.

M. de Jong: It'll take more than injury time to repair this bill. The only thing that this bill deserves is the hoist that is the subject of this amendment motion. If the minister disagrees, if the members disagree, stand up and defend it. On this side of the House we know where we stand, and it's for the people of British Columbia, particularly those who are going to be hurt again by an uncaring, unfeeling government that's more interested in paying back an ideological debt to its ideological friends than in enacting policies that will help British Columbians.

H. Giesbrecht: The previous speaker made a few references to comments that I was supposed to have made in one of my previous addresses, so I thought it would be a good idea to correct the record. I searched the Hansard, and I found the reference that he makes. I would like to read from the record as to what was said in terms of people having real jobs. I want to be very accurate about this, because when. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, there is a way in which you are entitled to clarify a point but it's not meant to be a 30-minute address. I will allow you to clarify a point raised by another member.

H. Giesbrecht: I'm speaking to the hoist motion.

The Speaker: If you're speaking to the hoist motion, fine.

H. Giesbrecht: I just started to say that I was listening to the member, and I had visions of a fairly slick, American former TV evangelist. I used to watch him on Sunday mornings, and it was quite remarkable, because he had the capacity to get milk out of a cow at twenty paces. At the end, he always sold some little trinket if you made a contribution. I had visions of that. Now, we all know that the particular person I'm speaking of eventually had to leave in disgrace. I thought I would use the opportunity in my address to make a correction. . . .

Interjections.

H. Giesbrecht: I'm getting to it. The member made some comment about real people and real jobs, so just to repeat for the record, let me quote from June 18:

"So I continue to be puzzled by this attitude over there" -- and this goes for the hoist motion as well. "Nobody on this side has ever said that we're interested in hammering business in any way, nobody said that. We simply believe that you have to have a set of rules, because not all employers are great employers and not all workers are great workers. You need a set of rules to govern the relationship at the workplace. But for them, it's a joke. You wonder whether any of them have ever worked as an ordinary working person. I know they keep talking about how many businesses they've run and all that kind of stuff, but have they ever worked in a workplace for an employer that wasn't in some way somebody that they could ingratiate themselves with by adopting the same political line?"

I thought it would be useful to explain in terms of the hoist motion that we have probably now had about 13 hours of debate on second reading. We have had three hours of debate on a motion to recess for 35 minutes; we had a second motion to recess for 35 minutes that lasted. . . . The first one lasted three hours; the next one, six hours -- I hope you're doing the arithmetic -- and then today we had a third motion to recess for 35 minutes that lasted two and a half hours. Now we've had a hoist motion and probably about 30 speakers from that side, so there's another 15 hours at a half-hour a piece -- I'm not counting the designated speakers and so on -- so that's a lot of debate. And there will be more, because they have the option of tabling another few hoist motions -- and who knows what else?

The message that becomes fairly clear in all this is something that gets confused. They won't acknowledge in any of their debate anything having to do with cuts in transfer payments from the federal government; none of the challenges that resulted from that have any relevance whatsoever. They won't acknowledge any of the challenges faced by the Asian flu. To them it just doesn't exist. We ought to be able to do something about that; that's the theory. They won't acknowledge that there are places up north, like Skeena, where people are faced with challenges that have to do with U.S. countervail pressures on pulp and lumber imports and the quotas that have been set. They won't acknowledge a loss of B.C. pulp and paper markets because of the Asian flu. They won't acknowledge the decline in fish stocks and how that affects local communities. They won't acknowledge that there are some challenges that are faced by commercial and sport fishers alike. If you listen to their debate, all of these are the responsibility of the government.

They can't even help out to meet some of those challenges, and then they turn around and praise Alberta. They praise Alberta's gaming policy. Ours is twice as restrictive, and if there's any thought to changing that, they hammer us for our gaming policy. Their message is simply this -- and this is all in the hoist motion -- that workers should be denied the right to choose whether they want a union or a collective agreement. That's fundamentally what it's all about. That's what Bill 26 does. It gives workers a choice. For them, unionized workers are the scapegoats for all of them, and they must be kept down at all costs. That's why they want a hoist motion. That's why I have absolutely no problem in rejecting the hoist motion -- or another one, should you choose to move one.

[11:30]

[ Page 9748 ]

YEAS -- 25
Sanders	C. Clark	Farrell-Collins
de Jong	Reid	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Whittred
Jarvis	Nettleton	Penner
Weisbeck	Hogg	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Thorpe
van Dongen	Barisoff	Dalton
Masi	Krueger	McKinnon
	J. Wilson

 

NAYS -- 35
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Boone	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Goodacre	Walsh
Randall	Gillespie	Robertson
Cashore	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Ramsey
Farnworth	Waddell	Hartley
Sihota	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht		Janssen

The Speaker: We're back on the main motion, Bill 26.

I. Chong: I'm pleased to rise to speak to second reading of Bill 26, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998. I'm pleased to see such a large audience.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would suggest that the member wait just a moment, because members may have other duties to go to. As you depart the chamber, would you please do so quietly.

I. Chong: As I stated earlier, I'm pleased to rise to speak to second reading of Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, which was introduced in this House on Wednesday, June 17, 1998, by the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Speaker, as you know, at the time of its introduction the official opposition opposed it -- and opposed it at first reading. We did so because we wanted to send a message to the government, and the message was that we were opposed in principle to allowing any changes to labour legislation that would cause additional harm to our provincial economy.

The members on this side of the House are extremely concerned about the economy. I would hope that the government members on that side of the House are equally concerned. Certainly there appears to be a little bit of concern, because we have seen some very minor initiatives that have been introduced by some ministers. However, all of those have been mere band-aid solutions, and they will do little if anything to help restore our provincial economy.

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member -- members on the government side, particularly. I draw attention to the fact that there are rather a lot of small conversations going on, and it's causing a disturbance and makes it difficult to hear. I'd appreciate it if conversations could happen in the corridor.

I. Chong: On this side of the House, we have said that the importance of our provincial economy cannot be overlooked. It has to be dealt with. It has to be dealt with quickly and seriously, because our economic growth is a serious problem now and because our economy is number ten in all of Canada, when only seven short years ago we were the number one economy. That is nothing for any member of this House to be proud of, particularly since seven years ago it was this NDP administration that took the reins of this province and allowed this economy to fall to the number ten spot.

Our economic growth is important to us. It is important, because it is our economic growth that will provide the tax revenues that will enable us to have our health care system in place and a good public education system, which we do support on this side of the House, and it will allow us the opportunity to see that there are jobs for our youth and for future generations. If we discard economic growth, if we do not put the importance and relevance on it that it needs, we are disregarding the future of this province and especially the youth of this province.

All government programs are dependent on the provincial economy. It's unfortunate that the members opposite still cannot reconcile that very important fact. The problem is that the members opposite, the government, have difficulties with numbers to begin with. We know that, because we've seen that in their budget fiascos.

I was elected just over two years ago, and in that short time I have seen the kind of fiscal mismanagement that I would hope never to see in any business, let alone in a government. We have had indications that there would be budget surpluses, which have quickly disappeared into budget deficits, and a Minister of Finance who could state in the Province: "I don't expect you to believe me." Those kinds of attitudes from the government members and particularly from the government ministers cause many British Columbians concern. They imply that we have people at the reins, at the helm, who are responsible for a budget of over $20 billion and who don't appear to know how to manage that. If they have that much difficulty managing the budget, just imagine the difficulty they have when it comes to dealing with our economy.

We have tried, in the two years that I have been here. . . . And I know that the members on this side of the House who have been here earlier than that, since 1991, have tried to express to this government that we need to put some changes in place to turn this economy around. We have seen the decline happen over these seven years. It has not been an immediate decline; it has been a progressive, seven-year decline. Since 1991, members on this side of the House have been attempting to work with members on that side of the House -- or at least to get their attention that we have a problem. We have a problem with high taxation, with excessive regulation and red tape, and with an unbalanced and unfair Labour Code -- at that time. That also needs amending to make it less tilted in favour of the union labour movement and more balanced so that employers and employees -- workers, union and non-union -- can come together collectively to ensure that there will be jobs and to ensure that our economy can survive and compete in the changing global economy. That isn't out there at present.

Hon. Speaker, it is about the economy. It is our economic growth that we are particularly concerned with, because eco-

[ Page 9749 ]

[11:45]

They have said that if labour legislation is to be introduced, then don't introduce it at this time. They have said that seven years of NDP government policies, which have been ill-timed, has brought our provincial economy tumbling down to the number ten spot. The people who are making these statements, commissioning these reports and providing these studies to us are not necessarily people that I knew before I ran for public office. They were already out there doing this. They were already out there concerned about our economy, and they were already out there trying to find solutions.

I heard it mentioned earlier by the members opposite. . . . I know that they would dearly love to blame this on the Asian crisis. Yes, that is a very small factor. It is a small factor, because it only occurred last year, in 1997, yet our economy has been declining since 1991. What has happened is that because they have not been able to essentially dig themselves out of this and find another explanation, they have thankfully looked upon the Asian crisis as their salvation in order to explain the reason why we have dropped to the number ten economy. It was two years ago, in 1996, when they even had the audacity to blame their budget fiasco on the weather. We all know that that was a misguided excuse that they attempted to pass off, because no one believed them.

We have at present a very low Canadian dollar. You would think that this in itself would help counter some of the problems of the Asian crisis. With a low Canadian dollar, surely that means that we would be more competitive globally and that Canada and British Columbia would be a good place to invest. But that hasn't happened. We haven't seen businesses flocking into British Columbia. In fact, we've seen the opposite. I won't repeat all the numbers, as all members on this side of the House have already done so. But we've heard of the thousands of jobs that have gone to Alberta and of the numbers of businesses -- hundreds and thousands, even -- which have relocated to other provinces, particularly to Alberta and even to some of the United States jurisdictions. And you don't blame them. You don't blame those investors, because they have their capital at risk -- sometimes they have their life savings at risk. So why would they come to British Columbia?

Last winter I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. I know that they met with the then Minister of Finance, who's no longer the Minister of Finance. I know that they provided a report to the minister, and I know they circulated them to all government members and to members on this side of the House. It was entitled British Columbia Fiscal and Economic Outlook. That report was not done solely for British Columbia. What the Investment Dealers Association did was commission a report for every province throughout Canada, their objective being to provide this to foreign investors, international investors, who are looking to come to any province in Canada. The Investment Dealers Association of Canada is a national organization, so they're not favouring or disfavouring any particular province. What they want to do is present the facts. They want to present the facts to investors who are seeking to relocate. When they commissioned all these ten separate reports for all these ten provinces, they would go to these meetings and provide them to the international investors. I found this very interesting, because I didn't know that this was what was occurring.

The investment dealers spoke with me, as deputy Finance critic, because they wanted to advise me on and alert me to what was happening out there in the real world, not only what is happening in these chambers. What they were saying was that when they present information to international and foreign investors suggesting all the provinces that they should be looking at and then come to the B.C. report and encourage them to invest in British Columbia, these foreign investors automatically say no: "No, no. We already know all about British Columbia. Yes, it's got beautiful viewscapes. Yes, it's got a wonderful environmental quality of life, etc. However, it has three very wrong things. British Columbia has high taxation, it has excessive regulation, and it has an unfair labour legislation or Labour Code."

Well, isn't this sounding very familiar? Everyone you speak to, whether internally here in Canada or externally in terms of the international investment community, are all saying the same thing: they all know about British Columbia; British Columbia is not the place to invest. If we don't invest in British Columbia, if we don't have that outside capital coming into this province, we won't create jobs. And if we don't create jobs, we will not be able to look out for the future of our youth, and we will not be able to move this province ahead. So why would we introduce any legislation -- any at all -- that would do even more harm and more damage to our economy?

I am concerned, because this Minister of Labour has suggested that the changes in this Bill 26 are minor or modest. I have to ask: how is it that this Minister of Labour can state that this legislation is minor or modest when he has not even allowed for those who are going to be affected or impacted by this legislation to offer their input? Certainly we have had two review panels. I recognize that, and I do give them credit for all the work they've done, because I'm sure it wasn't easy. I'm sure that they did hear from people. But what those review panels did -- what their mandate was -- was to gather that information, to collect that data. Then each of those separate review panels was able to list and recommend what labour

[ Page 9750 ]

I would suspect that he gathered that information from the recommendations of these two review panels, looked at them and decided which provisions should be allowed in legislation. That's fair enough. However, he should have gone one step further. He should have said: "We need to take some of these recommendations before we put them in the legislation and perhaps send them out to all those who would be affected by this, to all these groups, organizations, small business communities and chambers of commerce -- everyone who would be affected by this -- to get more input about how it will affect them." This is legislation that deals with their economic survival. We should have allowed those groups to have expressed their views and concerns and to have helped the Minister of Labour present the best possible labour legislation that would improve the status of our economy.

That didn't happen. When we are requesting that the hon. minister look at obtaining an economic impact study, again we don't hear that the minister will consider that. If this labour legislation is going to affect and impact the economy, then surely it would make sense that we should have an economic impact study done. I know that the ministers here would understand that, because I'm sure they have done so in their roles as ministers and in their various other portfolios. They have done some consultation at times -- not all of them, but some of them have. I'll give credit to those that have.

Those ministers who have taken the time, before they introduced legislation, to go out to those who are going to be most affected and to get that input have been able, I hope, to provide better legislation in the end when they bring it forward to this House. In so doing, it becomes less contentious, so that we don't have to do everything possible in our procedural manner to stop this legislation.

If this were not so complex and contentious, then we would at least allow for a debate and offer amendments at committee stage in hopes of moving this along. But we can see right now, at the outset, that that is not the case. We are looking for the Minister of Labour to at least hear from those who are most impacted by this. I'm not saying that I know what all those impacts are, nor do any of the members on this side of the House know what all those impacts are. We don't know yet just what kind of harm this piece of legislation can cause. We only know that those who have looked at it already are concerned enough to ask us to do everything to stop it.

[12:00]

I find it hard to accept that this labour legislation could possibly be minor or modest. I would hate to see this government break another law and another code that they would have to go back to the courts and request to be changed. I don't want this government side of the House to have to go through that ordeal and pay for all that legal expense when that could all be avoided if we would just look at this labour legislation in a different light and look at an economic impact study.

We have said, time and time again, that the small business community is the job creator in this province, and the investors and the investment community are the ones that are willing to risk capital in this province and that are willing to create those much-needed jobs. But both the small business and the investment communities have given this labour legislation a thumbs-down. They have said that there is no way that they can see supporting it in this form. There is confusion regarding how this will impact them, and that is one of the largest reasons and the biggest factor as to why we need to look at an economic impact study.

When this legislation was introduced on June 17, the Minister of Labour made some very telling remarks. He stated: "This legislation recognizes the unique characteristics of construction industry labour relations. It addresses longstanding concerns respecting labour relations and collective bargaining structures within the construction industry. . . ." That statement is very telling, because the Minister of Labour was dealing strictly with the construction industry -- the unionized construction industry. Our provincial economy is composed of more than that particular sector. For him and his government members and the Premier to want to just deal with the "unique characteristics of the construction industry" shows that they are doing a terrible disservice to the rest of British Columbia and the rest of British Columbia workers.

We on this side of the House are concerned about workers. We are concerned about workers who are in both the union sector and in the non-union sector. Everybody is entitled to work, to find a job and to have opportunity to better their life. But they cannot do that, hon. Speaker, when the government imposes their will on those people who would create those jobs for those people and, particularly, new jobs for the future generation, the youth of this province. We have the highest unemployment rate in terms of youth that we have ever had, that I can recall.

Interjection.

I. Chong: It is the highest west of Quebec, as my colleague the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain says. It is indeed shocking. It indicates that this Premier, who prides himself on being the Minister Responsible for Youth, has not done anything to turn that around. He has introduced initiatives. I've heard every year in the throne speech how he intends to make things better for youth, but the statistics tell us that that is not happening. The Premier cannot hide behind that. If he really wanted to do something for the youth, he would be going out to those small business groups, to the small business community that is creating those additional jobs for youth, and asking them: "What is it that we can do to make this better?"

What about those longstanding concerns about small businesses and their need for flexibility? We have longstand-

[ Page 9751 ]

I cannot support this particular legislation. I would hope that the members opposite have listened to our concerns and are also able to support us in rejecting this piece of legislation.

I wish to propose an amendment to Bill 26. I move the following amendment:

[that all the words after "that" be deleted, and "that" be followed by: "Bill 26 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology."]

In view of the fact that you are the mover of the motion, you have an additional 40 minutes of time.

On the amendment.

I. Chong: Thank you. That 30 minutes went by so fast I didn't even get nearly through what I wanted to say, so I'm appreciative of the additional 40 minutes.

Hon. Speaker, as you are certainly aware, this is the motion to refer this legislation to a select standing committee. Several times throughout second reading debate and several times throughout the debate on the hoist motion amendment that was offered by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson and also several times -- not as many, but several times -- during the Motion 50 debate, members on this side of the House suggested that we should request more input from the public, the small business community and the investment community. How is it that we can accomplish that? I do believe we can do that through the benefits and the use of the select standing committee.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I am extremely pleased to be the mover of this amendment to Bill 26 and to send this to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. This is the perfect committee for this particular legislation to be referred to, because Bill 26 addresses both economic development and labour. I believe that this amendment provides an opportunity for this legislation to finally receive the full airing that it needs to be accepted and supported by the business community -- or perhaps we will find out, as a result of that full airing in a select standing committee, that it is to be rejected. Finally, the Minister of Labour will hear exactly what it is that members on this side of the House have been hearing.

In any event, I believe that I have offered a friendly amendment and that it can ultimately only improve the legislation and improve our economy. At present there are about 15 select standing committees. I went through the list the other day. We are all on a number of them. I think all of us would be willing to work on them and have those committees activated. In order for that to happen, we first have to refer a matter to one of these select standing committees. By virtue of this amendment, we can refer this and we can activate that select standing committee. Guess what: I happen to be sitting on that committee. It would please me so much to be able to hear all those views and to hear them simultaneously with the government members. What it means is that we don't have to disagree as to who's receiving what information, who has and who hasn't received what report and what report is read and what isn't read. At a select standing committee we have participation by government members, opposition members and even independent members. What it means is that we all receive the same information at the same time. We can all review it and analyze it at the same time.

During the last two sessions, I was fortunate enough to serve on the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I have to say, although others may not feel the same, that I found it extremely rewarding and exciting. Perhaps because of the nature of my background, I found it most intriguing and fascinating. It clarified for me a number of things about how government works. Most importantly, it showed to me how a select standing committee can add value to the work that we do here in this House and to the job that we are elected to do on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the province.

Particularly, it would add value to the job that cabinet ministers do, because they are not only responsible to their own constituencies, but they have a bigger responsibility in provincial terms. I recognize that. I know it's a difficult job. That's where a select standing committee is so useful. We can then see just exactly what needs to be done. Because that kind of a forum -- a select standing committee -- allows for people to provide us with presentations, reports and evidence and for a select standing committee to call on people to provide evidence, it is of great value. It would be regarded as an important tool for this Legislative Assembly to use, and use more often, for the benefit of the people of this province.

I know that there have been members opposite -- the government members -- who have served on select standing committees. I know that they have served on Public Accounts and, I believe, on Aboriginal Affairs and on Forests. I would have to believe they all feel that there has been value in serving on those committees. If it is necessary, those committees can even be charged with sitting intersessionally, as it's called.

If there is that much input to come into it. . . . I would hope there would be that much. But if no input came forward, then we would understand immediately that perhaps the government members are correct, and maybe there isn't opposition to this bill. I don't expect that to be the case. If we find that there is a growing list of names that will come forward, who are requesting that they be heard at the select standing committee, then that would show to all of us equally -- on the government side of the House and on this side of the House -- that we must deal with this in a much more serious manner, and that this labour legislation is extremely important.

I do hope that the members opposite have heard the importance and relevance of sending this to a select standing committee. I expect some resistance from government members: "We can't send this to a select standing committee, because there's so much other work to be done; there are a lot of things that we have to look at, and there is other legislation." But that is why the select standing committees can work so well for us. It doesn't have to be when we are in session, debating estimates or other pieces of very important legislation. It means that we can do this intersessionally -- that we can all find some time when we're not sitting in session to meet and to deal with this issue.

I know that's a possibility, and if the government just had the courage and the will to advance this in that manner -- to

[ Page 9752 ]

[12:15]

We have said that this labour legislation needs to be stopped. We have made no secret about that. You've seen it, hon. Speaker, in our one-time-successful motion to kill the bill, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson adjourned the House. Unfortunately, the bill came back by way of Motion 50, and we allowed that to come back. We debated that, and we did everything possible to try to persuade members opposite to please support us -- to at least understand that Motion 50 should not have been proceeded with. We also had the member for Kamloops-North Thompson provide an amendment, and that was to hoist the bill. So hon. Speaker, surely you know that we have been doing everything that we could -- and we have made no secret about it -- to stop this legislation because of the concerns that we have about the economy.

This amendment motion is even more friendly than the amendment motion to hoist, because what this means is that the bill isn't dead. It means, I would hope, that it will get a more receptive approach or attitude by the business community, if in fact they are allowed to go through the complexities of this legislation.

Not everyone is clear on this legislation. The Minister of Labour says: "So read the legislation." And you know, we have read the legislation. Most of us, I would hope, have read the legislation. I know that members on this side of the House have, and I hope that the government members have as well. I would hope that government backbenchers in particular and even the ministers, who I know have very busy schedules, have read it. But there still is confusion in terms of the ICI sector -- the institutional, commercial and industrial sector -- because some have expressed concern that if they are building a commercial project which has a residential component then perhaps the entire project would have to fall under this. Even an industrial project can sometimes have a residential or institutional component, if there is a non-profit side attached to it, and that may even have an effect.

When I was a councillor in the municipality of Saanich, we had a recreational facility. We engaged in a private-public partnership with a non-profit organization -- in fact, the Pearkes Centre -- that built a room for community use. Now, would that then be considered institutional by virtue of the fact that it was built in a rec centre, and therefore would those people who built that fall under this? I raise those questions because those are the questions being raised by the public. If those are the questions being raised by the public, then surely we have to understand that we haven't got all the answers yet. We don't want to release this legislation to the public and then have all these questions and people having to go to arbitrations or appeals or have lawyers look at this or lawyers look at that and spend money, because then we are dealing with more government red tape and regulation. We are strangling the effectiveness of growing the economy. We are strangling small businesses that would no longer be able to proceed along with a project and would rather abandon a project.

Through the benefits and the use of a select standing committee, I believe we will be able to filter out those kinds of misunderstandings, those kinds of misconceptions perhaps. That would allow everyone who will be impacted by this -- or I would hope a majority of the people who would be impacted, because I know that we could never include everyone -- the opportunity to ask those questions or to at least present their questions in the hope that our staff and all of us who serve on that committee can answer or respond. We were elected to respond to the people who elected us, and to the small business community.

The difficulty with Bill 26 as it stands now. . . . It is not what is in there that is always the problem, but it is also what is lacking in a particular piece of legislation. We should sometimes look at that. The issue that has been raised is: when changes to the labour legislation were considered, why was there no consideration of the secret ballot vote? That's a valid question. We've asked it before, and we intend to ask it again. Maybe those who care to present and provide evidence to us at a select standing committee could shed some more light on what is all the mystery around not having a secret ballot vote. Then we could not only hear from employers -- whether unionized or non-unionized -- but we could hear from employees, from the workers. That would be a tremendous value to this legislation, because finally employees would have a place to go. If government members have stated time and time again that they are on the side of workers, then what would be the problem of sending this to a select standing committee? That's where the workers can finally voice their concerns. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of them came up and said: "We need to restore the secret ballot vote." That alone would place the select standing committee in much higher regard and esteem -- and of value for the members of this House, for this Legislative Assembly.

If we take this labour legislation to a select standing committee, it also means that we would finally be able to deal with an economic impact study, as I mentioned earlier. It means that we could ask for presenters to come forward to give evidence as to what they have done in the past few years, or even the last six months, or the last month alone, as to what the economic impact study would be. Then it would allow for government and opposition members at that select standing committee to jointly ask questions and hear the answers so there would be no confusion as what the cost of this labour legislation would be for our provincial economy.

[ Page 9753 ]

I know that members on this side of the House have spoken often enough about the economy. But you know what? As the Leader of the Official Opposition said: "It is the economy, stupid." We have investors, small business groups, chambers of commerce, economists all shouting the same song from the same sheet. We even have bankers giving their economic analysis of where we're headed in this province, and they're all saying that it is the economy. They're all saying that we all need to work together to restore our economy.

I've already indicated that there are three things on the top of just about everyone's wish list. I know it's difficult to deal with taxation. I've seen the Minister of Finance tinker with it, and I understand her difficulty because I do understand that members on that side of the House just don't understand finance. So I guess we're just going to have to wait until this side of the House forms government and we will deal with the taxation issue.

Second, in terms of government red tape and regulation, again this government has shown that it doesn't have the ability to deal with that. They commissioned a small business task force. They've introduced two bills today, and we've yet to see how those will affect regulation. But, on the other hand, they introduce Bill 14, which is going to cause more government red tape and regulation and more confusion in the business community. So two out of two; we're batting zero so far.

[12:30]

All we're trying to do is give them one out of three. We're trying to help them. We're going to try to save them. We can help them with that. If only, if only they would allow us to help them. It means not being close-minded. It means not having blinders on. It means opening your eyes to the world that's out there and not just what's going on in here. It means, if we take it to a select standing committee, then all those other eyes out there will be able to come in and have a look at this labour legislation and give us some sound reasons why we should support it and some sound reasons why we shouldn't support it. Then we as legislators have to decide what it is that we will support, what it is that we won't support and whether we will support it at all. We do need to hear that. We need to hear that so that we as legislators can make that decision.

Right now I can see we're at odds with each other. If it's a matter of ideology, we've got to put that aside, because it's not about that. It is about the economy. We can't have 75 people elected to serve this province think or profess to know everything about the economy. We can hope that there are others out there that have more expertise in this area to help us understand the complexities of the economy. Certainly there are some of them who have a better understanding and who have a better interest in that, and that's fair enough. But when it comes to serving on a select standing committee, we can put all those differences aside and have those who are truly impacted by this legislation come forward and allow them the opportunity to try explain it to all of us -- to all 75 of us who are making a decision on their lives, on their communities and on their families. That is what this is all about.

I am concerned that the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology has not been activated. When you consider where we're at right now, when you consider that we are dealing with economic development all the time, when you think about the fact that the science field is growing rapidly, when you think about the changes in terms of new kinds of jobs in the labour market and labour competitiveness, when you think about the training. . . . The Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology has been putting all this money into programs to train youth. This committee has also got technology and the high-tech industry as part of its mandate, which, again, the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology is looking at and spending taxpayer dollars on.

When you think of the particular subject areas included in this title, you would think that of all the select standing committees, this is the one that should be activated -- definitely. So why isn't it activated? I guess it's because this Premier feels that there is nothing to refer to this committee. Well, I've just given him a reason. I've just given him a reason to refer something to this committee so we can activate it. And who knows? In conjunction with having activated that committee, we may find there are other things that we can refer to it. We can get that committee working -- working for the people of this province and for the families and the communities around this province.

Each and every one of us hears on a daily basis from families who are stressed and communities that are stressed because of a number of things that are happening in our province. When you boil it all down, it always comes down to the economy. It always comes down to the fact that the economy has somehow affected something else in their lives which eventually has affected quality of life.

The Minister of Labour stated that the proposals contained within Bill 26 would be good for both workers and employers in the unionized component of the industry. I don't know, hon. Speaker, if that's true. I think the only way to find out is to hear from the workers and the employers in the unionized component of the industry. How could we do that? We could do that through the select standing committee process.

[ Page 9754 ]

I know that there are some members opposite who would agree, and who would probably welcome the opportunity to serve on a select standing committee. I know it's a bit more work, but we were all elected to do a job. If we are to do a job for the people we serve -- for the people of this province -- we should not be concerned with the fact that we have to serve on another committee. I, for one, would welcome that and look forward to having that committee activated.

If you review Bill 26, you will find, in fact, that a sectoral bargaining component is present -- in that a master collective agreement will be available. Now, the Minister of Labour clearly stated in his introduction of the bill that sectoral bargaining was not included. Yet if you read the bill it is there, perhaps not obviously but it is there in a slight way. Again we have a disagreement. Perhaps we can deal with that disagreement in the select standing committee. We could have those people who are also interpreting it as sectoral bargaining come to the committee and explain to us why they feel it is sectoral bargaining, and we could have those members of staff who have been instrumental in drafting this legislation for the Minister of Labour explain why it isn't sectoral bargaining. We need to get those things dealt with now -- not four or six months down the road, after this legislation has been put in place, when we would have all these disagreements and employers having to go to court or go through arbitration hearings or appeal processes, just to get a clear understanding of what was really meant in this bill.

Why wouldn't we want the opportunity to clarify some of these issues now, before the legislation becomes effective? Perhaps we can strengthen the language in the labour legislation so that there won't be these kinds of misunderstandings. Perhaps we can make sure that the intent is clearer than it is now. That's why I disagree with the Minister of Labour when he states that these changes are minor or modest. If there are these questions, if there are these misunderstandings, it doesn't mean that the changes are minor or modest. It means that they are major. They are significant, and they need to be dealt with now. They need to be dealt with effectively, and they need to be dealt with so that those who are going to be most affected and impacted by it are the ones that can get the clarification they need so that they can go ahead and move on with their businesses and their lives and the people that they employ.

Hon. Speaker, the use of the select standing committee can also provide another insight. We may find that there will be support for this labour legislation; we may find that there may not be support. Let's say there is support; but we may find out that the support would be to bring in labour legislation changes not now but maybe two years in the future, because that is when they expect the economy to have somehow improved, to somehow revive. If we can have an economic impact study, maybe that will reveal that; maybe then these employers and these workers will agree that we can just wait that extra time-out to get the economy going first and then bring in this labour legislation.

I know the government can do that, because this year when the Minister of Finance introduced her so-called tax reductions -- which were very minor. . . . In that case, she wants to call them more significant, but they were minor. When the Minister of Finance introduced tax reductions, she was able to delay those for nine months. She introduced them in March, but she said they won't come into effect until January 1, 1999. So she was able to defer the income tax changes for nine months.

If we were able to discuss this at a select standing committee, we may find that it would be supportable if it were to be delayed for nine months, for a year, maybe a year and a half or maybe to the new millennium. I don't know; that's not my decision. That would be the decision of the committee in terms of their recommendation, and that would be based on submissions by those workers and employers who care to come forward. I say that in earnest. Those who care to come forward. . . . I do believe that there will be people who care enough about this labour legislation to come forward and who will request that we look at possible implementation sometime down the road.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain rises.

C. Clark: Yes, I'm finding the member's comments very interesting, and I'm sorry to see that there aren't enough people in the House to even have a quorum. I'm hopeful that if I call for a quorum, we'll have enough members in this House to make sure that we can take full advantage of the member's comments, and we can all learn a great deal this evening.

Deputy Speaker: I believe your fellow colleague is coming back. He just stepped out.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Well, I will see if we can get some more members in, then.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head can resume.

[12:45]

I don't fully understand why this NDP government is attempting to rush this particular piece of legislation through so very quickly. As I indicated earlier, it was introduced on Wednesday, June 17, and the very next morning, less than 24 hours after it was introduced, it came forth for second reading debate. I'm quite concerned that we had to bring in this piece of legislation so quickly. We barely had time to review it, and we barely had time to contact people who would be affected by it. We were suddenly told it would be brought forth for second reading debate. Not having the courtesy of advance notice that the bill was being brought forward for second reading debate causes a few of us on this side of House to suspect that there is more involved in terms of this piece of legislation than there should be. When you bring forward a bill so quickly, it would suggest that it is urgent, that it is significant.

[ Page 9755 ]

I was of the opinion that this bill didn't require that kind of urgency, but I've seen otherwise. It has been my pleasure to be able to move this motion, and I would hope that members on that side of the House find it in their minds to support it, because I certainly do.

C. Clark: I have to tell you that I am excited by this motion tonight. I am excited, and I want to thank the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head for introducing this amendment. It's an exciting moment for us in this House, because what the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head has done -- and the reason I'm excited and the reason I think the House should be excited. . . . I'm surprised that the House isn't full to the rafters at this moment. The reason I'm excited about this is because this member has given this government a reason to activate a committee in British Columbia. They've given the government a reason -- and a good reason. It's an historic moment. That's why I'm excited. I'm excited by the fact that the government now has a real opportunity placed right before it like a gift, like a present, to get the committees of this Legislature, those important democratic institutions, going again in British Columbia. That's what the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is attempting to do.

As a member of this House who was first elected in 1996, I have to tell you that the committees have not been as active as I had thought they would be, before I was first elected. As a citizen, as a layperson, as someone who was involved in politics only as a volunteer and not in a paid capacity in British Columbia, I had assumed that the committees always did their work -- that, for example, the committee on education travelled the province, listened to people, invited speakers in, consulted, discussed the policies of the day, had ideas referred to it from the government, refined those ideas or changed them based on the input they got from the public, and then offered them back to the government. I assumed, before I was elected to this office, that that was what happened with the committees of this Legislature. I assumed it happened with health. Goodness knows, our health care system needs some attention paid to it. What better way to do that than to activate the committee system and ask its members to look at specific objectives and study specific problems that are facing the health care sector. Goodness knows, those problems are big ones. The population in British Columbia is aging, the amount of money that's available to pay for the system is shrinking, and the cost of the technology is growing exponentially. The challenges we will be facing in the health care sector over the next few years -- over the next many decades -- are going to be enormous, and I would suggest that they may even become insurmountable unless government makes a real commitment to finding innovative ways to change things.

I would submit that the best way for government to find innovative, creative solutions is to go out and ask people. Go out and talk to people. Don't stay cloistered in the Legislature debating important legislation at 1 o'clock in the morning. That is not the way to get ideas flowing. It's not the way to formulate good public policy or to get input from the public. I can tell you that even when we are sitting at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, I get input based on what happens here in this chamber because it's televised. I still get input. It's not a lot of input, but people that are channel-surfing or watching TV and maybe stop and hit on this channel will phone in or fax or phone their friends and let them know that something is on that's interesting to them. It's one method of the public being involved. There's no question about it. But at 1 a.m.? I can tell you that the numbers of letters, faxes, phone calls and e-mails that I get based on the discussions that we have after 10 o'clock at night are a lot fewer than the ones that are based on the discussions we have in the normal sitting hours of this House -- the hours that are laid out in the standing orders of this House, the rules that we are supposed to live by; but the government never sees fit to do so.

Another rule that this House is supposed to live by is having active committees. What the public should realize -- in fact, what I didn't realize before I got elected -- is that the government has committees. The government even goes to the length of appointing committees, chairs, vice-chairs and members of the committees. But not only do they not go out and seek input from people, go and ask people for their ideas and input on public policy in British Columbia, most of them don't even meet to discuss the issues amongst themselves. Putting aside all the logistical problems that I suppose the government might argue would be attached to getting the committees going -- travelling and going and talking to the public the government finds so pesky -- even if you set that aside, committees, just by the nature of the fact that it's a smaller, more informal atmosphere for members from all sides of the House to speak and get together and discuss public policy, encourage as such a more cooperative, constructive atmosphere to examine public policy. Even if the committees didn't go anywhere, even if they didn't invite any input from the public, I would argue that just the fact that they meet to discuss policy that's referred to it by the government is valuable, and not just for members on this side of the House.

There's no question that committees are an opportunity for the opposition to participate in government policy-making that isn't normally available to us. The avenues that are normally available to the opposition are to get up in question period, ask a few questions of the government and hope that we embarrass them enough in 15 minutes a day that they'll change a policy. Frequently they do, based on the embarrassment that we're sometimes able to cause them in question period. But that's a pretty lousy and limited way to try to involve the opposition and all the people the opposition benches represent in public policy making. It's not just for the opposition that committees should meet; it's also for the government backbenchers. Where is their opportunity for formal input into the system? The government backbenchers will always argue: "Well, don't worry. My constituents are represented because I'm secretly talking to people behind closed doors. I just can't do it publicly." That's what they tell their constituents. They tell their constituents that they are standing up for them; they just can't do it out loud. They just can't stand up in the Legislature and speak about it publicly. They

[ Page 9756 ]

Well, that's not a very good guarantee for people. It may be that some members of the back bench are telling the truth when they say that. But I think the public demands a higher standard of proof than that from their elected officials. And not just that: they have a legitimate expectation that their members will stand up and represent them and their views -- not just speak quietly and privately and secretly behind closed doors, doing a lobby effort in the back rooms of the NDP or whatever political party the government happens to be representing. That's not the essence of the way the system is supposed to work. Each of us is supposed to be allowed to stand up and proudly speak on behalf of our constituents, and each of us is supposed to be able to do that as often as we see fit.

But the way the system works now. . . . I don't want to get into a long debate about free votes and party solidarity and all those other issues, but the way the system works now, the back bench of the government is not afforded that opportunity. Without going into a long debate, a long philosophical discussion about whether the party system is appropriate and whether free votes are appropriate and all those other issues. . . . Without even getting into that, I would argue that just activating the committee system presents a perfect opportunity for government backbenchers to have more public say, to let their constituents know that they're representing them. And it's not just that. If the backbenchers in those committees decide that they don't want to speak out publicly, they can at least invite their constituents to come to the committee and speak on their own behalf.

That is an opportunity within this system that each of us has and which the government has consistently denied this House. That is the opportunity that the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is offering the government today. She is offering the government the chance to activate a committee, to get it out there, to listen to people. She's not just offering it to the executive council; she's offering it to the government backbenchers, she's offering it to the opposition, she's offering it to the independent members. It is important to all of us to get our democratic institutions working properly. It's important to end the dysfunction that has gridlocked this parliament, this chamber, for too long. That is an important element of getting the system going: getting the public involved, getting the opposition involved.

[1:00]

If public policy can't find a consensus amongst the public, the policy decisions that government makes should at least be based on as much information as government can accumulate before it makes its decision. That makes good public policy. So if government is making a decision that it knows will be unpopular, the public will at least be assured that that policy-making. . .the inputs that led to that policy at the end of the day were broad, that there were a variety of them and that government heard from a whole host of different opinions. And the system worked in such a way that it allowed those opinions to be shared amongst the decision-makers in a cooperative and consensual manner. I think that will be an important change in the system.

Just think. If the Education Committee had been travelling, if it had gone out and spoken to people. . . . Remember what has happened. As a result of this government's massive cuts to the education system, what we have seen is school boards cutting and cutting and cutting. Who was it at the provincial level that decided what would be cut? Who was it that went out and sought the public's input on the priorities for school funding and education funding in British Columbia? Who was it that decided that ESL and teachers' aides should be the first people cut in Vancouver? Who was it that decided that crossing guards and the safety of children crossing streets in Burnaby should be cut in Burnaby? Who was it that decided those priorities?

What happened was that the government slashed education funding in British Columbia, and then they said: "Hands off. We're going to let the school boards make those decisions, and we're not going to give them time to make those decisions based on a broad range of public input. We're just going to ask them to make them." What it's going to mean is that some school boards will make different decisions than others. Some school boards will make better decisions than others. No two school boards will be consistent in their decisions. One district will be treated entirely different from another district.

Where was the public input for that decision? Where did the public's priorities get set for education in British Columbia? When the government embarked on this massive slashing of education funding in British Columbia, where was the public priority? It was never brought into the system.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Minister for Children and Families rises on a point.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. While this is fascinating rhetoric that's going on over there, I'd ask the member to bring her comments back to the motion, which is to refer this to a committee, and to keep to the motion as it is on the floor.

C. Clark: Well, if the minister would have waited just a moment or two, I would have been able to get to my next sentence which was: and if the Education Committee had been activated and had been travelling, they would have had that opportunity.

What I'm speaking to here, hon. Speaker, is the opportunity that has been afforded to the government by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, and that's to get the committee system activated in British Columbia -- an important goal. The education system is an excellent example of how that could have worked, of how -- if the government had got the committee out there travelling or listening to the public and

[ Page 9757 ]

Now it may be that many school boards -- some school boards, no school boards, all school boards -- have made their decisions about cutting based on the priorities of people in their districts. But we have no way of knowing that. Surely it was less than responsible for the government to force these cuts on school boards without ever thinking about or consulting about the consequences.

It may have been that the government could have met its fiscal difficulties -- could have met those challenges -- in creative and innovative ways. That may have been, because the public, believe it or not, has a lot of good ideas about the way government should run. All it takes is somebody to go out and listen. What the public feels on a daily basis, and the reason for the increase in public cynicism out there, is that they don't feel anybody listens in government. They don't see their priorities reflected in government policy. They don't believe that there is any opportunity for them to have real, meaningful input into the formation of public policy in British Columbia. You know what? They are right. With this government, there isn't enough consultation. In fact, with this government, there is almost no consultation. We have seen that again and again and again with this government.

Their education deal is a perfect example. There's an example of a total failure to consult, and I would suggest a total failure to meet their duty and obligation to parents and students in British Columbia. The public knows that their views aren't reflected in this government's policy-making. They see where these policies have brought us. The public priority today is employment and jobs. That's the number one priority in the minds of the public. All those people who aren't working today, all those new people who have joined the unemployment rolls as a result of this government's policy, know that their priorities are not being reflected in public policy by this government. They know that. They see it everyday. They can see it as the unemployment rolls go up.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Young people who are afraid to graduate from university, who are carrying on their educations for as long as they possibly can because they are scared to get out and have to start paying back their student loans with the prospect of no job at the end of the line, know that the government's duty to reflect the public's will isn't being met. They know that. That 18 percent of young people who are unemployed in British Columbia, who are hoping for a job, know that the government is not meeting its duty to reflect what they want. All those people who have given up, pulled up stakes and moved to Alberta know that they did it because this government is not meeting its obligation and its duty to reflect the aspirations and to meet the needs of British Columbians. That's the problem in this province, and that's why public cynicism about the political system in British Columbia is at an all-time high.

People have lost faith in government -- not just this government, but government in general. But I would suggest that with this government, the problem has gotten much worse rather than better. This government has an opportunity to try and fix the problem. That's what the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is offering the government today: an opportunity to try and repair the damage they have done to the public faith in our political system in British Columbia, an opportunity to try and get the public involved in a meaningful way in the public policy process in British Columbia. That's the opportunity she's offering, and I will be disappointed, but not surprised, if no government members get up and support this motion. I will be disappointed, but I have to say I won't be surprised.

I will be hopeful still, though, that some members of the back bench can see the sense in getting the committee system going. It's an opportunity more for them than it is for the members of the executive council. The executive council gets to make all the decisions every day. All the Premier has to do is pick up the phone, bark an order to his Minister of Environment, and it's done. Bark an order at any minister, and it's done. In fact, the Premier gets to make all the decisions in British Columbia. I think the members of the cabinet are painfully aware of that. Nonetheless, every member of cabinet still has more scope to make decisions and run this province than any other member of this House.

If we are able to activate the committee system in British Columbia tonight, that will be a step forward. It will be a step forward for public inclusion, including the public and rebuilding their faith in our political system and our democratic institutions. It will be an opportunity for members of the opposition and members of the government to work together cooperatively. It will be an opportunity for all of us to try to find consensus on some issues and for many of us to have more input than we normally have -- a chance to exercise a little bit of the decision-making capacity that is supposed to come with this job. That's what activating the committee system means. It is an important principle. It's not just a matter of the standing orders or discussing whether we're going to recess or whether we're going to sit late. All those are important issues too.

This is one of the most important issues when we talk about ways to get our democratic system working again, to end the gridlock in this chamber and restore public faith in the way the political process works. This is the single most important tool that we have at our disposal to make those things happen. It's a good place to start. This bill is a good place for that to start. This bill is the best opportunity this government has to send something to committee. I'll tell you why: because the public has been crying out for input on Bill 26. They don't feel that they have been heard. Small business people, medium-sized business people, working people -- union and non-union -- don't feel that they have been heard.

I suspect that if members of the government vote against this motion in unison, it will be out of fear that if they activate this committee, it will go travelling the province -- and guess what: they might not like what the people have to say. The public might confront the government with some very negative opinions about this government's policies. The public might say to the committee: "You know, what you have done to the economy is bad enough. We're not too happy about the prospect of you bringing in massive changes to the Labour Code that are going to pound in the last nail in the economy of British Columbia."

I have a friend that I went to high school with who now lives in Surrey. She and her husband live in a condo out there. They are both my age -- in their early thirties. She works at two jobs. He used to work at two jobs. He only works at one job now, and it's in Alberta. He commutes back and forth from Calgary every six weeks, so he can see his wife in Surrey. That's the only job he can get in the trades. He's an electrician. He says that there's nothing but work out there in Calgary. But you know what? They can't move, because they can't sell their condo. Otherwise, these two lifelong British Columbians would be pulling up stakes and moving to Alberta, because

[ Page 9758 ]

[1:15]

I bet that if this committee were activated and travelled British Columbia, they would hear from people like my friend, who say: "Stop. Enough is enough. Our economy can't withstand any more the beating you're giving it, and these changes to the Labour Code will be the final nail in the coffin, the final thing that drives us over the brink to recession." That's what this government committee would hear. They would hear from small business people, who say: "We can't do this anymore." Small business people are one of the largest job creators in British Columbia. They would say: "Stop it. We can't take this beating anymore." They would hear from people in the construction industry, who are suffering from a 15 percent drop in housing starts -- a $16 billion industry that this government is prepared to gut. They've done it to forestry and mining and now they're going after the construction industry. They would hear from those people: "Enough is enough. Stop it. Our economy can't take it; workers can't take it."

If there are no jobs in British Columbia, there are no union jobs. What this government is doing with this bill is killing jobs. I don't want to see another job in British Columbia go east or go south. I don't want to see another person like my friend in Surrey be stuck having to commute to Calgary because he can't find work in the building trades here. I don't want to see that happen.

My hope is that if this government has the good sense and the courage to activate this committee, what they will do is travel the province and hear from British Columbians.

The Speaker: Hon. member, there's a member on her feet. I recognize the member for Surrey-Whalley.

J. Smallwood: I'm finding this very interesting, if not slightly repetitive. But I might remind the member that there's a motion, and her remarks should be relevant to that motion.

The Speaker: Thank you. I'm sure the member will take that under advisement and note the time as well.

C. Clark: I'm always so sorry to notice that the government members not only don't have a great grasp of the rules, but they don't seem to be particularly listening to any of the speeches either. If the member had been listening, she would have heard me say, immediately before she got up, that the government should have the courage to activate this committee. That's what I'd encourage every member over there to do -- to find the courage to stand up and get our democratic institutions working again in British Columbia.

R. Thorpe: It's a real pleasure to speak tonight on a great amendment to this motion, brought forward by my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head -- an opportunity to get the House working for British Columbians. You know what might happen? We may get British Columbians back to work, so they can look after their families. Unemployment is at 9.7 percent, the highest rate west of Quebec. Youth unemployment is out of control.

Some members of this House -- some former ministers, now backbenchers -- have had the opportunity to work on committees and to see how effective the work can be on those committees. I am surprised at some of the comments we're hearing tonight about not wanting the committees to get activated. To not want the committees to get working for British Columbians. . . . I am shocked that members of the government side would not want the committees working for this House. You know, today was supposed to have had two great pieces of legislation brought in: Business Task Force initial consultations and legislation. . . . We were going to cut red tape and get things going again in this province. And this government's excited about that. But one of the things that is in here. . . . I'm sure the government is going to get around to talking about this requirement: independent cost-benefit analysis of all major initiatives and selected existing measures has to take place. Now what a great opportunity to have those initiatives reviewed at the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology of this House.

Hour after hour we've heard government members talk about unionized labour and workers. This committee of members talks, and one of the keys is. . . . Listen to the title: Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. We could be bringing some of the unemployed to this committee. They could be telling us what is wrong. We could be bringing people that are working today, telling us what is right. We could be bringing the youth to this committee -- some of the unemployed youth -- and they could tell us what was wrong. Some of the working youth could come to the committee, and they could tell us what's right. We could bring some of the people that used to invest their capital in British Columbia but who are investing $34 billion in projects in Alberta; they could come to the economic committee.

The government doesn't have to fear, because this government has 60 percent of the members on the committee. They will still control the committee. Why won't this government take up the opportunity? Show British Columbians that they do care about the economy, that they do care about the workers, that they care about the unemployed families.

Every once in a while I'm encouraged. I look across at the government members, and I see smiles there. Maybe they are warming up to the concept. It would be great for some of these backbenchers to have the opportunity to have an impact on stopping further disaster from being inflicted upon the families of British Columbia, to help unemployed unionized workers get back to work. They could play a role. What an opportunity! My colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head has given the members of the government an opportunity.

Hon. Speaker, the Premier of this province said that we face challenges, and he called for a renewed commitment on the part of government to listen to British Columbians. Now, I have the pleasure of serving on Public Accounts, and we have the opportunity there to listen to British Columbians on a variety of subjects. This committee would give British Columbians a forum to talk in, but perhaps that's not what the government wants. Perhaps that's not what the Premier really

[ Page 9759 ]

The Minister of Labour has said many times that this is minor; it's modest; it's misunderstood. Well, what a fantastic opportunity for the minister to come to the committee with other British Columbians. He could explain to them in detail why it's minor, or maybe he too could get a greater understanding of what British Columbians are really thinking and what those who work in the real world know is going on.

The Premier also said his government is determined to respond to the challenges by taking the necessary steps to build a strong and competitive economy. That was a promise. This resolution gives the Premier and this government the forum to listen once again, but they choose not to. Last year -- perhaps it was two years ago -- we had government MLAs travel all around the province in a committee on the rationalization of hospitals. Yet we cannot find the time or have the commitment to British Columbians on as significant an issue as this bill. My colleague, whom I'm very proud of, has given this House that opportunity. Why won't this House take that opportunity when they've taken the opportunity on bank mergers and hospital regionalization? Why will they not listen? Why will they continue to attack groups like COTA -- the Council of Tourism Associations -- who say that this is bad for the province of British Columbia? Why wouldn't they take the opportunity to invite them to a committee of the House where their views and concerns can be voiced and, more importantly -- or as importantly -- where government members can ask questions and the political rhetoric can be removed from the equation. They could actually talk to people from all over British Columbia who work in and are part of the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia.

You know, you have another opportunity. The chambers of commerce stretch from the north to the south to the east to the west of this province. Most members in this House -- if not all members -- have at least one chamber of commerce in their riding. What a fantastic opportunity for members to sit across the table from these chamber members and ask for their input, concerns and solutions. So I'm encouraged. . . . I see a smile there. I'm encouraged that a member over there could be warming up to the possibility of having the committee activated and being part of that committee.

Then, of course, we have thousands of British Columbians who are members of the Federation of Independent Business. They've expressed concerns, and once again the Minster of Labour has discounted their concerns. They know nothing; he knows all. They're wrong; he's right. But what an opportunity to give people who run their small businesses the opportunity to come to Victoria. Or, in fact, we could go to Kelowna or Prince George or Chetwynd or Burns Lake or Langley, and we could actually meet and listen to the folks of British Columbia who work every day. They could share their concerns with us. That is what these committees should be doing.

[1:30]

Then, of course, we have the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of British Columbia, which has thousands of members in every riding of every member in this House. Why would members of this House not want to hear their voices? Some of the voices would agree, perhaps; some would disagree; some would offer alternatives and solutions. But at least we would give them the opportunity to share their voice. Then, of course, there are organizations. . . . I'll just pick one: the Sparwood Chamber of Commerce. It has a government member as its representative, and they can't get their concerns voiced in this House by that member. Well, perhaps the member would feel much more comfortable before the committee; perhaps the local organization would feel comfortable. Together we could build solutions to these problems and get British Columbia back to work, get British Columbia families back to work.

This government -- this socialist government, this NDP socialist government -- is a government that said it was committed to listening to British Columbians. I think they are not discharging their responsibilities, because as a government they have a responsibility to listen to all British Columbians, not a select few -- not a few who have obviously called in their demand loans, who are obviously calling in all the IOUs, because of the gyrations that this government is putting this House through to get this legislation pushed through at 1:35 in the morning, denying working British Columbians the opportunity to see and participate in open debate. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Yes, the minister is correct for once today. It is our motion, and I'm glad to hear that he wants to support the motion, so that working British Columbians can come and voice their views to make the bill better. That is good, and I'm glad to see that at 1:35 in the morning, the minister is finally getting it. That's great.

Hon. D. Lovick: Are you stupid or deaf?

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, as the former Speaker of this House and a minister of the Crown, I demand that he withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I would ask the minister to withdraw the particular word that was used; the other point may be accurate.

Hon. D. Lovick: If the member decides to deliberately misrepresent what somebody says in this House, it seems to me he makes himself susceptible to comments such as mine. However, because I respect the rules of this chamber, I will cheerfully withdraw the comment.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, minister. It is important that we represent each other's views with care. I

[ Page 9760 ]

R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I do appreciate your guidance and your assistance in having those comments withdrawn.

This government has an opportunity to help re-establish the credibility of all elected officials in British Columbia. This government is destroying the credibility of this building, of the way government operates with British Columbians. By supporting this amendment, this government has an opportunity to take this bill to a committee for review and input by all British Columbians, not a select few. I just have such great difficulty in understanding why it's so hard. . . .

The other day the Minister of Labour -- I believe it was Tuesday, so that would be yesterday -- got fairly excited and suggested that people just don't understand the facts. I wrote down what he said: "They just don't understand." As the member for Okanagan-Penticton, I have a responsibility to bring forward the voices of some of my constituents who have taken the time. . . . And, quite frankly, many of them are insulted by the minister suggesting that they don't understand. Some of them have said to me that perhaps the real problem is that they do understand; perhaps that's the problem. Some of these folks have taken the time to write notes, and the minister commented: "Oh, they're all form letters." Well, they're not all form letters. These are some of the voices that I would like to read into the record in the event that the government does not support the motion to move this bill to a committee, because it is important that these voices be heard.

I've got one here from the former publisher of the Penticton Herald:

"Having been involved in many sets of negotiations with a variety of unions, I am acutely aware of the potential impact of such a measure. During a number of those negotiations, as a small daily newspaper publisher, I was faced with demands based on profit and precedence set by major daily newspapers, demands which came close to putting my business out of business and which have substantially reduced its profitability. This type of labour legislation takes away the right of an individual employer to freely negotiate a collective agreement that is tailored specifically to their business."

Let us look at a small engineering company, Okanagan Network Engineering. They created 12 jobs. That's not a lot of jobs in Vancouver or Victoria. In Penticton, it's a lot of jobs. But what they're saying is that this type of legislation takes the rights of the employee and the employer away. Another gentleman by the name of Ron Biggs, of Biggs and Associates, in referring to the government, says: "You and your colleagues" -- this was addressed to the Premier -- "are requested to consider one simple fact: is it worthwhile to retain power at all costs, while sacrificing the province of British Columbia as we know it, merely to retain power?"

These are voices. I see the Minister of Labour laughing and sneering over there. These are letters from hard-working British Columbians that I am trying to read into the record. That is the trouble with this government: it says it will listen; it doesn't listen.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, some things should be ignored, and I will try my very best.

A small veterinarian hospital operator. . . . This is a business operator that has invested $500,000 and created ten jobs. They would like the opportunity to have their voice heard by a committee. But you know, anybody that seems to be in private business seems to be an enemy of the socialists, who are against free-enterprising, hard-working people.

A successful real estate company in my riding: "This legislation will further hurt our province's ability" -- listen -- "to attract new investment and create jobs." That government made the promise to create jobs, and people are telling them that their actions are going to destroy -- and are destroying -- the very fabric which is required to create jobs, and that is investment. If we don't have the investment today, we're not going to have jobs tomorrow. The health care system that this government is doing its best to bring to its knees will be further hurt by their reckless and careless management.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Now I see we have another member that likes to talk a lot.

My colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head has given the members of this House the opportunity to get back to work for British Columbians. How many British Columbians know -- and I think this is what the government's really afraid of -- that there are 14 standing committees of this House? This government chooses, even though the Premier gave us his word that we were going to have a new spirit of cooperation. . . . We were going to work together.

Does the Education Committee work? We know that the Education Committee is a committee of two: the Premier and the head of the teachers' union. That's the committee. But what about the elected representatives of this House? The Education Committee has not met for at least seven years.

We heard chirping from the other side about health care. Unlike many members on that side of the House, I actually spend time in the hospital working with staff to understand the problems in my riding. I work with union members, nurses, doctors and patients. But does this government have the courage to have the Health committee meet? The answer is no.

[1:45]

I'm sure some of the patients at home that were promised shorter waiting lists, especially the older senior citizens -- because in my riding we have a disproportionate number of seniors, an aged population. . . . They were promised shorter waiting lists by this government, and perhaps if the committees were working in this House. . . . They were told that for knee and joint replacements the waiting period would be nine to 14 weeks; it's 46 weeks. But if the Health Committee was working, maybe we would be able to review these things. Maybe we would understand that one size doesn't fit all. But you know what? This government is about cheap shots. They do not care about working British Columbians. They do not care about sick British Columbians. They care about themselves. That's all they care about. They are drunk with power, hon. Speaker.

I look forward to some of the members on that side actually having the courage to stand up. A release by the

[ Page 9761 ]

The minister said just a few days ago: "Trust me." Well, the fact of the matter is that people cannot trust this government about this legislation, because the record clearly speaks for itself. We don't want to have to go into Bingogate and Hydrogate and budgets that were balanced and then weren't balanced and then the Criminal Code charges. We don't want to have to go into all of those things. Perhaps the minister, through the committees, would be able to demonstrate to people some of the things he feels so strongly about; perhaps he's right about how, in his opinion, they're wrong. Why will you not give people in British Columbia that opportunity?

This is a great motion brought forward by the member. I ask the members to take their partisan politics and forget them, and give British Columbians the opportunity to come before this committee to build a better British Columbia.

L. Stephens: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise this evening and take my place in the debate on Bill 26 and particularly on the motion before us, which was moved by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. The motion reads that "Bill 26 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology."

I think this is truly an excellent motion. During this debate, we've heard from a number of speakers on this side of the House what's wrong with Bill 26 and why it should go to a select standing committee. I've had the opportunity to serve on a number of the standing committees, and I can tell you that they do good work. The standing committees of this House have been used, in the past, to great effect. This is a perfect opportunity for the government to take this bill out for the public to have that input.

Another benefit that would be of use to the committee system. . . . This government, back in 1992, I recall, made the commitment to expand the committee system, to really work harder at making sure that the general public was included in the decision-making of the government, in the kinds of legislation that came forward. We suggested that that happen, and so far there's been no response from that side of the House. There's been no response from the government at all, and I think what they want to do is just ram this piece of legislation through this House. Here we are at 2 o'clock in the morning, hon. Speaker, talking about a bill that really should go to committee to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to participate in this.

I think everyone would benefit: the government members and the government backbenchers would benefit from participating in this kind of a committee. Opposition members would benefit from participation, and we would get better legislation. We would definitely get better legislation, and more importantly, the general public would be able to participate, not just a narrow group of friends and insiders of this government that got together and put together this labour bill -- the second one, the son of Bill 44; Ken Georgetti's personal wish list.

When you hear comments from the Premier where he says that Mr. Georgetti is the nineteenth cabinet minister, it really is clear that in fact this government is getting their labour legislation walking orders from Mr. Georgetti. It's painfully obvious that that is the case. So let's send this bill to committee, and let's explore some of the issues of labour relations in British Columbia and allow that public input.

Some of the issues in Bill 26. . . . Basically what Bill 26 will do is force sectoral bargaining on unionized construction companies in the ICI sector. We on this side of the House and a great many of the people out in the province believe that this bill is only the beachhead; it's only the wedge in the NDP's belief that sectoral bargaining in many sectors of the industries in British Columbia is what we need. It's just the ICI sector in the construction industry at the moment, but I'm convinced that what this government wants to do is to extend that sectoral bargaining into the retail sector, the financial sector and the restaurateurs. It was clear that was what was in Bill 44, and I'm sure that that is what the government wants to bring in -- that is their end objective.

Under the current Labour Code, before we saw Bill 26, each individual business and its workers have the right to bargain their own unique collective agreement. That means that the workers and the business can tailor their own deal, specific to the unique needs and circumstances of the particular business that they are in, to benefit both the workers and the owners. It means that they have more control over their own destiny. This type of bargaining is called enterprise-based bargaining, and it's a team-oriented approach to workplace relations. It works well because it focuses directly on what will work best for the individual company and the people in it.

I don't know -- is this rejected by the government because it's called enterprise-based bargaining? I don't know why it should be, because as we've seen in this province, we've had relative peace in the construction industry for a number of years. There have been no strikes, no major lockouts, no major arbitration. So why do we need Bill 26?

I think Mr. Georgetti, in a speech to the steelworkers, committed to this kind of legislation. He said he wanted to unionize 60 percent of the province, and it's -- what? -- about 35 percent, 40 percent at the moment -- 35 percent, I think. What Mr. Georgetti has in mind is to double the unionized workforce in the province. So I guess it's clear. . . . As the Premier has said, Mr. Georgetti is the Premier's nineteenth cabinet minister. Bill 26 comes directly from Mr. Georgetti. I think that this bill should go to committee for no other reason than to have the participation of the broad public sector, other people who are interested in good labour relations in this province -- not just the big union bosses, and particularly not just the B.C. Federation of Labour.

A number of constituents have written to me -- as they have to all members of this House. I'm sure that members on this side of the House are not the only ones who have received correspondence from various people in their constituencies. I'm sure government members have boxes full of letters, faxes and postcards from constituents who are concerned about what this kind of legislation will do to either their business or their labour relations.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: One member says none. Well, that's hard to believe, hon. Speaker. You know, we've had stacks and stacks. I'm going to read into the record just a couple that I have received.

This particular one is from a paint and papering firm in my riding, and it is addressed to the Premier. They say:

[ Page 9762 ]

"Please take note that I am, like most other small businesses, very opposed to new labour legislation that will make it even more difficult for my business. [Mr. Premier,] I am convinced that contrary to popular thought, the relationship between employee and employer is not necessarily an antagonistic relationship but a cooperative one. It is not, contrary to what many people think, a 'win-lose' relationship but rather a 'win-win' relationship."

"More stringent laws, such as those that you are proposing, will not help employers and employees reach mutually beneficial arrangements, but will only further contribute to an adversarial relationship."

This particular one is from a large corporation: Cadillac Fairview. It's pretty big. It's involved in an awful lot of construction and an awful lot of commercial property. It certainly is one of Canada's leading companies dealing with small businesses on a regular basis. They own a number of shopping centres. They say:

"The throne speech announced the government's intention to proceed with sweeping changes to our province's Labour Code. These changes, like those withdrawn in Bill 44, will have a negative impact on investment and job creation in B.C. In my opinion, business must be globally competitive from an input cost perspective, unfettered by artificial constraints which, in the end, stifle growth and job creation. Balanced and flexible labour policies are essential to a business's ability to respond to the needs of their customers and to continue to be our province's overwhelming source of new job creation."

[2:00]

This is an e-mail. This is from an older couple. Many people in this province are fearful today. They are fearful for their jobs; they're fearful for their children; they're fearful for their homes. You know, legislation that adds more fear is something that should be rejected. I think that if we bring this bill out into the committee, people like this couple will have an opportunity to participate in this debate. This couple go on to say: "At a time when industrial countries around the world are enjoying an economic. . . ."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . . Excuse me, hon. member. There are several conversations going on at once, and that makes it a little difficult to hear the member's comments on the amendment. I would encourage members who have conversations that they'd like to have to have them in the corridor.

L. Stephens: It's perfectly obvious tonight that government members aren't interested in listening to any debate. They're not interested in anything that might happen with the Labour Code. They're certainly not interested in participating in the debate. Why don't they stand up and defend this labour legislation? Let's hear from the Minister of Labour. Let's hear from the Minister for Small Business. Let's hear from the members opposite to see whether or not their proposed legislation is, in fact, defendable. I don't think it is, nor do other people around this province believe that this is defendable legislation.

This particular senior couple in my constituency have this to say: "At a time when industrial countries around the world are enjoying an economic boom, with governments taking less and less controls. . . ."

Interjections.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: There's a member here trying to be heard in this House, and there are some members, ministers of the Crown, who are being very disrespectful. I'd ask that you please keep the noise down so that we can hear the member.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I'm sure the members and the ministers here. . . . It's important, particularly at this hour of the night, that we demonstrate a little respect for our colleagues. The member for Langley continues.

L. Stephens: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This couple, who are so concerned about what's happening today, say:

"We only have to look at Russia and other countries in Asia to know the price we pay as a result of your ideology" -- they're talking here about the government. "People are leaving British Columbia. Businesses are leaving British Columbia. And it is all due to your" -- the government's -- "anti-business attitude and anti-business legislation like Bill 26. You have brought us to the point of economic disaster, and on a national and international basis, we need a government that will create a more favourable business climate which allows businesses to create employment."

Many people believe that in fact this government is going to be running a $1.2 billion deficit, including the auditor general of this province and a number of others, as well, who have really had a good look at the summary statements, which usually tell the truth of the state of affairs and what the true picture is of the financial statements of this province. But evidently the Premier hasn't figured out yet that all of this borrowed money has to be paid back -- billions of dollars have to be paid back, $32 billion in debt. What the Dominion Bond Rating Service is saying is that B.C. needs truth-in-budgeting legislation. That sounds awfully familiar, hon. Speaker, because that's what the opposition has been talking about since 1991 -- truth-in-budgeting legislation and balanced-budget legislation, something this government won't even talk about, doesn't even like to hear. Otherwise B.C.'s credit rating will be cut, at a cost of millions of dollars in added debt-service costs.

The ramifications of increased debt, climbing debt, no ability, no seeming understanding of what this crushing debt burden does to the province's ability to provide the necessary services like health care and education that this government

[ Page 9763 ]

Everywhere you look, everyone you talk to that has an interest in or a knowledge of how the economy works is telling us the same thing. Surely the government members cannot be blind to what is happening. Surely they answer their telephones, they read their mail, they talk to their neighbours, they talk to their friends. It's astounding that government members don't seem to have an understanding of what's at stake here. This government is pushing our economy into a recession. It seems to be deliberately doing so. It's the only thing I can think of -- they're deliberately doing this -- because the evidence is so overwhelming that that is where we're headed. It's not just one group of British Columbians saying that. It's not one organization in British Columbia or in Canada that is saying that; it is not a special interest group that is saying that; it is a wide variety of individuals, companies and organizations.

The B.C. Central Credit Union is another one -- their decision to slash the B.C. economic growth forecast by 75 percent. Seventy-five percent is a big number. They say that B.C.'s forestry, mining and housing industries are all in recession. This proves that the budget this government sent out. . . . In fact, we are now on interim supply, by the way. We are now using interim supply. We don't have the budgets of this House completed. This House wasn't called back until the end of March, and here we are, almost in the middle of July, and we still haven't finished the budget debates. And we still have a number of what I think -- and the members on this side of the House believe -- are important pieces of legislation on the order paper. Yet here we are, and the government doesn't seem to have any understanding of urgency, of running the province's affairs in an orderly manner, a cost-effective manner.

The mismanagement that this government has demonstrated in example after example continues. In May, StatsCan released provincial regional unemployment figures which show that the Kootenays have had a 32 percent rise in unemployment over this past year -- in 1997 -- and that the Vancouver Island and Cariboo regions have also been hard hit with unemployment increases of 31 and 25 percent respectively. Those are big numbers. Those are huge numbers when you're talking about unemployment; they're huge numbers when you're talking about debt and deficits as well. Double digits are always big numbers.

Honestly, looking at these regions. . . . We're talking about forestry here; we're talking about forestry and mining. Of course, we all know what is happening with mining in the province. Forestry -- it's the same thing. It's ironic that this government has driven the forestry industry and the mining industry into the ground in this province. Again, there's overregulation, overtaxation. They just didn't seem to want business around, and particularly those good union jobs. They have good union jobs in forestry and mining. As a matter of fact, mining has the highest salary -- about $70,000 a year for people employed in mining. That's a big number; those are big numbers.

Now the government has finally come to its senses around the overregulation of the forest industry and also has taken steps, made some moves, to address some of those issues -- maybe. We'll have to wait and see. We have some bills before us that are talking about reducing red tape. There's a committee that's going to talk about reducing red tape. You know, this makes me laugh, because only the NDP could create a committee to reduce red tape. Add more red tape to reduce red tape. It doesn't make sense, but those are the kinds of decisions that are coming forward from this government and the kind of public policy that is being made.

If the government really wanted to turn the economy around. . . . If they really, truly decided to do that, they would have some real tax cuts for B.C. families -- not the little crumbs, not the little fiddling and tinkering that was done in the last budget which won't go into effect for another year, two years. Red tape reduction for small business and a positive investment climate are some of the things that this government could do to get British Columbia back on track.

There is a whole range of options that are available to this government that they don't appear to want to use. We can only speculate as to why that is. They bring in legislation that favours their friends and insiders. They seem to deliberately want to drive business out of the province. They certainly did with the mining industry; there's no question that that's what happened with the mining industry. Now they want it back.

Now they're also looking at making sure that they do something about the lumber industry. The softwood lumber issue is right on their plate, and they're going to have to try and do something about that. But they only address these issues when they get into trouble. When their policies destroy an industry or another sector or, certainly, the province, then sometimes they take action. They've begun to with forestry; they have begun to with mining. I'd suggest that they could begin to do that with Bill 26 and send this bill out to committee for participation.

Let's look at some of the other places around here. Let's look at some other. . . .

An Hon. Member: Back to Alberta.

[2:15]

An Hon. Member: A socialist too.

L. Stephens: He wasn't quite a socialist. I would call Tommy Douglas a prairie populist. He was a prairie populist, which is a lot different from the B.C. labour-boss NDP. That's the difference.

Now, we've got an NDP government in Saskatchewan; we've got Roy Romanow over in Saskatchewan. And what's he managed to do? Hon. Speaker, anyone that's been paying attention to what's been happening in Saskatchewan over the last few years. . . . Ten years of drought: it was awful. Trees were dying, it was so dry. They were in a terrible state. It absolutely devastated that province. What has happened? This is an NDP government: Saskatchewan has five straight balanced budgets.

[ Page 9764 ]

L. Stephens: Five straight balanced budgets. And what have we got in British Columbia? Seven deficit budgets. Now, all of this impacts on what we do here in British Columbia. This committee that we have suggested should be struck to go out and look at some of the issues -- particularly Bill 26 -- which contribute to the choices this government makes that determine whether or not they can balance their budget. . . . Again, it's obvious that. . . . I don't know -- this government are either slow learners or they don't understand. They just don't get it. All they have to do is look to the provinces to the east -- all four of them. That's all they have to do. It's all there; it's been done before. If anybody on that side of the House understood what was required, we would do it in British Columbia. But I don't think that's going to happen. I'm sure that's not going to happen until there's a change of government.

I think this government should be absolutely humiliated with a seventh straight deficit budget when Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all been able to balance their budgets. It's been tough being the Premier and the government in a prairie province in the last number of years. For a province like British Columbia that has been very prosperous. . . . We have many gifts in this province -- certainly our resources, which I've talked about before -- and this government has squandered all the benefits that the people of this province have known, cherished and nourished for a great many years. Provinces like Saskatchewan have managed to cut spending, cut taxes, balance their budgets and cut debt, and British Columbia has gone in the opposite direction in every single one of those areas. I don't know -- maybe they should go and get a lesson from Mr. Romanow.

We've even made the Wall Street Journal. They say: "British Columbia's Economy Sours After Years of Growth." That was their headline on Thursday, June 4, 1998. Again, it's humiliating and embarrassing that our province, which has so many gifts, is in the state it's in, and it is simply because this government does not understand what is required to provide a level of economic development and certainly what is required to get this province back on track.

S. Orcherton: I thought I'd make a very sincere effort, in terms of my remarks on this amendment, to in fact try to stay on topic. I know it might surprise some of the members opposite that I'm going to try to do that, but I thought I'd give it some effort and see if I can stay on topic. I'm rising this evening -- actually this morning -- opposed to the amendment that's been proposed by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. What is really being called for here is a referral to a committee of the Legislative Assembly. I'm not in favour of that because there has in fact been a committee, a panel of folks, that has travelled around the province for the better part of a year hearing from people: business people, people employed in the construction industry, some of the members opposite, I understand, some of the members on this side of the House and British Columbians in general, in respect to what's needed in terms of changes to the Labour Code, particularly dealing with the construction industry.

A member who spoke previously made some reference to urgency in getting this issue dealt with, and I really believe that is the case -- there is a sense of urgency here. I don't think that we need the delay that the member's talking about in terms of referring this issue to yet another committee and yet another process. I say that because I too have received letters from people in the community, both from working people and from business folks.

Let me read for you a letter that I received recently. I actually had a phone call from Mr. Phil Meunier of MECS Contracting Services in Victoria. He has a non-union company. He writes to me, and it causes me a great deal of concern. I hope the members listen to the sense that's being delivered here and the flavour of what Mr. Meunier is saying in regard to his opposition to Bill 26. Listen very carefully, because I think it is very important for all members of the House to understand why there really is a sense of urgency to bring in some legislative changes to the Labour Code around the construction industry. Mr. Meunier writes:

"I as an employer will not accept any imposition of wages and working conditions from a union office, as I believe in treating my employees as I would expect to be treated. When I hire an employee, I make it quite clear that my firm is non-union, and I intend on keeping it this way for as long as I will be in business. Should this individual seek such status, he or she should look elsewhere for employment. Bill 26 will compel me to have a potential employee sign a waiver. 'Why?' you are saying. Well, I like to be master in my own house, and no one will dictate to me how my business should be run, let alone a total stranger from the street. Furthermore, I am directly affected by Bill 26, as my field of activity has been so far in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sectors. Even with the current standards, the fact of having to submit to the fair-wage clause is hard enough, since the higher wages, when not deserved, spoil my workforce."

I'm writing back to Mr. Meunier, and let me tell you what I am saying to him. I'm saying to him that I'm really concerned with the position that he has outlined in the paragraph that I read into the record here this evening. I advised him, as well, that not only is the position he has taken sort of morally wrong in terms of what goes on in the province of British Columbia and how one should be relating with one's employees, but it is legally wrong. It is wrong for employers to intervene in employees' rights to organize into a union. It is morally wrong; it is legally wrong. I go on to say to Mr. Meunier that his attitude speaks volumes as to why there is a necessity for labour legislation changes in the construction industry, pertaining to the Labour Code. As well, I tell him that his views are precisely why we need the legislation changes: to provide a level playing field between employers and employees in labour relations. I go on to say that I continue to support Bill 26 and will do so with increased vigour, having read Mr. Meunier's opinions.

I know that in this Legislative Assembly there seems to be groping and grappling for an issue for the opposition to try and grab, to try and capture the imagination of the Mr. Meuniers out there. I know that there's an effort to try and do that. But do you know what? I look around the province right now. I look at the media and at the opinion-makers and at the pundits. I talk to workers at the workplaces, and I receive letters from businesspeople. Do you know what? You are way off the mark here -- way, way off the mark. This is not a huge issue for businesspeople in the province of British Columbia; this is a huge issue for working people employed in the construction industry in British Columbia.

I say that the members should really have a look at who it is that they're representing when they bring in these nonsensical amendments that delay necessary changes that will offer

[ Page 9765 ]

Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, and noting that members opposite will, hopefully, pause over the evening, until tomorrow, and reflect upon why these changes are necessary, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 2:28 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 8:56 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

Hon. D. Lovick: When we adjourned, the member for Matsqui had asked me an interesting question. Essentially, he requested that I make a comment on a rather detailed observation. I neglected to bring my notes, and I won't trust my memory, so I'm going to begin by saying to the member for Matsqui that if he'd like to restate that, I would be more than happy to respond.

M. de Jong: That's a question that I provided to the minister in such detail that I'm not entirely confident I could replicate the detail now. Rather than risk referring to it from memory, I'm content to wait until another time when I wouldn't bore the minister with an inaccurate recollection of what the question was.

R. Thorpe: On behalf of my colleague, I'm personally disappointed that the minister was unable to retain all of the question and the answer. It's a double disappointment for me here tonight.

My question to the minister relates to trailer parks on aboriginal lands. As the minister may be aware, last year in my riding in particular we had some very, very bad circumstances which I was involved with. I must say that some staff from the ministry were involved in it, although we were unable to reach resolution for the residents, and many of them had to leave their homes and be relocated. My question to the minister is: what did the ministry learn from that sad experience in Penticton last year, and what actions is the ministry taking with respect to that situation in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Lovick: I am sorry. The member is posing a question that refers to some very specific circumstances, and I'm not at the moment apprised of those. Is he referring to the Westbank circumstance? I'm not sure which one it is. Therefore, given that I am without staff at all, I must say to him that he'll have to give me some detail, which I hope will then trigger whatever memories I have, and I will be more than happy to see if I can respond.

R. Thorpe: I realize that the minister is without staff; these are unusual circumstances tonight. No, it does not pertain to Westbank -- that's just outside Kelowna. Down in the Penticton area, just on some locatee land with respect to the Penticton Indian band, there are four trailer parks: Delta and three others. We had some difficulties there with people getting evicted. I don't know if that is enough information to bring recollection to the minister. If it isn't, and we think we have to have staff for that, I can wait and get those answers tomorrow. I look for an indication from the minister; as I said, if he has to get more detailed information, I can wait until tomorrow.

[9:00]

Hon. D. Lovick: I do indeed have some information and some recollection of this issue. To deal with the member's last question first, I don't have that data before me, but I will certainly endeavour to get that information for the member. I understand that the basic problem with regard to the Penticton trailer park -- and this may perhaps make it a little bit unique -- had to do more specifically with sewage. That was the problem, was it not? I ask that rhetorically, Madam Chair.

What I believe was stated in the estimates last year -- or perhaps in correspondence with the member -- was that the provincial government and the ministry certainly understood the frustrations of the residents and had some obvious sympathy for the fact that people thought they had relative security of tenure and then discovered that was problematic. I understand, however, that last fall the province presented some particular options to trailer park residents, suggesting things that might be done, options that ideally would have been designed to avoid the need for evictions -- in other words, working out some kind of accommodation of the two interests and their differences.

As well, if my information is at all fresh, I believe that the province provided some financial assistance to review this matter. Financial resources were given for a review to identify some solutions, albeit short-term solutions, which would deal with the sewage problem for two particular trailer parks, I believe, rather than the four of them.

We continue to encourage the Penticton Indian band as well as the federal Department of Indian Affairs to recognize that yes, indeed, there may be a problem that is larger than just that particular specific one, to address the whole business of long-term solutions for sewage treatment on reserves and,

[ Page 9766 ]

Regarding the larger problem in terms of people who purchase trailers or manufactured homes on Indian land reserves; that is a little more complex, as the member knows. The reserve land, by definition, belongs essentially to the federal government in their jurisdiction and is their responsibility. Provincial governments' resources or ability to do anything are somewhat limited thereby. They are certainly prepared to intercede and to talk in terms of trying to assist, recognizing the legitimate concerns and grievances of tenants in all of that.

The basic problem, however, is that if one decides to locate on reserve land, the clear recognition that I suspect most tenants would have is that they really don't have any rights. Reserve land is essentially under the control of DIAND -- Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development -- and that is very much unto itself, for all intents and purposes. It is different, I might add, from what we would encounter in a treaty arrangement and the Westbank band I referred to earlier. On Westbank, when the bands negotiated with the federal government -- and this has been going on for a period of at least ten years now -- they set up a proposed self-government model. Sechelt, by the way, did something similar. There's a pretty clear adumbration of the particular rights attached to the parties who are living in the trailer park on Indian land. Our assumption is that with the self-government arrangement that was negotiated at Westbank, just as with the Sechelt arrangement and just as will be the case with treaties, the people who live on Indian lands under those kinds of self-government arrangements and treaties will probably have considerably more rights than they do today living as tenants on the property, renting space on reserve land.

The member is right. It's a concern that the federal government is certainly mindful of, and thus they have been talking for years about negotiating these self-governments, as they call them. I gather there aren't too many of them extant. I think Westbank is rather unique in that way. Beyond that, I don't have too much information on the specifics. But if the member wants to read other concerns into the record, I'll certainly note those concerns and see if I can get him some more detailed answers.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that. One of the things, hon. Chair -- and I want to share with you and the minister. . . . Last year when we went through this very, very tragic situation, I personally got involved and travelled with the mayor of Penticton and met with our federal member and the federal Minister of Indian Affairs on this particular issue, trying to reach a solution. There was some short-term help from the province. As we actually helped move people in desperate situations out of their homes, one of the things they pleaded with me about was: "Please take our situation and make sure that it doesn't happen to other British Columbians." I guess that's my real question. I hope we're not going to take the position in British Columbia that it's a federal issue, and that's the way it is. I often use this term when I'm talking about people. "Fred and Mary" understand; they pay taxes. They pay to the regional government, they pay to the provincial government, and they pay to the federal government. They can't stand it when an elected official says: "Oh no, it's his problem" or "It's her problem." They want solutions.

What I want to know is: is it even on a list of things that the ministry is working on in conjunction with the federal government to try to get some resolution, knowing that it's not going to be resolved today or tomorrow, but that there is going to be some form of resolution? That would be question No. 1.

Question No. 2 -- and I just picked up on the word "probably," which you just said when we were talking about having a greater sense of security -- is: as treaties are negotiated, are we negotiating into those treaties that Residential Tenancy Act provisions will prevail on aboriginal lands?

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, let me deal with the first part. I appreciate the point that the member makes -- namely, that his concern is essentially that this awful thing apparently happened here and that we should do what we can to make sure it doesn't happen to others. I think I can give him some comfort insofar as I can say that obviously in this circumstance -- the circumstance that he lived through, trying to assist his constituents -- the provincial government clearly said: "We ought to do something about that." Thus it went so far as to provide some financial assistance and to conduct a review, and it also made a very clear statement that the province was prepared to assist the mobile home owners in dealing with any kinds of emergency circumstances. If you like, there's a track record. There's already a pretty clear statement that the provincial Crown is not saying: "Well, it's somebody else's problem, and therefore you're on your own." So I think the member can take some comfort from that.

On his other question -- whether we will work with the federal government to get resolution of that problem -- it's not as easy to give a blanket answer. The reason, essentially, is that we don't have any constitutional right to talk about what happens on reserve lands. I think we can say, however, that the ongoing discussions we have with the federal government are designed to try to solve all of those kinds of problems when individual citizens, who believe they are relatively secure and comfortable in their tenure where they are living, discover that they aren't. Then we accept the fact that we ought to do something to try and resolve those problems.

I think there was a third question in there as well -- namely. . . . I'm sorry, I think it was: what about this specific one? Actually, let the member try it again. I think he might have a chance. I'm sorry, I didn't take good notes.

R. Thorpe: That's why, hon. Chair, it's important for us to have a legislative calendar with standard working hours -- so that people don't get tired and they can stay focused.

My question -- and maybe I'll rephrase it. . . . The Residential Tenancy Act protects tenants throughout British Columbia. When the minister can provide us with the detailed numbers, I believe that he too will be shocked to find out. . . . I understand that thousands and thousands and thousands of British Columbians will potentially be affected.

I guess my real question is: as the province is working through various treaties, in the self-government provisions, is residential tenancy or some form of residential tenancy on the checklist for the treaty negotiation process?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think I can give the member the answer he wants to that right now. My familiarity with the Nisga'a AIP suggests that in some form or other it is. In the Westbank self-government agreement that's on the table, I believe it is. I think the Sechelt model is, which would lead me to a tentative conclusion that yes, indeed, that's going to happen. But I'm very reluctant to say that with any certainty, because I don't know. I will certainly check that out.

[ Page 9767 ]

J. Dalton: I didn't know my colleague was going to raise this issue. I actually almost got to the point where I was going to have to call on some provincial help for the trailer park underneath Lions Gate Bridge, which is on Squamish land. I'll just explain to the minister what was building up. It didn't, as I say, become a problem, but it may later. The tenants under the bridge got a notice of a rent increase of up to 30 percent, which would have kicked into effect, I think, on May 1. These are all elderly people on fixed incomes, and needless to say, they were unhappy, to put it mildly. They went to the manager, Frank Baker -- who I must give credit to -- who was more than sympathetic to their cause, but he has basically been told by the Squamish band that they had to generate further revenue out of the trailer park. So they, of course, then turned to their MLA for assistance.

I called the residential tenancy branch and asked the director whether they would have jurisdiction over this issue. She said she'd have to have more detail, but she didn't say no. I thought I would get a blanket no on this, because I assumed that this is federal land, federal jurisdiction and that the Residential Tenancy Act would not kick in. Perhaps the minister. . . . Now I see that an official has arrived. Would the minister be able to assist us, or can we at least put it on record whether the Residential Tenancy Act in some Indian circumstances would in fact apply, even though it is, of course, land under federal jurisdiction?

Hon. D. Lovick: Thanks for your patience, hon. Chair, and the patience from West Vancouver-Capilano as well. My deputy, Philip Steenkamp, has arrived, and I am feeling pleased about that.

[9:15]

Regarding the specifics of the case, we would be more than happy, if the member wants to share that with us, to simply deal with that on a much more specific and personal basis if he so wishes.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the remarks of the minister. Hopefully, we won't have to take him up on that offer, because the issue actually was resolved this time. The manager of the trailer park was more than happy to speak on behalf of the tenants, but, of course, he was beholden to the Squamish band directors to follow instructions. They did back off this time, but it may become an issue later. I think my colleague from Penticton made a very good point: this is probably a huge, looming issue. But I needn't tell the minister there are a thousand huge, looming aboriginal issues out there.

Let me move on to some other things that I'd like to ask about. Just today we received the Mark Angelo interim report on protected areas and parks. I know this is, of course, in the Ministry of Environment, but there are some references in here to first nations. Maybe I'll just ask a couple of specific questions. If they're not relevant here, I can go through that ministry as well and find some answers there.

A chapter here, "Relationships with First Nations," says that there are 12 protected areas in the province that have formal cooperative management agreements between first nations and the province. I don't necessarily need a list of all 12, but could the minister give us an example of some of these 12 protected areas and what arrangements are made between Indian bands and the province?

Hon. D. Lovick: I just want to advise the member that we have provided colleagues in his caucus with various documents. One of those is the most recent list of signed agreements between the province and first nations, as well copies of the two agreements that were signed in the past year. The information he's requesting would be part of that document. However, if he wishes, we could probably get him a list of that specific information as well. I know a couple of them, but I don't know the whole list.

J. Dalton: I will certainly follow up. I will huddle with our critic after, and we can deal with that.

There's also reference in here to financial support for first nations participation. That's something else we may want to get some more detail on. Perhaps there's no point in trying to get into the detail of a document which many people haven't had a chance to even put their hands on, let alone open the covers. I've only cruised through it quickly, and one thing particularly caught my eye. There's some reference in there to Cypress Park. This isn't an aboriginal issue, but I think the manager of Cypress Park, who I faxed some detail to today, might have some concerns about some of the comments in there.

Something, though, that is more specific deals with the Indian Arm Provincial Park, which was a joint agreement between the province and the Burrard band. I won't try and pronounce the native name. If I had Don Bell here, the mayor of North Vancouver district, he'd be able to do a very good job on that part on my behalf. This was an announcement on January 16 of this year in which joint management of the Indian Arm Provincial Park was created between the first nations Burrard band and the province. There will be four representatives, two from the band and two from the province, to jointly manage the new Indian Arm Park. It goes on to say that there's provision for a management plan which will guide the protection and management of the natural and cultural resources. Again, I appreciate that this was an announcement made by the Minister of Environment -- actually, the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time. He's now the Employment and Investment minister, because, of course, this government tends to switch ministers around. In fact, I see a former Aboriginal Affairs minister with us in the room.

My question is: firstly, can the minister give us any assistance with any of the specifics of this management plan of Indian Arm Park? If it's beyond the jurisdiction of this ministry, then I can canvass this elsewhere.

[ Page 9768 ]

The management plan does indeed provide for four representatives on the management board. Two will come from the province, and two will come from the Tsleil-Waututh, which is the first nation that the member was reluctant to pronounce.

The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks indicated that one of the B.C. reps will be from the GVRD in order to make sure that we have that municipal connection. I am advised that the province certainly understands the concerns of local government, and they are obviously legitimate concerns. We have already committed, I believe, to ensure that local government will be consulted and will have input when the planning process in fact gets underway. I'm pleased to report that we've also been looking at ways of providing the GVRD with some direct involvement in the advisory process. Beyond that, I don't have information, and the member would be better advised perhaps to raise it with the Ministry of Environment. I hope that's helpful.

J. Dalton: I will certainly follow up there. I will also have an opportunity on Saturday morning at the Council of Councils meeting in Surrey, where there are two items on the agenda. One is the GVTA, and the other is the whole question of aboriginal negotiations in the lower mainland area. I'll have a chance to chat with some of the mayors.

Maybe I'll ask about one other point, to at least get it on the record. The district of North Vancouver, which is the immediately surrounding municipality, is cited in the release as being one the agencies that will be involved in the preparation of the management plan of the GVRD. The minister has noted there will be one representative from the GVRD. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is also named, and other municipalities -- I guess Belcarra, for example, and Anmore perhaps, and other neighbouring municipalities. I did ask the district of North Van mayor, Don Bell, who's also a representative on the lower mainland treaty negotiating team, what involvement the district of North Van had in this. At the time I asked it, it was soon after this announcement came out. He said there was very little if any, but he was hoping for some future involvement. As a North Van district resident and taxpayer, I certainly hope that there will be some very serious discussion. I just want to make that point, and I'll be able to follow that up elsewhere.

It also mentions -- again, just for the record -- that there nine other provincial parks, including the Kitlope heritage conservancy and the Stein Valley heritage park that are named in this document as well, which are subject to the these comanagement plans.

While we're dealing with the Burrard band, I have a document here that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour and I were able to obtain when we went to a meeting about two months ago at the North Van district hall. The district council sponsored a meeting whereby Leonard George, the chief of the Burrard band, and officials of the Burrard nation were in attendance. They presented their plans for a fairly wide tract of the lower mainland for which they are claiming title or some interest, including all of the harbour of Vancouver, a good tract of Howe Sound and that area up into the Garibaldi Lake area, Belcarra, Port Moody and, of course, Indian Arm Marine Park.

Perhaps the most interesting thing that caught my eye, which I would like to ask the minister about, is that the Burrard band has come up with a different approach to negotiating control over what they consider to be their traditional territory. They describe it as a variable-interest model. What that does is propose the retention of a varying level of interest across the whole of the Burrard traditional territory, which is 721 square miles. Of course, this is not the Nass Valley; this is Stanley Park, Vancouver harbour, West Vancouver, North Vancouver, etc.

What the Burrard band has in mind -- and maybe we'll be able to find out what the status of the negotiations is at this time -- is that they will be pressing for paramount jurisdiction in some parts of the territory, which would mean exclusive jurisdiction for the native band, and others would be joint jurisdiction with other levels of government. Leonard George did cite two examples. In fact, I asked him about one of them. What did he have in mind, for example, about the port of Vancouver? He has gone on record previously saying that the Burrard band may be claiming royalties for cargo passing in and out of the port of Vancouver, which is a bit disturbing, I can assure you, to the CEO of a major stevedoring company, for example.

The other thing that Leonard George mentioned to us is that with regard to a hydro line that runs in the Indian River valley, part of the line is apparently in the creekbed in the valley, and he would like that moved. If my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour were here, he could probably give us further assistance, because he's had discussions with Brian Smith, the CEO of B.C. Hydro, about this issue. Apparently they're providing money to the Burrard band to at least examine some of the implications of moving this hydro line.

Can the minister, firstly, assist us? Does he have any familiarity with the variable-interest model concept? Secondly, what, if any, is the current status of negotiations -- if that's the right descriptive -- with the Burrard band?

Hon. D. Lovick: The variable-interest model, as I think the member well knows, is designed to apply to an area in which the traditional territory is largely urbanized and developed and effectively alienated, as we understand that term. It's essentially a pragmatic model that says: "Look, you obviously can't give us a chunk, a quantum, of land. Therefore what we want in terms of our settlement, our negotiation, is some kind of management -- ideally, a comanagement model. We want a piece of the action, if you will, across that land base."

It's an interesting model. As I say, it's a pragmatic one. I think it's pretty safe to say that the provincial Crown is not about to suddenly say about that huge chunk of lower urban mainland: "Yes, from now on we're going to have joint management." I don't think anybody has any illusions that that's in the cards. It does, however, have some interesting features. We in the negotiation process. . . . We're at stage 4 now in the AIP stage. We're looking at those with a view to seeing if there are some exciting, novel and creative things we might do, because we obviously have to look at different models for the urban versus the rural or remote areas.

[9:30]

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, pretty clearly.

The model, I'm also told, essentially tends to focus very much on a pragmatic calculus -- namely, that you take one project at a time and you make that work. You discover that it

[ Page 9769 ]

Regarding the hydro line and the specifics of that, I'm sorry I don't know. B.C. Hydro, under Brian Smith's leadership, has a pretty good record in that area, in terms of being creative and making some rather exciting and interesting arrangements with first nations. I would, frankly, feel pretty confident about that one. If Smith is looking at it, they may do something very good indeed.

J. Dalton: My colleague from Seymour and I will track the hydro development and see what may be happening there.

One of the issues that is at least indirectly addressed here, which I think we should have some information on, is that there are overlapping claims to this territory. That goes without saying. The Burrard band in this overview document indicates that the Katzie, Musqueam, Squamish, Tsawwassen and themselves all have claims on parts of or all of the territory. Are there concerns from the government's point of view about the overlap, and how is that being addressed as far as the negotiations are concerned? Are they negotiating with the Tsawwassen band or with the Musqueam? I'm a bit surprised to not see the St�:lo nation mentioned in this document. The reason I say that is because the St�:lo has actually been involved directly or indirectly in the Lions Gate Bridge project. This surprised me, but it's in a government document, so it must be true.

Perhaps the minister can assist us with this very serious issue, particularly in the urban environment, of overlapping claims on wide tracts of territory, including Crown land, parks and, most importantly, private property interests.

Hon. D. Lovick: I can't say very much about the specifics of overlaps on the particular piece of property that the member is talking about, but I can talk a little bit about overlaps and the larger problem. Your colleague from Matsqui probably knows that the B.C. Treaty Commission's most recent report spends considerable time on the issue of overlaps and indeed presents a paper. The B.C. Treaty Commission offers some suggestions for how that larger ongoing problem of overlaps might perhaps be dealt with more effectively and more expeditiously.

I mention that simply to show that it's an issue that we're all well and truly aware of. As the member probably knows, in the past few days we have become especially -- dare I say painfully -- mindful of overlaps and the problem with them. I'm referring, of course, to the Gitanyow-Niga'a one, which is well over 100 years old in terms of battle and conflict. It's a longstanding one and incredibly complicated. I mention that just so the member becomes aware of the fact that these so-called overlaps -- that's our term. . . . First nations people tend to refer to them as family feuds or things like that. They see them as very much their problem to solve. Of course, that's what I said to the Gitanyow and the Nisga'a some while ago, but the reality is that sometimes they can't solve them. They are difficult. I'm confident that they will be solved. I think the important point to recognize is that they by themselves do not constitute a whole other new dimension of problem.

In terms of working out accommodations with third-party interests in any given area, that probably won't be a complication. The complication comes only when we're incapable of resolution, and then you try to set up some kind of treaty. Then you discover that the parties haven't been able to work it out. In terms of whether they have specific relevance and resonance vis-à-vis private property, no, I don't think they do. I think it's just the larger part of the problem around first nations and aboriginal land claims. Maybe I misunderstood the point the member was making, so I'll give him another opportunity.

J. Dalton: I think the minister is certainly as conversant and concerned about these issues as we on this side are. We will continue to track the negotiation process with the Burrard, specifically. As I think the minister has alluded to, they seem to be the pioneers or the forerunners in some of these urban negotiations. It's going to be of great interest to many people in the lower mainland as to how these play out. It is also obviously of interest to the people up in the Nass Valley and anywhere else in this province as to how the entire issue of treaty negotiations plays out.

While I have the opportunity, I would just like to ask one other question, which is a non-treaty question. It's specifically about activities of some natives on the Chilcotin plateau, in particular the Anahim band, which is the latest to block a Forestry road just west of Riske Creek. I did ask the Forests minister, who is also the MLA for the area, what the Forests ministry was doing about it. He said they were monitoring the situation. Then I actually had the opportunity to ask the Attorney General at the Helijet the next morning what his ministry was doing about it. They were also monitoring the situation. Happily, the blockade is over. I gather that the Indians have gone back to some form of discussion with, I presume, provincial officials. I am very fearful, as I have a fairly close knowledge of the Chilcotin plateau and some of the interests and concerns up there, that this sort of thing may come back onto the agenda, so to speak.

Can the minister advise us as to what the status is, at the moment, of the negotiations between the Anahim band, dealing with the Raven Lake blockade, and perhaps give us some more overview in general about what plans they have to address these issues? I predict that this summer. . . . It may not be the Chilcotin plateau where we have the next one, but I'm very fearful that somewhere in this province we'll have another Raven Lake or whatever you wish to call it.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to thank the member for his question. First of all, let me just say a little bit about those outside the treaty process. The member is quite right: there are some concerns there, and we ignore them at our peril -- absolutely no question.

I'm happy to report that last week I met with the Premier and the executive of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the body that is nominally responsible for that other 30 percent. We, largely at the urging of the Ministry of Forests, because they were concerned. . . . As you know, we've had a number of small problems in the Cariboo, in the Tsilhqot'in. I spent about five hours one night meeting with representatives from that area, from all the various bands, and listening to the concerns.

Your timing is exquisite, member, because the two people who are sitting here with me were our task force that went up

[ Page 9770 ]

Anyway, we had meetings, then, with the Anahim band and with the Tsilhqot'in. The next meeting is with the six nations -- we're moving up, if you will, in terms of size. The intention, of course, is to say: "Can we do something in terms of on-the-ground solutions?" Can we talk about providing them with some capacity, for want of a better term -- some means whereby they can have some more control over their own economic future and have some kind of viable economic base in their own community? Our view -- my view certainly -- is that if we do provide that, if we give people that kind of economic base and certainty and self-esteem, for want of a better term, then the likelihood of those kinds of blockades occurring in the future will be reduced significantly.

Those bands and the circumstances that the member alludes to, it seems to me, are the paradigm illustration of why we want treaties. That's what it's about.

J. Dalton: I don't have another question. I'll just make one other comment.

Yes, I certainly agree, and I'm very pleased. Timing is always interesting. I wasn't aware, of course, that your officials would be in the room when I was asking this question. There's no question that the ranchers, the loggers and everyone else on the plateau -- my father-in-law and sister-in-law being two of them -- will be more than pleased to see all of these issues resolved. It doesn't do anyone any good to hear about a blockade on a Forestry road or some disruption on Highway 20 or, unfortunately, some of the things that we read in the Williams Lake Tribune about the Anahim reserve or at Toosey or Redstone or wherever else it may be.

I certainly encourage the ministry to do everything it can to grapple with a very difficult issue. There's no question. If everyone -- our critic certainly agrees with this -- were in the treaty process, fine, we'd still have a lot of problems, but at least we'd be on the same playing field with the non-treaty and the Six Nations and others who don't even know what the playing field is. I certainly do encourage the minister, and I'm pleased to hear that his officials are on top of that particular issue.

M. de Jong: I'm going to ask my colleagues from Peace River North and Chilliwack to continue, but something arose out of this that I thought it appropriate that we deal with. One of these issues relate to. . . . For bands outside of the treaty process, it is a question of creating the incentive to move forward at a more rapid pace. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the former minister, is here, and I recall having this discussion with him during last year's estimates. That is something that we can return to and is relevant insofar as bands outside of the treaty process are concerned.

The minister is correct: you can't entirely ignore that 30 percent. But when you consider the resources that the government is devoting towards trying to reach a settlement in this area, one is compelled to. . . . If one is going to be honest, I think you've got to say to some of the bands that are refusing to join in the treaty process: "We have devoted resources with aboriginals and with the federal government to create this, and you must understand that that is a priority for us." In fairness, I think the government has been reluctant and has gone out of its way to communicate to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and bands that have chosen not to be in the treaty process, and their claims are every bit as legitimate and will be accommodated. Fair enough. But surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that the priority of a government -- not just this government but any government that's dealing with finite resources -- is with that mechanism, that agency that has been set up for the express purpose of dealing with the treaty negotiations.

I shouldn't have gone down that path. We can return to that. If the minister wants to make a comment, I would certainly welcome any comment he has.

The reference to the Chilcotin national government and the situation in that part of the province, though, prompted me to reach into my binder and pull out a document, which I wanted to give the minister an opportunity to address. In my view, it's not a pleasant document; there's nothing pleasant about it. The minister may have had his staff alert him to it. I think it arose just as he was. . . . I'm not sure when he was appointed as minister. Was it February?

[9:45]

The Chair: Order, members.

M. de Jong: The letter I have is from the Tsilhqot'in national government, and it's dated February 10, 1998. It's a letter from Chief Ervin Charleyboy and Ray Hance, and it's to Gerry Grant, a district manager of the B.C. Forest Service. It is a disturbing document. Just as the minister earlier on welcomed the opportunity to deal with some comments I read back to him from Hansard. . . . Maybe this is a similar kind of document.

The signatories to the document say: "This will inform you that the ongoing system used by the B.C. Forest Service under the authority and direction of the province of British Columbia is no longer legally valid or constitutionally legitimate, as a consequence of the Delgamuukw appeal ruling of the Supreme Court. . . ." Fair enough. The signatories to the letter say that there's a new playing field out there, which arises as a result of the Delgamuukw decision. They go on to set out their position, talking about negotiations being ". . .firmly established, ongoing and productive, with interim measures agreed upon, the Tsilhqot'in nation. . .informs you that all forest development plans underway are ultra vires."

I may quarrel with the jurisdiction that the band has to issue that declaration, but I think I understand that that is a part of the negotiating exercise that is taking place in the post-Delgamuukw era -- the flexing of the Delgamuukw muscle, if you will.

I think the minister is familiar with the document. At the very end, the signatories to the letter addressed to Mr. Grant say: "You and your staff members who continue with business as usual" -- and they were in fact referring to, I think, comments made by the minister's predecessor -- "are now proceeding at your professional and private peril." That is unacceptable, and in this assembly I think it is the sort of comment that warrants a response from the minister as a signal to those who would attempt to intimidate public servants or others in this province on the strength of an interpretation they may rightly form or have with respect to a

[ Page 9771 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Just a bit of background. I made reference a few minutes ago to a meeting with a delegation from the Cariboo. Indeed, these were the people. It was a meeting that went on for about five hours. It had its moments of being acrimonious, may I say. That was the conclusion, if you will, to the process that was started by this letter. My colleague the Minister of Forests handled the matter in, I think, a restrained and smart way, and he made it very clear that the behaviour was absolutely unacceptable and that threats of that kind, perceived or real, would not be tolerated. I'm happy to report that Ray Hance subsequently indicated that the wording was indeed unfortunate and was not intended to threaten staff, and they were very gracious in doing that. I've met with Ray Hance on at least two or three occasions since taking on this responsibility, and indeed I have found him a very capable and articulate individual to deal with.

Though the statement made was certainly unfortunate, I think we ought not, however, to dismiss it as absolutely irrational and unreasonable. Rather, I think we have an obligation to understand where that comes from, and I alluded to that ever so briefly in an answer to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. We're talking about people who feel -- with some legitimacy, it seems to me -- that we're talking the talk but that nothing is happening. They see their kids growing up and saying: "We may be in the same circumstance 20 years from now." What inevitably happens as a result of that is that people overreact; they do things that they later will acknowledge were inappropriate, simply foolish, wrong-headed.

Our position has been very clear that we don't negotiate when people say: "We're going to put up roadblocks." We have made it very clear. This was the point of contention at our five-hour meeting with the Tsilhqot'in national group. At one point we had a caucus. We left and they left to have our separate meetings, and what we left over -- and it's public record now, so I don't feel I'm betraying a confidence to tell it -- was simply my assertion, supported obviously by my colleague from Forestry, that: "Look, you guys, we'll work out what we can to accommodate your specific very real individual concerns, but jurisdiction ain't on the table." That is -- because of the lines that the member read into the record -- the notion that this is our turf, and you have no right to do it, etc. That's what that argument is about. That is our asserting jurisdiction, and we are saying: "No, the provincial Crown is not yielding its jurisdiction, and that's not on the table."

I'm happy to report that subsequently. . . . As I say, we've had a couple of meetings with folks from the same region: Ervin Charleyboy and Ray Hance, as a matter of fact, as well as some others at that table. I think that was part of the negotiating strategy -- the posturing after Delgamuukw. In the early days, of course, because as the members well know, what Delgamuukw did was send the expectations to the ceiling. I mean, you can read Delgamuukw as if: "Hey, it's all ours." I think that's an incorrect reading, and I think most of the legal opinion would corroborate that, but there are still a lot of lawyers out there who are prepared to provide that advice to first nations people. Legitimately, then. . . . At least, I shouldn't say legitimately, but. . . . Understandably, then, people came in beating the table and saying: "This is ours, and you have no right to do anything with it." We, I think -- sensitively, I hope; intelligently, I hope; and reasonably, I hope -- said: "Sorry, you go too far." That's what we ultimately did with the people who wrote that letter, and I think it's safe to say that our relationship thereafter has been (a) more cordial and (b) more productive. So I don't have too many regrets about it, although it was certainly stormy and difficult at the time.

R. Neufeld: I want to deal with some things with Treaty 8 and some other issues in the northeast and in the Cariboo. But listening to the member for Matsqui ask the question just reminded me that it's only a few short years ago that we had an employee of government actually shot at, or something to that effect, in that area. That started the Gustafsen Lake issue, or whatever you want to call it. That certainly should have taught us all a lesson on what takes place when those kinds of threats are made and people actually carry them through. So that's just an addition to what the member for Matsqui talked about.

First off, the Treaty 8 Tribal Association in the northeast. . . . I'm not sure just how much involvement the ministry has with the $1.3 million that was given to the Treaty 8 Tribal Association to deal with setting up some consultation processes around the oil and gas industry. Maybe I'll just leave it at that question to start with and see what involvement your ministry has with that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I was scrambling around making sure I had some information, because I haven't yet dealt with Treaty 8 stuff, except McLeod Lake. So I'm not terribly knowledgable about it. My understanding is that the ministry has indeed had some involvement with the matter the member raises: the Treaty 8 Tribal Association and the oil and gas activity. Our involvement, however, has essentially been to provide advice in terms of: "Here's how you should deal with these delicate and difficult issues." But the lead ministry and the money. . . . We haven't had any money from our ministry devoted to that. That has come from Employment and Investment, apparently.

So we've had involvement, obviously, in terms of: "Are you doing the appropriate consultation? Are we doing what we as government believe one must do in terms of the post-December 11 universe and all of that?" But we don't have direct involvement in that project in terms of any dollars.

R. Neufeld: Does the ministry -- I just want to probe this a little bit further, and I'm not trying to play cute here; I just want to know what takes place -- actually have, if you don't have any dollar involvement, some influence on how that money is spent? Or is that all under the control of either Employment and Investment. . . ? I guess now it would be Energy, Mines and Northern Development. I'm not exactly sure, because it's a little hard chasing this money around, how we go about ensuring that we're getting some results from the $1.3 million that was invested.

Hon. D. Lovick: To the broader question first, if I might. . . . There are corporate guidelines in terms of dealing with first nations, and all ministries, of course, are given those. We obviously had a great deal to do with developing those, as our ministry, but essentially they deal with those on their own terms, using their own ministry staff. This particular project, I understand, was a special project, and therefore we don't have direct control. There was consultation in the beginning in terms of setting it up.

[ Page 9772 ]

[10:00]

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

So it has caused that problem, and I'm just wondering if there is something your ministry is doing to try to get that through. I say that because Canfor is perilously close to maybe laying off a lot of people by fall if some of those harvesting permits are not signed off by the tribal association, by the bands involved. I think it is more or less: "If you don't give us some more money to deal with the forest industry, we're not going to deal with them." That could cost an awful lot of jobs up north. I don't know if it would go that far or not, and I'm certainly not making that accusation, but that feeling is out there. You've got to understand that Canfor and the people that work for Canfor are feeling a little bit edgy about this, because they are, in some of their plans, a year past when they should have had them signed. It's not because of any reason that they're not in order; it's because there's no funding forthcoming.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, I want to thank the member for the question. It's a valid one, and it's one that I do have some glimmering of knowledge about. What I think the member is suggesting is: is there a problem when it appears that one sector gets Cadillac treatment and the rest are stuck with Chevrolets -- right?

I know that perception is out there. I've heard it expressed. Indeed, I've had the conversation -- I don't think I'm betraying confidence -- with my colleague the Minister of Forests. I would like to put on record that the Ministry of Forest has an absolutely superb record in terms of consultation with first nations, relative to where we are and where we've come from. They've done the job pretty well, and a lot of bands and tribal councils throughout the province would agree with that, I suspect.

What happened with Employment and Investment is I don't think they had any corporate history of dealing with. . . . What happened there -- I'm guessing, obviously -- in terms of this new initiative, what we in the trade call the sexy initiative. . . . It's big stuff and it's exciting and all kinds of things, and we want it to happen. I think that what happened is that industry probably came to the table, along with the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and said: "Let's make it happen, and we'll do that without much regard to what the impact might be on others working in the area."

I think the member raises a valid point. All I can say is: let us hope we all learned something from the experience and then try to have somewhat better consultation with everybody who is working with first nations people, so we ensure that we don't set up a circumstance in which one is pitted against another and one is perceived to be getting very good treatment while others are getting much inferior treatment. That clearly, as the member points out, causes major problems for all of us, and especially down-the-road kinds of problems. I appreciate the member's point.

R. Neufeld: I don't have any problem -- and I hope the minister doesn't misunderstand me -- with the $1.3 million that was put forward so that we can get on with having some process in place. I think it has probably cost industry a lot more than that over the years in their special little deals, with different bands trying to get something pushed through. I'm not taking umbrage with the way the government handled that or the way they're doing it. In fact, I think it's probably going to work out for the best in the end. But what it did was certainly upset the apple cart there. I agree with the minister. I think the regional offices of the Ministry of Forests in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson have done an excellent job over time. I mean, they had CP212, where they had a process overturned, but that was one all on its own and. . . . Excuse me, I was just looking down for a minute and I lost my train of thought.

I'm not trying to upset that, but I think that is something that your ministry has to be involved with in Treaty 8, in somehow trying to iron out those differences between the two. Maybe that can be done interministerially, between the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Northern Development, and Treaty 8. I think there should be some involvement -- maybe there already is, and I'm not aware of it -- by your ministry in trying to smooth that over so those processes take place for the betterment of both industries and of everyone.

The other thing I want to ask about Treaty 8 is: is the ministry aware that. . . ? It's my understanding that recently. . . . In fact, I'll go back further. A number of years ago, a number of the bands actually left Treaty 8 -- those being Fort Nelson and West Moberly. I am under the understanding that Blueberry, Doig and Halfway are now almost in that same process. I'm wondering where that leaves the process that we've been talking about -- the $1.3 million and also the other discussions that Forestry is having over those same kinds of issues -- when Treaty 8, as I understand it -- I don't know for sure -- is more or less falling apart. How do we deal with that, then? Does the ministry then get involved and deal with each individual band on its own? How is that process going to take place?

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me deal with that last question first. I understand that tribal councils that make up a treaty group are not necessarily stable. What is there one year will not necessarily be there the other, but the treaty obtains. The predicament, I guess, that one finds oneself in is that whatever the current incarnation is -- whatever it looks like -- that's what you have to deal with. Now, obviously what one would want to do, I guess, is to try to persuade people: "Look, wouldn't it be better if we had a little more rational structure?" -- it's better for everybody's interests, but that, I think, is a negotiation kind of activity.

That leads me to the second point the member makes, and I want to thank him for it and give him, I hope, some comfort by saying that we are working very hard at the moment under this ministry's direction to establish some parameters for especially dirt ministries governmentwide in terms of consultation and how one deals properly and effec-

[ Page 9773 ]

R. Neufeld: I want to go on to another issue now. It actually deals with the Churn Creek protected area and Empire Valley Ranch. I don't want to explain the Empire Valley Ranch issue, so I'm just going to ask the minister if he's familiar with what took place with the Empire Valley Ranch process.

Interjection.

The Chair: Would the minister. . . ? The member continues.

R. Neufeld: Sorry. We were doing a little table talk here.

Late last year and early into this past year, the government exchanged land and timber in the northeast for the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch in the Cariboo. The Empire Valley Ranch in the Cariboo was one of the largest ranches, I believe, in western Canada: 11,325 hectares. It was recommended by the LRMP process in the Cariboo that the ranch be purchased for its specific wildlife, grasslands and biodiversity and those kinds of things. I guess that as I have the opportunity, I'll tell you that the government of the day bungled a couple of opportunities to purchase the ranch -- one in 1995 and this last time.

The ranch was owned by a person in Germany, and the government at the time thought the purchase price was too high and didn't buy it, let it go for a year and then turned around after an individual or individuals from Prince George purchased it and started logging it. Then the government decided to buy it and paid a pretty penny. How they did that was by exchanging a fair amount of timbered land and some property right out of Fort St. John. They transferred that land from Crown land to the name of Vesco Contracting so that there were no stumpage fees payable. The Forest Practices Code was not applied, because it was deemed to be private land then, and the company was allowed to go in and will actually log all the land over three years. It will then be returned to the Crown, other than one parcel. The Crown will be responsible for the silviculture obligations and any environmental damage that has taken place.

It was a pretty touchy situation in the area that I come from. Those were woodlots that had been returned to the Crown. They were just a few miles out of Fort St. John -- old-growth timber. We call it up there. . . . Old-growth timber where I come from is old-growth timber. It's not very big, but more like that. . . . It upset the people very much, because there was no consultation with anyone in the northeast, other than with the native bands. Actually, only because someone who worked for government, who didn't like what was going on, anonymously phoned me and let me know what was taking place. . . . That's how the public eventually found out what was really happening. Had it carried on, had that person not phoned me and let me know, I guess it would have all been done by the time the public found out about it.

I know my constituents. It's the first time -- and I've lived in the north all my life -- that I have seen my constituents demonstrate, where they put on a parade in Fort St. John in the middle of winter that consisted of over 100 vehicles: trucks, loaders, graders, you name it. So there were some pretty upset people in the northeast, because unfortunately, the people who had those woodlots before had to turn them back to the Crown because the stumpage was too high. They couldn't make ends meet. What the Crown did was to come to Fort St. John and give the land and timber away for absolutely no stumpage and say, "You can have it," and the company that cut the logs hauled them to Prince George.

You can see that there are some pretty tough feelings about it. I've said to the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment that probably, had they come to Fort St. John and explained why they were doing this and been upfront with it at the start, people would have been quite understanding. They may have gone along with it. They may have said: "Yeah, we can understand. If you want to acquire that ranch, we can understand; we'll go along with that." That was an option that government totally disregarded that they should have actually. . . . If they had done that, I think things would have gone a little bit differently.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

What happens now is that. . . . The Crown has a ranch of 11,325 hectares in the Churn Creek protected area. Just for the minister's information, that's right beside the Gang Ranch -- and the James Ranch, where Gustafsen Lake took place; it's just across the river from there -- so it's in a very controversial area, according to the questions here earlier. I want to know what happens to those 11,325 hectares now. Does that become part of land claims? Does that become part of anything that those particular bands from that area would actually have a legal right to claim? After we've gone through all the things that I mentioned to the minister to acquire this ranch, it would disturb me to find out that the ranch was actually acquired for negotiations with the local native bands. Maybe the minister could explain to me just how he views the acquisition of this ranch in relationship to how it will be dealt with in native land claims.

[10:15]

My understanding is that the property was acquired entirely for conservation purposes; it didn't have anything to do with the treaty arrangement. That's the first point I recall. My understanding is that what's happening now is that there is negotiation, discussion, going on regarding who should manage that area, because it is a world-class, sensitive ecological area with all kinds of diversity and species, etc. And here's where the aboriginal issue comes into play. One of the players that wants to be considered to have management authority in that area is the Tsilhqot'in first nation, I take it, but I am informed that other residents in the area are saying: "We also would like a say in how that area is managed."

To the best of my knowledge -- and I can certainly check for more detail -- it is not on the table at the moment in terms of a claim. It is, rather, a specially protected area, and I don't think any first nation would say that they want a specially protected area which they can't use for revenue generation. It would seem to me that that would not be the kind of thing that anybody would claim.

[ Page 9774 ]

R. Neufeld: Maybe I'll just ask a couple more questions about it, and then I'll leave it with you. Before your estimates are through, I'll just pop back in, and maybe we can touch on it again, or you can drop me a note. In fact, it would be fine with me if you dropped me a note from the ministry, letting me know what happens.

The minister is right. I haven't visited it, but I go very much by what people from that area said: it is a world-class place. It was a ranch that had changed hands I don't know how many times over 15 years. I don't have a lot of problem with acquiring it. I think it was the right thing for the province to do. I don't like the way they went about it, but I think it was the right thing to do. I was worried at the time and asked questions about what would happen to it. If it's just going to be acquired, and we're going to give away all of that resource in the northeast -- a couple of hundred thousand cubic metres of timber and land -- for nothing, just to have something that's going to be on the table for a treaty process, that doesn't seem to be something that I would be very happy about. If we're really acquiring it for conservation purposes, then okay.

I guess my other question would be: if it's totally for conservation purposes, why would it not have been claimed as a park? Or is the process in place now to turn it into a park?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I can't really answer the member's question. The only person who could, I think, is the Minister of Environment.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: That's right, I think you gave me notice of this -- right?

What I will do is simply give the member my assurance that I will look into that matter and get him an answer.

R. Neufeld: Okay. Just for the record, the Minister of Environment indicated that you would have those answers, just like the Minister of Forests indicated that you would have those answers specifically around the treaty process and what would take place with the land.

The other interesting part -- and maybe the minister can, at the same time as he's getting that other information for me. . . . The Minister of Environment had written a letter to the Fort St. John newspaper, saying: "Over the last few years we've negotiated 28 exchanges, including eight region-to-region exchanges." When those take place, and they go into Crown land. . . . Obviously there has been an exchange, and it goes from private land into Crown land. Would all of those be treated as a special region or a park or something, so that they would actually stay for the purposes that they made the exchange for in the first place? I know that we have to deal with land claims, but I just worry that we amass all this land in exchange for dollars someplace, then all of a sudden it becomes a process in land claims, and the real reasons why we should have this world-class Empire Valley Ranch go out the window, and we have to deal with the native bands of the area. That part concerns me, because if we are doing it for those purposes -- for biodiversity and because they're special places in the world and in British Columbia -- then that's how they should be for all of us, not just a few.

B. Penner: I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions related to the status of the St�:lo nation land claim negotiations. As you know, the St�:lo claim includes areas in the constituency of Chilliwack, which I represent. There's been considerable concern, and I think I'm accurate in assessing the public mood by saying that anxiety is increasing as time goes by. We've heard distressingly little about the status of negotiations. I wonder if the minister can just bring us up to date about where we're at in terms of that negotiation process.

Hon. D. Lovick: The St�:lo have just completed a framework agreement, which is stage 3. As we know, the real activity is the next chunk -- stage 4, the AIP period. Not much is happening at the moment, but what they have established, I gather, is a number of advisory processes and consultation mechanisms. So I would dearly hope that that would do something to allay the anxieties and the fears of people around.

When you referred to the St�:lo, I instantly thought of some folks not very far away -- namely, the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat' qua, which is just the paradigm case, if you like, for consultation. They also started not too many years ago with all this fear and apprehension among the community about: "Now, what are these people after and what do they want?" What they have done is they have set up a table or tables in which everybody in the town is invited to attend.

A Voice: Which town is that?

Hon. D. Lovick: That would be, I guess. . . . What's the closest community for In-SHUCK-ch -- Mission? It would be Pemberton. Anyway, I'm merely making the point that part of the exercise of going from stage 3 to stage 4 is that establishment of advisory committees and consultation mechanisms. So I'm hopeful that in the case of the St�:lo and the member's constituency, the same thing will happen.

B. Penner: I'd like to address the minister directly -- through you, hon. Chair -- about a specific area of concern in Chilliwack as it relates to the St�:lo land claim. There are other concerns, but for our purposes here tonight, I'll just focus on what is to happen to the lands that were Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. As most members will know, the federal government announced in their budget of February 1995 that they intended to close the military base at CFB Chilliwack. That base was first established in 1942 and was the only land-based military presence for the Canadian Armed Forces in British Columbia. Last week, on Monday, that base formally closed.

We have heard distressingly little in our community about what is to happen with the land and buildings associated with what was Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. I've been able to determine that the facilities that exist on the former base lands are currently valued at approximately $300 million to $420 million. That doesn't include the value of the land. Included in those facilities, now sitting largely vacant, is a former engineering school. That school was under construction in 1995, at the time the federal government announced closure of the base.

Like governments everywhere, they continued to spend money finishing the school notwithstanding the announcement that the facility would be closed. We have the situation now that a brand-new engineering school is sitting empty, collecting weeds and cobwebs. I visited that building most recently in March of this year, and it is spooky. It's as though a neutron bomb was detonated. There is a brand-new building, and it sits empty except for a few cobwebs, literally, in the stairwells.

[ Page 9775 ]

"The virtually new $10 million educational facility boasts fibre optic links, computer modem terminals in all classrooms, a 300-person theatre, cafeteria and library. There are 40 offices for administration space. This 76,284-square-foot building has 27 classrooms and is wheelchair-accessible and offers room for further expansion. A multipurpose recreational complex" -- that's a fitness facility with a swimming pool, etc. -- "is within walking distance."

The problem, for people in the community looking for ways to redevelop the land and buildings at what was CFB Chilliwack, is a question mark due to native land claims. The St�:lo nation has made it clear that they see themselves as having a legitimate claim to CFB Chilliwack. I don't dispute that they may have a meritorious argument to put forward with respect to that land. However, we've seen virtually no guidance from the federal or, may I say, the provincial government as to what is to happen to that land. Obviously, the federal government would be the government that you would think would be most responsible for showing some leadership, as they presently own the land. However, there are some ideas the province could put forward as a suggestion.

We all know that in 1994, this provincial government announced their intention to establish a new technical university for British Columbia. To date, no serious feasibility study has been conducted to see whether or not those facilities at CFB Chilliwack, which I just described, would be suitable for housing a new technical university. I've mentioned the fibre optic links and the computer modem terminals in this brand-new building that's sitting empty. That's one example of where the province could perhaps show some leadership in negotiations with the St�:lo as to what we would see as a vision for part of their territory. I'll take my place now and ask the minister for his comments on the situation I've just described.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his comments. He probably noticed me turning to my colleagues and saying: "Do you know anything more than the obvious on this issue?" The answer is no, we don't. The obvious, of course, is simply that it's federal land. The feds are not always known to be entirely open and generous with their information with us.

[10:30]

What I can tell the member is this, though. In my community, for example, where we also have, as he probably knows, a military base, there was considerable speculation for a long time that that property could not be disposed of and that nothing could be done because of a land claim. What occurred in my community is that all the players got together, and the federal government was persuaded by discussions with the others to set aside a piece of that for possible use by the land claim but then to liberate the rest of the property for community development and other kinds of purposes. So we solved that problem fairly well, I think, in terms of my community. Perhaps that model may be something to. . . . I could get some information for the member on that particular one, if he wants.

What I will do is take note of it, and if in fact I can get some more specific information regarding exactly what is happening and whether the feds -- I mustn't keep saying the feds, sorry -- the federal government has given any indication whatsoever that they would be receptive to those kinds of creative ideas that the member was hinting at. I think it's a legitimate question. Why shouldn't we be talking about doing something that will be of benefit to all the parties, rather than just seeing it sitting there, obviously wasted? I thank him for the information.

B. Penner: I have a brief follow-up question to the minister. I anticipate this will be my last question, subject to what else arises. The minister just mentioned an example of federal military land being disposed of in his own constituency. Some people in Chilliwack have asked me whether or not the provincial and federal governments have discussed with aboriginal groups the possibility of assessing the value of a specific piece of land that's in question, having a proper assessment of the value of that land done and then moving on with redevelopment of that piece of land -- and if compensation is deemed appropriate later during negotiations, or perhaps by a court decision, then using that assessed value to come up with a final settlement with any particular native group. Is that a feasible option? Is that something that the provincial government is considering during negotiations with aboriginal groups? Again, the situation in Chilliwack, just to make it local, is that we have lost approximately 3,500 paycheques in the community. Close to 2,000 soldiers and about 1,500 civilian staff have been lost due to the closure of the base. Chilliwack, as a community, needs to replace that economic activity somehow. The longer the base sits idle and dormant, the harder it is for the community to adjust.

I wonder if we can find some way to move past the immediate hurdle by saying: "Okay, we'll quantify the current value of that land and facilities at today's market value, and then we'll get back to you later with a final settlement."

Hon. D. Lovick: I think that the sticking point on that particular issue would have to be whether the federal government is prepared to say: "We are prepared to treat this as an asset and put it into the Crown assets disposal process." I think they do that, usually by using Public Works -- DND will transfer property to Public Works. It's complicated, but I think that's the way it works.

The concept, though, of saying, "Look, there is a current and compelling public interest in using a particular asset, and we, the Crown, whether provincial or federal, frankly feel we have no alternative but to do so. . . ." One does that mindful of the fact that yes, indeed, there may be some compensation required at some point. That does happen. Indeed, the example that comes to mind is in Burnaby, a Burnaby school. About six months ago, when the Ministry of Transportation and Highways had some property, a school board in either Vancouver or Burnaby -- I'm not sure which, as it happens -- said they needed that property because the population growth demands were such that they needed to build a school, that they were committed to it. The land that was surplus to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was perfect. There-

[ Page 9776 ]

As I think the member knows, Delgamuukw makes it very clear that compensation takes various forms and shapes. You have obligations, as the Crown, to consult, but it is clearly stipulated in Delgamuukw that for good and demonstrable public purposes, one can infringe on aboriginal land. That's the point that I think is being made. If that's the case, certainly one can infringe on land that first nations are looking at as possibly something they would see as part of a settlement.

I think there's a model there to be worked out, but as I say, the sticking point -- the starting point, it seems to me -- is to persuade the federal Crown that they're willing to take that action. They may not be. They may say: "No, no. These are sensitive, delicate negotiations; therefore we're going to let it sit idle." I would hope not. It seems to me that there ought to be a more creative solution of the kind the member referred to.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 10:38 p.m. to 10:44 p.m.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

K. Krueger: I hope the minister will indulge me. If I ask questions about areas that he has already covered, just tell me so, and I'll move on. Just as he has dual ministries, I have dual critic roles. I have spent a lot of time in the ongoing debate in the big House about Bill 26.

It has seemed to me, as I have been in and out of the Aboriginal Affairs estimates, that we've largely concentrated on the issues around treaty negotiations. If it would be acceptable to the minister, I'd like to perhaps go back to the beginning and talk a little bit about the ministry itself -- its origins and its present role. It seems to me that most of what is going on presently in British Columbia around the ministry involves those treaty negotiations. I would appreciate just a little discussion about the minister's and the government's views of the role of the ministry with regard to other matters touching on aboriginal people beyond treaty negotiations.

[10:45]

I think there has been a major evolution in this province under the aegis of Aboriginal Affairs that's been proceeding for at least a decade and certainly in the last four or five years. What that has meant, above all, is that Aboriginal Affairs is no longer pigeonholed as something that sits off there, and anything to do with first nations people comes under that ministry. Rather, it seems to me, it's become and is in process of becoming absolutely and completely integrated with all areas of government. Thus you have divisions within Environment, within Forests, within Mines, within Transportation and Highways, within Health, within Education, within Human Resources -- all of whom recognize that there is a particular constituency there called first nations people that requires some kind of particular treatment because they have unique needs. The role, then, of the ministry is somewhat scaled down in terms of the breadth of what it does. It still has what I would call an advisory kind of capacity and influence.

I was answering a question, for example, not too long ago from the member for Peace River North and making the point that what the ministry is trying to do at the moment is work out protocols and arrangements for all ministries in government dealing with the resource industries, essentially -- you know, "Here's how you deal with first nations issues," making sure that we all abide by the same basic standards and so forth. That's an activity that's coordinated by this ministry, even though there isn't essentially a department or something called the coordination of all these activities. So the ministry in terms of its size and in terms of its staffing complement is quite small, and most of what we do. . . . The member, I'm sure, has seen the organizational chart and has looked at the overall data that we provided to him and to his colleagues, and will know that there's not a lot there beyond treaties. There's a policy branch and things like that, but essentially it's a treaty-making operation; that's what we do. I like to think that we also have a significant influence -- indeed, one beyond our numbers -- in terms of influencing other ministries and making sure that all of us are working together to provide better and improved service for first nations people. So there's a quick overview, and I hope it's helpful.

K. Krueger: It is helpful, and that's certainly the impression I've had: that the focus is on treaty negotiations. Of course, as the minister said, with these Aboriginal Affairs issues, as it is with a lot of things in life these days, everything seems to be connected to everything else, and these connections become very complex. One of the concerns, of course, is that we may see ourselves in a particular role. The minister and the government see the Aboriginal Affairs ministry in a particular role, and we in opposition may well share that view. If that's the way the government sees it, that's probably kind of the way it is right now. But the aboriginal people that look to the ministry may believe that the ministry's role is something more or something less. In fact, that's what I hear from aboriginal people that I deal with. The range seems to be everywhere from, "The province really has no business in our affairs, thanks very much; we're entirely involved with the federal government," to "We'll happily accept the province's involvement in negotiations, and we'll see how it all comes out in the wash," to suspicion, to perhaps being happy there's an opportunity to deal with a provincial government that's closer to home and they never felt they got very far with the federal government -- it's really all over the map. It kind of depends on who you're talking to in the various aboriginal groups as well. Some people feel that they're a leadership in waiting. Some people are already a formal leadership by the processes that are in place.

I have the privilege of working with two aboriginal leaders in my constituency who are incredibly intelligent, progressive individuals, highly educated and articulate and great to work with. I have lived all around the province and still maintain contact with a lot of the places I've been. As the minister knows full well, different groups of aboriginal people

[ Page 9777 ]

Given that widely divergent view within aboriginal groups -- let alone between them -- of just who they're dealing with when aboriginal people are dealing with the province, one of the concerns I have is whether things that are negotiated or conducted or done right now be considered as properly resolved by future generations or even by present generations who might consider themselves a disenfranchised group at the time of a settlement. I wonder about issues like fiduciary duty. When the province believes that it has, in good faith and legitimately, concluded dealing with all its responsibility with a certain group, and then people emerge and say, "Well no, I'm part of that group, but I got left out somehow, or my parents did or my grandparents did," will the whole matter start all over again? Maybe the minister will just give us some comments on those concerns.

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the member's comments. It's interesting that one can extrapolate from his comments about first nations to say that that seems to be the case throughout society today. We thought we had finality and certainty on all kinds of things, and Lord knows how many years later, we suddenly discover they have returned to haunt us. Maybe that's the curse of every generation; I don't know.

What I can say in terms of first nations and our mandate as negotiators is that we require certainty. The member knows that certainty has indeed been a sticking point and a difficult issue in Nisga'a negotiations. I mentioned to his colleague some hours ago, now, that even though I think everybody is legitimately apprehensive about saying that what happens in Nisga'a will be a template, it is absolutely accurate to say that the certainty language that we hope to get in Nisga'a will indeed become the norm for all others. I think that's absolutely requisite, by the way. I don't think you start over again at every table from first principles, if you will. Certainty, finality -- yes. As I say, that will be a demand. That will be what we put on the table in all of our negotiations to try, as much as humanly possible, to prevent the kind of thing that the member alluded to.

The other piece of that, in terms of. . . . I'm sorry; I've lost it. It was certainty on the one hand, and the other was. . . ?

K. Krueger: The next generation.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I think I got the certainty thinking in terms of the next generation, but there was another piece of it. You wanted something else. You wanted clarification in terms of certainty, and you wanted clarification in terms of. . . . If you're not going to help me, then I'm going to sit down and we'll try it again.

K. Krueger: I think I can help you. It may be this aspect of expectations. When an aboriginal person thinks about the Aboriginal Affairs ministry of the provincial government, what are they relying on this ministry to have in trust for them? I'll give the minister an example. There is a process for women who have been disenfranchised from their aboriginal status to regain that. There's been an acceptance by the federal government that there were errors made in the way women were regarded by governments in the past. The process was established whereby women could regain their status.

Recently I ran into a woman about my age -- which isn't all that old -- or perhaps even a little bit younger than me, and she had lost her status. She was making her living driving a cab. We got talking while I was riding in her cab. I found out that she had been married to a white man when she was 17, and it didn't work out, and she'd been making her own way in life ever since. I asked about her status. She said that she'd lost it by marrying this white fellow. I said: "Oh, that's long been remedied. That was unfair, and people have accepted that." She said, "Well, I knew that, but I missed the deadline, the amnesty date" -- or whatever she called it -- "so I have lost my status." I said: "No, I'm sure that's not correct and that there is no such date. If you're still in that situation, that's an error." She said to me: "Well, I wish you were in there." I said: "What do you mean in there?" She said: "I wish you were involved in the government, because someone like you could help me." I said: "Well, actually I'm an MLA, but there are lots of people who could help you, including friendship centres and so on." But even though I've tried to follow up with her, she's used to making her own way in life, and so far she hasn't actually followed up with the people whose phone numbers I provided to her.

I think about people like her who've laboured under a misunderstanding. They may well, at some stage in their life -- when they value that status, that position they lost -- come back to the provincial government with the point of view of: "You have an Aboriginal Affairs ministry. Where were you when I needed you?" It seems to me that the ministry isn't really equipped to deal with issues like that. I know it's probably a federal responsibility, but people may have that expectation. As we settle treaty claims, if people like that are left out in the cold, they may well not be within that net of certainty.

That's just one example. I know there's an incredible diversity of individual situations and issues out there. Again, I wanted to flesh out a little the question of aboriginal people's expectations of the ministry.

Hon. D. Lovick: I apologize to the member. I thought I had a very clear sense that there were two specific questions, but obviously there weren't; it was essentially the one. Maybe my imagination was playing tricks on me.

Let me just respond to the specific example he gave regarding status and use it as an illustration of how the ministry would operate. The matter of status, as the member knows, is essentially the federal government's determination. The member is quite right that yes, that problem has been remedied. It's coming back in another way, though -- namely, people who have married first nations women and whether they acquire the status and whether they should. That's another debate that we're bound to hear something about. Nobody dreamed of that 20 years ago, but that's becoming one issue now.

As a ministry, what we would typically do, as a matter of course, when somebody called to ask for information about status, entitlement or those kinds of things and they were not our direct responsibility in terms of our constitutional role, is direct them to the appropriate sources so we could provide that information. We try very hard, in short, not to say, "Well, it's not our problem; go find somebody else," which I think ought to be the motto for all governments, frankly. Simply telling somebody "Sorry, it's not my responsibility" isn't quite good enough.

[ Page 9778 ]

[11:00]

I think I know why, actually. It's simply because the legal, constitutional arguments are that the federal government has fiduciary duties, etc. I've always struggled with it, and this is very much a personal opinion, but I think that's what the member is wanting. I've always struggled with that a little bit, because a trust responsibility -- which is what fiduciary means, of course -- ultimately suggests something, it seems to me, almost in an imperial or colonial sort of status relationship. In other words, I, the imperial society, the power, have an obligation to take care of you, my smaller and implicitly inferior friend. I've struggled with that always.

The positive side of it, though, is simply the recognition that yes, indeed, governments in this country, federal and provincial, do have obligations. I think we must accept them with alacrity and with an absolute sense of commitment and responsibility.

I like to tell the story that we in the provincial government -- the government of which I'm a member -- and the political party which forms that government bought into the process of settling land claims and saying that that was indeed the right thing to do and the necessary thing to do before the Supreme Court said so. I, for one, take some pride in that, simply because it was and still is the right thing to do, in my opinion. What Delgamuukw has done, of course, is simply reinforce that. Not just Delgamuukw 3, but a whole bunch of other decisions have led to that conclusion. We now all know the conclusion.

I accept in that sense, then, that we do have a fiduciary responsibility, that we have obligations to resolve past injustices and, frankly, to make the world somewhat better for all of us. I believe, moreover, that what we do to improve the lot of first nations people inevitably will be of benefit to all of us.

K. Krueger: The other aspect of the original question that the minister may have been thinking about was that I talked about the origins of the ministry. I know that the Socred administration originated it, to the astonishment of some people who felt as though the province would be well advised to just stay completely out of the picture and leave it a federal responsibility, thereby hoping, no doubt, that there would never be any provincial price tag to the obvious questions.

When this administration replaced the Socred administration and continued with the ministry, I wonder if the ideology or the understanding of government as to what the ministry was all about philosophically changed from what the Socreds started with. Perhaps that's a difficult question to answer. I'm just trying to get a sense of the continuity. It's still not a very old ministry. It's tied into that whole question of fiduciary duty, I think. It involves the original relationship between aboriginal people in what we now consider British Columbia and the European power, which was represented to them, of course, by the Queen and the Queen's representatives.

Initially everybody said Canada was going to provide those representatives. Since an aboriginal affairs ministry was created provincially, there's obviously some overlap there, or some transference of that responsibility. So the two things are kind of tied together. Again, could we get some expression of the minister's position on those issues of what the ministry is now compared to its origins under the Socred administration and how that relates to this whole matter of whether aboriginal people, now or in the future, will look to the province to have fiduciary duties to them?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm learning some things I did not know before this time. I don't know the history of this ministry. I think I knew bits and pieces of it, but I thank the member for the opportunity created by his question.

In 1987 government created what was called the native affairs secretariat. It was very much a problem-solving orientation, as I understand it. In 1990 the ministry was created largely to deal with the Nisga'a treaty question. You recall that there were some judgments made and Supreme Court decisions and so forth. It seems to me that to the everlasting credit of the Social Credit government of the day and to Bill Vander Zalm, the province finally said: "Enough denial. We have some obligations." Therefore they went to the table. The ministry's role in 1990 was essentially to get into the treaty business -- that treaty.

Over the next few years -- as you recall, the change of government was in 1991 -- the Harcourt campaign was called "Towards a Just and Honourable Settlement"; in other words, settling treaties throughout the province, not just with Nisga'a. Accordingly, then, the ministry expanded somewhat. If I understand what I think I'm hearing, it took on some broader responsibilities, more social responsibilities, for aboriginal persons in the society. Laterally, because of the phenomenon I described earlier about the fact that now every ministry has undergone this kind of transformation, the ministry has focused back to the treaty-making activity.

So the answer in terms of fiduciary responsibility is probably that though there does not seem. . . . Based on my knowledge of constitutions -- and I'm not an expert; I know a little bit about them -- and based on my knowledge of the Canadian constitution, I don't think one could find anything written anywhere that talks about the provincial Crown having fiduciary responsibility. But de facto, it seems to me that the provincial government has accepted as much. We have, for example, in the Ministry of Education, a pretty big chunk of that budget, which we devote specifically to first nations educational programs and cultural awareness and enhancement just because we all recognize that that's a good thing to do, and it is also a wonderfully good education practice.

K. Krueger: That really starts to get to the heart of my concern, which is. . . . The ministry then had more of a social responsibility role and presently has more of a treaty settlement role. But there may well be individuals now or in the future who either feel or will later argue that they still consider the ministry to hold that social responsibility role at the time of their settlements. As we discussed at the outset of this particular exchange, we're dealing with an incredible range in education and experience between aboriginal people. The chief of the North Thompson Indian band, Nathan Matthew, for example, is an extremely well-educated, intelligent, sophisticated man. But I've met aboriginal people from areas where somehow they didn't get any of those benefits, and they're extremely trusting, lovable people who tend to accept what they're told. I dealt with these issues in my past life as an

[ Page 9779 ]

It seems to me to be a risk for the province that we're dealing with such a variance. In treaty settlements which may be agreed upon, we may find decades down the road that people are saying: "In that settlement the province of British Columbia entrenched a situation that has disenfranchised us. We didn't realize it at the time, but" -- for example -- "my people had a centuries-old tradition of a kind of caste system, where I don't have the same rights as everybody else that was affected by the settlement. Other people who had a higher caste position have usurped all the power and all the resources, and I and my descendants have been left out of the picture." I know those are probably the kinds of issues the minister really grapples with, and I wonder what safeguards there are for that situation.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, I want to advise my colleague across the way that there is a very elaborate and detailed process in place at the moment whereby one is more or less assured an opportunity to establish his or her entitlement, his or her membership and rights within an organization. That will obtain in perpetuity, as far as I can make out.

Going back again to the larger question of government's responsibility, I think the responsibility is to not take advantage of people but to treat them honourably and fairly. I would love to believe that any government of any political persuasion would accept that as the credo by which it must live.

K. Krueger: If the minister is still finding his way in some of these areas, clearly I am light-years behind without anywhere near the resources that he's dealing with.

Those are some concerns of mine. I appreciate him being willing to take the time to even talk about them here. As the minister said in the discussion of fiduciary duty and it originating with aboriginal people's relationship to the Crown, it's uncomfortable for us to even talk about some of these issues for fear that we'll sound as though we are patronizing or are somehow locked into some previous century's thinking. Yet there are still people, citizens of British Columbia, who -- by virtue of lack of opportunity or education or because of their particular circumstances -- are still almost in that colonial mode, where they have no sophistication to deal with 1998 issues, let alone the coming millennium. There probably is a responsibility to them. I'm interested in that ongoing opportunity, which the minister seemed to describe, for people like that who may feel disenfranchised to still get onto the system -- it's hard to even think of how to phrase it -- in such a way that they, too, gain the advantages that they would have had if they had the opportunities that people who are fully experienced and educated at the moment are realizing. Perhaps the minister could just give us a little more detail on how that will carry on in perpetuity.

[11:15]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

I think government's job in that regard is to assist, not to put roadblocks in and say, "Go read this manual," and it's five inches thick or something. Rather, make it as user-friendly as possible to assist them to determine whether, in fact, they have an entitlement to be part of the treaty process. So we make that effort. I hope that's the question.

K. Krueger: Actually, I was obviously considering matters far more specific than I'd communicated. I appreciate that input about individual groups' claims, but I was actually thinking of individual person's claims within a group's claim. When I talked about a sort of caste system, those things exist and they have for millennia in some aboriginal groups.

I don't know the ranking of them, but for example, if an individual was a member of what's always been regarded by a group as the Frog clan, and they had a subservient role to the Bear clan, and if a settlement was arrived at between the present levels of government and the overall aboriginal group but the Bear clan people retained control of decision-making and resources and so on, if in the end the Frog clan people ended up somewhat impoverished -- and this could well happen -- then those people who ended up with nothing might well feel that they had a right to come back to the provincial government at some time, perhaps in the not too distant future, and take the position that the government didn't understand what it was dealing with. It had inadvertently given all the benefits to these Bear clan people. So the other people have a new claim, because they were inadvertently left out in the cold.

That's the sort of issue I'm trying to explore. How is our provincial government ensuring that individuals -- and individual subgroups within an aboriginal group -- are going to be assured of their share of the benefits that will flow from treaty settlements?

Hon. D. Lovick: I've been struggling to plug into where this question is and what it's about. I think the answer, in a word, is politics. First nations communities also elect their leaders and the people who have more responsibility and more power, just as we do. Sometimes leaders are good, and sometimes they're not so good, and sometimes -- given the nature of the leadership -- some individuals will perhaps be less advantaged than others. That's essentially for those entities to sort out. If people enrol in a treaty process, they all have the opportunity to be part of the treaty process. They democratically choose their own leadership; they're certainly as democratic as we are. How they sort out the inequities in terms of power and status and so forth, I guess, is their choice.

It seems to me that one could argue a pretty good case that they have a better history of sorting out those inequities and circumstances which lead to discrimination against individuals or within groups than we do in our society. I think the communal inheritance and tradition, the collectivity if you will, ranks rather more prominently in first nations culture than it does in ours. I guess -- and I don't mean to be flip or to treat this cavalierly, and I hope I'll be understood as not doing that -- based on all of my reading and experience, there is a lot less reason to be concerned about first nations communities in the areas that the member is alluding to than there is in our communities. I think they have a much better tradition of saying: "We have an obligation, one to another; we do take care of each other."

Regarding the clan arrangement to which the member made reference, that obtains in places like Nisga'a, for

[ Page 9780 ]

K. Krueger: I don't think it's a problem from the point of view of provincial financial responsibility at present, but I think it may be in future if the province comes up with settlements and, down the road, realizes that certain groups within the group that got the settlement had all the power to deal with those resources and to divert them, possibly, to the benefit of their subgroup, rather than the entire collective. I think the people who advise the minister are probably far more familiar with the various permutations of these situations than I am or than the minister is.

I do know, from having had a fair amount of familiarity with aboriginal people in the northeast sector of the province -- the Peace River country -- in the Hazeltons area, Bulkley Valley, and coastal as well as Vancouver Island, that there are very different systems. Some are more geared to the kind of collective mentality that the minister just discussed, but others are more geared toward a caste system and a permanent aristocracy, as the minister just described it. Those things are very real, and they're somewhat hidden from our view.

We have a tendency to think about other people regarding democracy the same way we do, but it's not necessarily so. Canada-wide, we got a glimpse of that in the results of the Charlottetown accord. A lot of people were astonished at the rejection rate in aboriginal communities and wondered why that was. The people who crafted the Charlottetown accord thought they were rolling in the concerns of aboriginal communities, but individuals who had ballots within those communities clearly didn't like the accord. They didn't like the settlement, and they had some reasons for that.

I think it takes a lot of resources and expertise to evaluate why that was so. I've always hoped that somehow the senior levels of government were exploring that whole question as we approached this prospect of actually, finally settling treaty negotiations. I feel as though I have to approach all this so gingerly, because I don't want to sound or seem to be patronizing in any way, and yet I don't think that a settlement that seems to us to make sense from our points of view with our perceptions of democracy may turn out to have been fair to all the individuals within an aboriginal group we might be settling with.

That's what I'm talking about. These groups have very different ways of looking at the world. An example I know of is aboriginal individuals from one aboriginal group who have hiring opportunities with a sawmill. It isn't actually an aboriginal sawmill but likes to employ aboriginal people for various reasons. Some of the aboriginal people from this group who have been hired have demonstrated such merit and expertise that they've gone on to positions of some authority over other aboriginal people -- in one case, a shop steward, and in another case, a supervisor. Both individuals ended up withdrawing from those positions, because they had been placed by a white employer, a mainstream employer, in positions of authority over people who were, by their hereditary position, considered to be superior to the individual that had been placed in authority. They faced sanctions within their aboriginal community for that reason. It's not pleasant for us to believe, but it's very much a fact, according to them.

Indeed, aboriginal women in many aboriginal communities do not enjoy the status that our society in general expects women to be afforded in any arrangement that we sanction -- that is, equal status with any man. That isn't necessarily so in some aboriginal communities. Those are the sorts of concerns I'm talking about when I think of us arriving at settlements involving turning over finances, resources and so on to a group which may well be controlled by individuals with points of view that aren't acceptable from a mainstream point of view -- nor potentially from the point of view of the individuals who will end up being disenfranchised. It's kind of a long question, but what I'm actually looking for is: what have we done as a provincial government to make sure that we know what we're dealing with there?

I will leave that with the minister, and we could perhaps return to it tomorrow, because I gather it's time to move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:28 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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