DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1998
Morning
Volume 11, Number 16
[ Page 9781 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading continued)
R. Neufeld: It's great to rise in the House at 10 a.m. after having sat here until 2:30 in the morning -- just a little while ago -- waiting for the opportunity to speak to the motion put on the order paper by my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head: "That
Hon. Speaker, I'm speaking in favour of that motion. It's interesting, as has been commented on before, that while we talk about Bill 26 and what it will do to the economy -- obviously many British Columbians and many people across Canada and North America know what Bill 26 will do to the economy -- we don't have very many members from the NDP side of the House stand up in support of their legislation. One begins to wonder why that would be, why they would feel that this is such an insignificant piece of legislation that they just don't want to stand up and speak to it. They would rather just sit there and listen -- maybe not listen all the time -- and heckle a good part of the time about what opposition members are saying this will do to the economy of British Columbia.
Make no mistake: Bill 26 is bad for business, and it's bad for the economy of the province. It's a lousy bill; it's a bill we don't need. I've often asked the question, but I haven't had one member from the government side -- one of those good socialists -- tell me why, with British Columbia's failing economy, the government needs to introduce another piece of labour legislation when everyone, whether it's from labour, whether it's Jack Munro
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: The member from Ottawa starts heckling already. I guess what took place yesterday is still on. I can tell the member that he can stand up and speak at his given time.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: So can the Minister of Finance. They can both stand here and take their half-hour. Or if they want to be the designated speaker on their important centrepiece of legislation, they can stand up and speak for that two hours -- or that half-hour -- on the merits of this bill and what's really happening in British Columbia. They have that opportunity. So far, neither of them has taken us up on it.
As I said, Bill 26 is bad for business, and it's bad for the economy. Maybe they don't like hearing the name Jack Munro echo in this chamber when he said: "Folks, you're messing up the economy." To those people out there that may be watching or for some in the gallery who don't know who Jack Munro is, he's a very well-respected person in the labour movement -- well respected on both sides of the House -- in this province, and he has spent his whole life doing that. I guess that's a problem because they don't respect the person enough to listen to him. They don't respect that person enough to say: "Yes, Mr. Munro, we understand." Mr. Munro came along with Mr. Jimmy Pattison, one of the biggest entrepreneurs British Columbia has ever seen. He tells the Premier the same thing: "Don't fool with the labour legislation. Let's not get British Columbia any more into the glue than it already is."
Just recently, we received information that the Toronto-Dominion Bank has said British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year and for the next two years after that. What a legacy for you folks! Seven years in government: you took this province from number one to number ten in seven short years -- maybe six and a half. What a wonderful record to take into the future! Now the Toronto-Dominion Bank is saying that that's going to continue for another two years.
What have we got? We've got people on the other side of the House that are still introducing red-tape labour legislation, when they're told not to by everyone in the province, including workers. They just don't listen; they just don't get it. One begins to wonder what the plan is. That's the part that is really starting to worry me more and more every day, as it is many British Columbians. What is the plan? What is this dark, sinister plan that we have coming forward from the NDP, from the socialists?
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: We're going to wrack and ruin in British Columbia and the Minister of Small Business and Tourism says that isn't true. It's just unbelievable that that member would read all the information that I read from all kinds of people and still say that's not true. It's unbelievable that we would have those kinds of people in government. I guess it's no wonder that British Columbia's economy is in the tank so bad.
The TD Bank also said that they're forecasting zero percent economic growth this year, 0.5 percent next year and only 1.5 percent in the year 2000. This is by far the worst forecast for any Canadian province. In addition, B.C. is the only province forecast to lose jobs in 1998.
Now, if you listen to the NDP, they'll blame everyone. They'll blame the Asian economy; they'll blame Delgamuukw; they'll blame someone else because they don't want to take any responsibility. They just don't like taking responsibility.
You know, even people from large corporations that are unionized have told this government: "We don't need any changes to the Labour Code. Leave it alone. Let us try to hang onto the thin thread that we have left in British Columbia's economy."
But oh, no -- not the wizards across the way. "Let's introduce a whole bunch more legislation this session; let's get some more red tape in place. Let's see if we can't really
[ Page 9782 ]
destroy this economy totally. Let's absolutely bring it to its knees." They brought the forest industry to its knees in six short years -- actually, in less than that; probably in four years. They absolutely stopped the engine of the province: the forest industry. What a record!They travel around the province and make all sorts of announcements about jobs for timber: it's going to create 40,000 jobs. The next thing you know, a year later, they've lost 12,000 jobs. It's remarkable. Yet they still sit there and don't realize that there's a problem.
One year ago this group of wizards made a promise that they would create 40,000 jobs in the forest industry. One year later, by their own records -- in fact, they set up a part of the Ministry of Forests to count jobs that they were losing -- we had lost 12,000.
[10:15]
I say it's absolutely amazing. They should have their travel cards taken away from them, because they made that announcement in Prince George. We don't want them going to Prince George and making those announcements anymore. People in Prince George don't want this group of wizards to come up there and say, "We're going to create all these thousands of jobs," and then a year later find they have none. They want these folks to stay at home, to stay down here, maybe in the darkened corners. Don't come out and say you're going to create jobs, because invariably when the NDP do that, jobs go down.You talk about revenue increases to government and a drop in taxation. I was elected in 1991, and I've been on the opposition benches ever since. I've listened year after year to Finance minister after Finance minister, NDP member after NDP member, socialist after socialist, introducing new legislation on a constant basis, on a yearly basis, introducing tax increases at unprecedented levels because they thought British Columbia's economy could handle it. They just went out and spent frivolously on whatever they wanted to spend it on. And what did they do? They didn't think they'd have to live into the second term. That's what happened. They thought it would be some brew for someone else to clean up, and all of a sudden they're cleaning up their own bathwater. That's the problem, Madam Speaker. They can't clean it up, or they don't have the guts to stand up and say: "Yes, we made a few mistakes. Yes, we're going to change."
I know they said they were going to set up a committee to remove red tape. Well, who put the red tape into place in the first place? Was it anyone else? Who was it? It was this group of wizards across the way. They're the ones who put all the extra red tape into place, and now they're saying: "We're the saviours of the province of British Columbia. We're the saviours of this economy. We're going to reduce red tape. And what do we do? We're going to strike a committee of 16 people and send them around and see if we can reduce red tape." A few phone calls would tell them what they have to do with their red tape.
It's obvious that when you reduce taxation in a meaningful way and that when you encourage investment in a meaningful way, small business is the engine for the investment that creates jobs. Small business creates the most jobs, but you have to encourage that investment, encourage entrepreneurs to come to British Columbia and want to invest their money. It's absolutely amazing. Back in 1994, I can remember the Finance minister at the time clearly saying
Interjections.
R. Neufeld: Oh, we can talk a little bit about Alberta. Alberta's economy last year grew at an astounding 6.5 percent. Not bad. In spite of having the country's lowest tax rates, the government experienced a budgetary surplus of more than $2 billion. What did this Finance minister experience? A huge amount of debt, a deficit seven years in a row. These wizards from across the way have managed to bring in a deficit budget seven years in a row. When the economy was great, we were creating the most jobs in all of Canada. Guess what: they were tabling deficit budgets at election time that said we didn't have a deficit -- actually, being very untruthful about it -- only for us to find out later that they did have deficits.
Ontario is experiencing the same kind of growth. They have cut their taxes, and they saw their economy grow by 4.5 percent last year. Between March '97 and March '98, the economy added 219,000 jobs, and government revenues were 5 percent higher than forecast. That's what real, meaningful tax change does. That's what meaningful investment means. That's what encouraging investors to come to the province of British Columbia -- if these folks would just do it -- would do.
They don't even want to listen to what's happening in their own city. I noticed in today's clips from the Vancouver Province that there's a report on the housing industry and how, on the mercantile sector, it's down. I just want to read into the record some quotes from this newspaper article: "It's the sound of silence, and the construction industry -- one of Vancouver's largest employers and money generators -- is in trouble."
Hon. J. MacPhail: You'd better get the full report of that
R. Neufeld: That is in downtown Vancouver. It is where the Minister of Finance is from. She says: "Get the full report." Well, I can read a good part of the report, and I don't think I have to read much further to show that it corroborates the fact that this economy is in trouble. Wake up. Look around a little bit. Smell the roses. Travel around a little bit. Get out of here. Don't stay here thinking that all you have to do is bring in new labour legislation and say: "Oh, my goodness, British Columbia is going to flourish." That is exactly opposite to what everyone is talking about.
It says: "The chances of the industry topping the $1 billion
I quote again: "The value of construction permits issued by the city is already off by 35 percent from a year ago, and
[ Page 9783 ]
the future holds little promise as developers increasingly shelve projects." Those are jobs. Those are business people. Those are jobs for men and women in that industry, which would provide for their families so as not to have to be on UI. It's a sad, sad tale.I quote again: "The numbers are not pretty, to say the least. At the midway point of the year, the city had issued $444.8 million in construction permits. That compares with $685.9 million for the same period a year ago." My goodness! What's happened? Is there a slowdown in the economy? Is that what people like Jack Munro and Jimmy Pattison are telling the government -- that that's actually true? I think it is. The only people who don't believe are -- who? -- the 38 MLAs over on that side of the House. They seem to think everything's fine in B.C.
I quote again: "The worst damage is being wrought on the housing front. The value of starts is off a staggering 40 percent from a year ago. Last year, by the end of June, permits worth $507.6 million had been issued. This year the number has been carved to a mere $304.07 million
It goes on to say: "The mercantile sector is disappearing fast. Only 228 permits worth a paltry $14.7 million have been issued, compared with 249 worth $75.2 million a year ago. This sector includes department stores and supermarkets."
We've got people putting in place legislation that's going to further exacerbate what's already happening in British Columbia. People in British Columbia just can't stand the kind of government that says: "We're right; you're wrong. Be damned. We're going to go ahead with what we think we should do" -- and that is to introduce more legislation, more red tape, more labour legislation; more labour legislation at a time when they know they shouldn't. They all stand and say that this is such a simple thing. "There's really nothing to it. You're blowing it out of proportion." Well, hon. Speaker, we're not blowing it out of proportion. This is sectoral bargaining, and that's not good for the economy. It's not good for investment. Anybody who wants to invest in British Columbia looks carefully now at what's happening here. What's happening here is not good.
It's no wonder
When it's flipped over to the economy of the province, where they're responsible for everyone in the province -- all 3.8 million -- they have a different viewpoint on it. They don't think we should have a good return on our investment. They don't think people should make a profit. They don't think that we should have jobs. It's a sad legacy. It doesn't matter where you go, you read headlines: "British Columbians Going Elsewhere. B.C.'s dismal economic performance and government policies blamed for investment uncertainty are forcing thousands to seek a better life elsewhere in Canada, says a Vancouver-based private think tank."
Statistics Canada shows that we're having unprecedented numbers migrate out of British Columbia. The B.C. forest industry returns are dismal. Here's another headline, from the Forest Industry Trader: "Infoline, B.C. Stats. Exports of B.C. products plunged in April, dropping to 19.5 percent below April 1997 values."
The list goes on. It doesn't matter whose article you want to read or whose information. Wherever it comes from, it says: "B.C. is in the tank. Don't fool with the labour legislation, don't increase taxes and don't increase red tape. Try to encourage investment; don't chase it away with a great big stick." Not these folks.
Last night, just before we adjourned, the member for Victoria-Hillside stood up to applause from his colleagues. He was going to give us a real barn-burner of a speech about why we should have this legislation. In that five-minute foray into a speech, I still didn't hear anything in support of why he thought we needed this type of legislation other than
Hon. J. MacPhail: You weren't listening.
[10:30]
R. Neufeld: I listened; I listened carefully. In fact, I even got the Hansard Blues and read them. He talked about the democratic right of people to choose whether to join a union or not -- and I fully agree. Under the labour legislation that we have today, you have that right. You can join a union if you want to, or not join if you don't want to. This member from across the way read a letter into the record from some fellow who says that he owns his own company and he doesn't want it to be unionized. Well, whoop-de-ding! Isn't that something? He doesn't want his company to be union. Okay, so isn't it freedom of choice? Doesn't democracy work on that side of the fence the same way that it works on the other side? I don't know. I justHon. J. MacPhail: My God, I can't believe you just said that. Clearly you don't understand the legislation. I can't believe it!
R. Neufeld: Exactly. You can't believe that I think everybody should have a right, that we should all have a little bit of democracy.
I just want to relate to the Minister of Finance an experience I had on a union job. It goes back a number of years. I was fairly young, and the Peace River dam was being built. Actually, at the time I owned
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: You know, Madam Speaker, if the member from wherever wants to heckle me, the least he can do is get in his own chair and do his nitter-nattering and mumbling from there or else close it up.
The Speaker: Members, members. Members know that remarks are to be made from their own seats.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Yeah, leave it up to the Minister of Finance. She does a good job. We noticed that the other night in the House.
[ Page 9784 ]
I had the opportunity to go out to this huge site, where the dam was being built. I was a non-union person, and I owned my own truck. They phoned me from the dam and asked me if I'd come out and work there on a short-term project, so I did. I was pretty young, maybe 24 years old, and I thought: "Wow, I'm going to go out and work on this huge project. This is really something." I went out thereInterjection.
R. Neufeld: You know, hon. Speaker
An Hon. Member: Vancouver-Burrard.
R. Neufeld: Vancouver-Burrard. I hardly ever hear him in the House, other than the heckles. This member has the opportunity to stand up and speak, the same as all of us do. In fact, when I sit down, member, you can stand up and speak. I challenge you, and I'll bet you
The Speaker: Hon. member
R. Neufeld:
The Speaker: Hon. member, through the Chair, please. To the backbench members, please come to order.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: That member should talk about watching the language, hon. Speaker.
In any event, I was going to be part of this big construction project, and I really looked forward to it. I got out to the dam site, and they showed me where I had to go to work. The NDP talk about how unions are so democratic and how this is the way that it should be done all the time. Well, I drove out there in the morning and went to work. It was amazing: at lunchtime, everybody shut down. I had a gravel truck and had to haul a little bit of rock away. There were some labourers, some steelworkers and some teamsters there. There was a whole array of people who I wasn't familiar with.
But on the site, there were the labourers. They went to one building to have their lunch, and they all had their lunchkits with them. The ironworkers went into another building. This big white pickup came down, and it had "Catering" on the side. Two people in cooks' garb got out, they opened the doors, and they came out with this hot meal. They went into this building and they gave it to the ironworkers. I said to the fellow that I was working with: "Well, where do we go for lunch? I'm kind of used to everyone going to the same place for lunch. It's a bit nuts. I guessed you would all kind of go to the same place and have lunch." The person told me: "No, you can't have lunch with the labourers. You can't go in that building, because that's the labourers' building. You can't go in the ironworkers' room, because that's the ironworkers' room, and they get a hot meal delivered to them. You can sit out here on the gravel and have yours."
Now, this is what they call democracy. This is what they call a democratic union that allows all kinds of rights and freedoms
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon, members.
R. Neufeld: Well, hon. Speaker, it's a longer story, and I'm sure I'm going to have some time to explain further what took place at that site. I notice that my time has almost expired.
I want to end with the fact that this bill should be hoisted. This bill should go out to the people of British Columbia. They should be able to have the opportunity to say to these folks
Interjection.
R. Neufeld:
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Maybe that member would like to go out there and tell those people: "I am here to help you. I'm going to introduce some more labour legislation. I'm going to kill a little more investment. Maybe a few more of you people can go to the soup line. Maybe a few more of you can go on unemployment insurance. Just give me a try." He says he's a socialist that really cares about the worker. Nothing could be further from the truth, or that member would think twice about what he's doing today.
J. Dalton: It's a pleasure to be on my feet dealing with this referral motion. I look up and see some light in the windows. The last time I was speaking, I left the House afterwards, and the moon was out. In fact, there was a full moon. I think this is the sun. Indeed it was a full moon. When I looked through the clips this morning on some of the accounting of that evening in question -- it was a Tuesday evening, or actually Wednesday morning, I guess
However, that's not the point; the point is referral to committee. Now, wouldn't it be refreshing if indeed one of the standing committees of this parliament actually was activated and given a function. The only one that actually does sit, other than Public Accounts -- which of course does sit regularly, because it is mandated to do so -- is the forestry committee. It has to deal with FRBC. No other committee has ever been called, ever been convened or ever met to do anything.
So I invite the government not just to support the opposition's motion -- I know they are delighted to consider that -- but to consider the implications of the motion, a motion to refer Bill 26 to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. I say that not just to support a very well-reasoned motion and one that makes every economic sense as well as every other sense, but because this government has to seriously take a
[ Page 9785 ]
second
I'll give the government credit. The previous Labour minister, when he brought in Bill 44, the father of Bill 26 -- or the mother, or both
Now, of course, we have this referral motion before us dealing with the son, daughter or offspring of Bill 44 -- referral to committee. Perhaps if we were to pass this motion, this could be part of the new consultative process that the government so proudly tells us about. But quite frankly, I think it is seriously lacking in any concrete evidence that demonstrates that is does consult people on anything, other than, of course: "We think we'll have SkyTrain today, and it probably should run down that street. We won't worry about the environmental assessment and all the other things that should go with it. We won't worry about the fact that the good citizens of Coquitlam were up in arms, 200-fold, the other night at a meeting, saying: 'Wait a minute. Can't we give this one some second thought?' Oh, no. We're going rush that one through." I may come back to SkyTrain later.
Of course, sometime this summer, I presume, we will see the GVTA bill and, if this government ever manages the affairs of this House properly, the education bill and the mental health bill as well, and all the other bills that we have yet to address in second reading. I presume those things will eventually get to the floor, but right now we're dealing with a very important piece of legislation -- an extremely important piece of legislation. I'm inviting the government to support the motion, as well -- not because of the opportunity just to take a sober second look at it, but also to invoke the consultative process that they so proudly tell us about.
This is the process that, for example, is in a section in the GVTA bill that we have yet to deal with. I know the members opposite have read the bill, so they know what I'm talking about. There is a section right in the middle of that bill dealing with consultation. Good. Let's see it. We'll see. Maybe George Puil would like to be invited to be part of the consultative process.
The same consultative process in another bill that we've yet to deal with -- Bill 39, the public education bill. That's going to be an entertaining discussion in second reading when we get to that baby. Consultation -- was there any on the agreement-in-committee that the Premier and a few select bodies in the BCTF produced? What happened to BCPSEA, the Public Schools Employers Association -- the duly constituted representative of the employers of teachers in this province? What happened to those people?
Interjection.
The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.
Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, we are debating a labour bill here in the House, not other bills that are before the House, which will be debated in their turn. If the member wants to debate those bills, he should sit down, vote on this bill, and then we can debate the other bills -- which are before the House, including Bill 39, which he mentioned.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I would caution the members, in discussing this bill, that other bits of legislation are not part of that motion to refer to a committee.
J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Of course, the point is always missed on the government benches. The point is that bills before this House -- issues before this province, more importantly -- are not being attended to. There is no consultation. What has happened, if I may address public education in a general sense -- and if that isn't an important issue in this province, I don't know what is
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
If we were to pass this referral motion, then consultation would not only be a word or a phrase that they trot around but never actually conduct, but it would become evident. The committee would then sit. It would take Bill 26 and trot it around the province. It would have some real discussion on it -- not this backroom stuff, which is, for example, how they want to deal with the public education issue.
[10:45]
Fair enough, hon. Speaker. I will respect the ruling -- if, indeed, it was one -- that I should stick to Bill 26. But I certainly hope I'm entitled to be on my feet to address very important public issues in this province, of which the labour bill is obviously one -- but it's not the only one. If we're here until Thanksgiving, so be it; we will deal with all of these issues. I suggest to the government: why do we not pass this motion today, put Bill 26 to committee? Then we can talk about the unnamed public education bill and the unnamed GVTA bill and the unnamed mental health bill and the unnamed environmental bill, etc., etc. That's what I invite this government to consider.
On the point of consultation, this government, unfortunately, has a very sad track record indeed. So maybe they'd like to right the ship a bit. Let's turn it around marginally. If we can pass this motion, refer the bill to committee, then we can get on with the other extremely important issues that are not only before this House -- and there are many on our agenda -- but also throughout this province wherever you go. It might be down Georgia Street, where, as I said the other night, the first thing that caught my eye while driving home was a sign, right on the fence of a construction site, saying: "Stop Bill 26." It's right at the corner of Denman and Georgia, so any member who wants to wander down there
I can tell you that the people of British Columbia would probably stand and applaud this government -- even though that's a rather strange thought -- and say: "Well done. You in fact did support the referral motion. We now will have true consultation on Bill 26 and not this: 'Well, we'll take this thing, just a little part of Bill 44
[ Page 9786 ]
other important issues of the day, such as education, and then we'll be able to adjourn and take the government back bench and others and go off and preach the good word.' " Of course, the Premier will be leading the charge on that. I guess he's still preaching the good word -- somewhere south of the border, I understand.Another thing that I would like to comment on with regard to referral motions and buying into the government's alleged game plan is red tape. Isn't that an interesting creature? Red tape. The government is working on reducing red tape. In fact, there are two other bills, both allegedly to cut red tape, which, of course, I can't comment on on the floor before they are on the agenda, and we have a committee to reduce red tape. But we also brought in Bill 14 -- and that one has been passed, unfortunately. Bill 14 certainly didn't do anything to cut red tape.
B. Penner: It hasn't passed third reading yet.
J. Dalton: Well, this is true. Good point. The member for Chilliwack, who is always alert and knows every order and rule in this House, who is extremely attentive and never misses a thing, says Bill 14 has yet to receive third reading -- but it's coming.
Then we have Bill 26. Bill 26 isn't a terribly detailed bill. I don't even know if I have a copy here. By the way, just for the information of the members opposite, I know I'm not allowed to use props, but I'm allowed to refer to my notes. All of this package in front of me, which I haven't even read a word of yet, is my second reading debate on Bill 44. So stay tuned. We may get around to that one day. We'll just change the numbers.
I wouldn't talk about Bill 44, of course. I would just say Bill 26, because Bill 26 is a product of Bill 44. I know that the Minister of Labour, who has sponsored Bill 26, is more than happy, whenever he gets to his feet, to say that it's just a thin little document. It's innocuous, and it's not harmful. It won't do anything negative to the economy of this province, so we shouldn't worry about it but should just ram it through -- and probably in the same breath, ram everything else through, including his Aboriginal Affairs estimates, which we are dealing with at this moment down in the other House, and then we'll all retire for the summer. It will be sweetness and light, and British Columbia will be number one again.
As many members on the opposite benches have commented, and will continue to comment, we are not No. 1. We are not No. 2. We are not number anything except No. 10, and if we created two more provinces in the north, we'd be No. 12. That's what has happened to this province. The economy has gone in the dumpster because of Bill 26, the predecessor Bill 44 and Bill 14, dealing with red tape, as I was commenting on.
Speaking of red tape, I would give a descriptive to Bill 26, because the members opposite would like me to comment on that bill and why we should refer it. I would say that Bill 26 is a yellow-tape bill -- not red tape, but yellow tape. The yellow tape I'm referring to, hon. Speaker, is the police caution around the crime scene. That's what the yellow tape is. The crime is the destruction of the economy of British Columbia. We have the evidence of the cadaver, the corpse that lies there in the street. It is the British Columbia economy. The police have arrived -- the police being the taxpayers of this province, the employers, the people who may still be left here; but some of them, of course, have packed their bags and headed across the Rockies. The police have arrived on the scene, discovered the corpse and put the yellow tape around the scene. You've all seen it on television, and maybe one day you'll see it back on BCTV when they recover from their little labour problem. That's what Bill 26 is: the yellow-tape bill.
What Bill 26 is intended to do, and this is the danger of it -- there are many, but one of them in particular
As my colleague from Peace River North said before me, we're not anti-labour, even though they're going to spin it otherwise -- and that's fine. They're entitled, under the rules of parliament, to get to their feet anytime they want and present their view -- as the member for Victoria-Hillside did last evening, and I applaud him. I didn't agree with his viewpoint at 2 o'clock in the morning -- actually, it was closer to 2:30. I didn't agree with his viewpoints, but I applaud the member for Victoria-Hillside for being on his feet and addressing Bill 26 and the issues, and presenting his democratic right to say what he did say. It's on the record, and we can all read it in the Blues.
I don't hear any of the members
So there we are: The yellow tape around the corpse of the economy of British Columbia. I invite this government to pass this referral and send this corpse to the committee. Maybe the committee can breathe some life into it. Maybe it can take the pulse of this corpse: "Wait a minute. There's a little murmur there. There's a slight murmur. Take its temperature. See whether the body temperature may in fact be pushed back up to some living status." But it won't happen if we don't do something with this bill other than pass it. Now whether that be the hoist, which of course failed, or this referral motion, which I hope will pass, or whether it be that the current Labour minister conducts himself in the same honourable fashion as his colleague, his predecessor, did, who -- as I said earlier -- took the predecessor of this bill off the order paper
I invite the Labour minister and the government -- the cabinet benches and the back benches collectively -- to take a very serious look and to consider the harm caused to this province by Bill 26. It is serious harm. Let me just refer, if I may, to some editorial comment. Of course, editorials reflect opinions. I'm not saying that this editorial, which was in the Vancouver Sun on June 19, is gospel. But the heading is significant from my point of view: "Labour Bill Ill-timed and Ill-considered." I won't go into the detail of the editorial. The members opposite can take note: June 19, an editorial in the Vancouver Sun on an ill-considered bill.
Mr. Speaker, a member would like
Deputy Speaker: The member for Chilliwack rises on a matter.
[ Page 9787 ]
B. Penner: Yes, hon. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. I note standing order 6 requires a quorum of ten people to be in the Legislative Assembly. I don't believe we have that. Perhaps the members opposite are sleeping as a result of the late sitting last night, but I think they should be in the House to listen to what the member has to say.Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member, although I do observe that there are equal numbers on both sides. But I will call for a quorum.
The bells were ordered to be rung.
Deputy Speaker: The member may now continue.
J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I thank my colleague for again being extremely attentive. On every rule, as I said, this hon. member is right sharp like that.
Here's another comment, again from the Vancouver Sun. This was back in February -- February 13. It was a Friday. Well, it was an unlucky day. Something must have happened that day to spark this column: "Change in Tenor of Labour Relations is Crucial." The very lengthy article in the business section
There's one other in the Vancouver Province -- I like to give equal time to the two Vancouver newspapers -- on Friday, May 8: "Documents Reveal the Inside Story on Bill 44." Now, hon. Speaker, I won't comment on Bill 44, because that's not in the referral motion. We're dealing with 26, which is 44 minus whatever equals 26. I'm sure the member for Surrey-White Rock would be able to tell me the math that produces that. Unfortunately, I was never very good at math and my mother -- God bless her -- who's now departed, always hated it because she was a math teacher. I'm afraid my three children -- bless their hearts -- have all had my affliction, but there you go. These things
An Hon. Member: You'll have to go to law school, then.
J. Dalton: I went to law school because I didn't have to worry about adding. I just had to worry about producing interesting arguments, that's all.
One thing caught my eye in this article of May 8, the inside story on this unnamed bill: "Government can expect criticism for lack of consultation with and input from the business community." That was an FOI'd document. Now and then, you do some get some FOI out of the government, but it is extremely difficult. It's like pulling teeth and then some. So there you are: "Government can expect criticism for lack of consultation with and input from the business community." It's the same message that Bill 26 -- aha, we're back on track, with the referral motion -- is giving us.
[11:00]
Just to consider the economic impact, I will make two points. I believe I referred to these previously, in a sense, but I want to come back to them to make sure that the point is doubly stated, because the members opposite are slow learners and because of the very significant impact. On my travels through the Kootenays two weeks ago, I had occasion
Hon. Speaker, I know I'm not allowed to use props in the House, and so I won't. I don't know whether this is considered a prop; it's kind of small. I have in front of me the top of a creamer, one of those little plastic creamers for those of you who put cream in your coffee. I don't, but my wife does on occasion. We were in a restaurant in Castlegar, and my wife ordered a coffee. The cream was delivered, and this cream
An Hon. Member: You've already told this story.
J. Dalton: I don't know that I've used this very weighty document before.
This cream was produced in Saskatchewan or Manitoba -- take your pick. There's no B.C. reference. This is like the Spanish wine. There's no British Columbia product here. This is from the Prairies. You know what? You go downstairs, order a coffee and have some cream. You know where Dairyland has found itself these days? It's in Alberta too. They're all gone.
I did see a few dairy cows in my travels. My wife is a rancher, so I know something about cows. They are those black-and-white things. I did see some black-and-white cows in the Creston Valley and in the Windermere Valley. I did see some, hon. Speaker.
However, it doesn't matter about the cows, and it doesn't matter whether this government cares to listen
Interjection.
J. Dalton: I know. They know very little about "heards," because they don't listen. Herds are a foreign commodity to this government.
However, what is obviously happening
I've always enjoyed my trips through the Fraser Valley, and I do it often. On both sides, particularly in the Chilliwack area, of course, you used to see a lot of black-and-white cows. Now, you might see some grass and corn, but you don't see anything there that's going to eat the grass and the corn, other than maybe the odd lamb or other exotic animal. There's certainly nothing there that's going to really produce some economic activity.
We've got to get back on the track. We've got to recognize that when the Vancouver Province talks about the serious
[ Page 9788 ]
impact on business in this province, they're not just filling words and producing another article for the business section -- which the members opposite probably haven't found yet in their cruise through the clips, or otherwise. This is serious stuff.The referral motion to the committee on economic development and labour would be the perfect place to park this bill, if they're not prepared to withdraw it altogether. Withdrawing it altogether would be the best thing. Well, actually, the best thing would be resignation and a general election. We have a Parksville by-election coming up. Maybe it's a good chance. Instead of one election, why not 75 by-elections?
Deputy Speaker: Member, relevance to the motion, please.
J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, I see I'm about exhausted, as they say. But I take your point on relevance. I have many other things I will be commenting on, but obviously I'm near the end.
Again, I just want to emphasize one more time -- because with repetition, even with the slow learner, sometimes you break through the barriers -- that this motion to refer must be passed, hon. Speaker, because I don't have any sense that the government is prepared to withdraw the bill. I don't have any sense that they're really prepared to go out there and maybe go through some meaningful consultation process. But if they were to pass this motion, put it to the committee -- which is a committee controlled by their members, as they have more on their side than we do on our side in committees, just as they do on the floor of the House -- what's wrong with that? They can set the agenda. They can take the bill to Ken Georgetti for consultation, if that's all they want to do. But at least that would be better than what we have now, which is nothing. It's simply: "Well, we'll crank the thing out."
Hon. Speaker, I see that the light has come on. I will no doubt be having other opportunities to comment on some of the stuff that I haven't even talked about yet.
G. Hogg: I too rise to speak to the matter that was brought before this House in the form of an amendment last evening. I think the words of the amendment are extremely important. They are: "Bill (No. 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."
Well, hon. Speaker, I think that there are at least five and probably many more good reasons why we should be supporting this motion. This motion addresses the recommendations -- at least one of the recommendations -- that came out of the initial consultations, the first report of the Business Task Force, which was released on July 8. That's the task force which was set up to review the issue of red tape and regulation reduction. Secondly, this motion addresses the recommendations alluded to in the Lanyon-Kelleher panel's report. Thirdly, the motion addresses the Labour minister's own criteria for a valid piece of legislation. Fourthly, the motion addresses the concerns of people that we have heard expressed all across this province. Fifthly, the motion addresses many of the issues which I'm hearing locally within my constituency, my riding. I'm hearing from the South Surrey-White Rock Chamber of Commerce, from local business persons across the riding.
It is a motion which will give us the opportunity to look at the impact that many have projected this bill will have on an already sick and failing economy. The motion, which by way of its implementation, by way of its process, would allow a Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology, an all-party committee, which could visit every corner of this province, all 75 ridings, and could talk to and have input from each person
It would by definition be a joint committee and therefore a joint submission from both sides of this House. We could start to break down some of the reputation that we as a province have developed. Imagine addressing the rumours that we're not just business-biased or labour-loaded, but instead that we have a sincere approach and will make a sincere attempt to reflect the best interests of the majority of the people of this province. Some may suggest that this is indeed naïve or Pollyanna-ish. But I think that it's those types of attempts or efforts which we have to make if we're indeed to set this province straight and have the opportunity to put ourselves back to number one in economic development, in the place that we have earned and where we should more rightly be.
I believe that it's a positive proposition before us, a positive amendment. The amendment gives us a chance to focus specifically on the economy, jobs and wealth, and to show that instead of Bill 26, we should perhaps be looking at and reducing some of the concerns that have been expressed -- such things as having the highest marginal income tax rate in North America, and the red tape and regulation that have so often been referenced in this House and around this province. I know that the government has made attempts and taken efforts with respect to those issues, and hopefully it is continuing to do so.
Such a committee may tell us that Bill 26 will not have the dramatic impact that some of us have alluded to, but at this point in time we do not have the information or the data that we need to be able to make a rational decision or comment with respect to that. Today we do have information. We have comments from people who are experts in the field. We have decision-makers who can provide us with comment with respect to that. But they too believe that there needs to be a fuller review of the overall impact this may have. At this point, many of those experts are expressing concerns about this bill and what it might do. This amendment gives them an opportunity to gather that data, to put together all of the issues, concerns and problems that they see with it, put it before this standing committee and have the standing committee look at it, talk to people throughout the province and provide the information that we need.
It would be damaging for us to allow those misconceptions as they exist -- if they are misconceptions -- to continue to sit out there without having the opportunity to put forward, through the legitimate processes that we have before us, an all-party approach. That approach would give us the opportunity to address those specific issues and bring forward the information we need so that people can make positive, solid, activity- and information-based decisions. It would give this
[ Page 9789 ]
province an opportunity to take some small steps, some small actions, that would allow it to effect a dialogue and to be involved. At least the people of this province would have a sense that they are being listened to and perhaps even understood.
The Business Task Force, which I referenced earlier, in its first report on red tape reduction, released July 8
[11:15]
It also allows us to respond to the Kelleher-Lanyon panel's response to Bill 26 -- a panel which the Labour minister has made much ado about and has referenced many times. I quote from that panel's report, where they stated: "[We consider these] to be sensible changes for long-term stability in the construction industry. They are not based on the state of the economy at any particular point in time."
I believe that in this panel's report, they were serving notice. They were flying a red flag. They were saying that while they believed it to be for the long-term sustainability of the construction industry, they did not know
Economic impact at a time when our economy is not doing well is a very real and important problem. Real or imagined, the impact is being felt. This amendment goes to the core of that panel's concerns when it talks about the issue of economic impact. It starts to refer to other parts of the economic impact, as they start to reflect themselves in jobs and potential jobs.
A further study, entitled "Looking to the Future: A Report on the Construction Industry's Review Panel," again looks at the impact and economic viability of what is happening in our province and other provinces. That report states, on page 46: "In the short term, the most serious constraint on availability of skilled workers in the construction industry is the expected strong demands for construction workers for work planned outside of this province." With work planned outside of this province, we don't know for sure what the impact of that will be, where those jobs are planned or what the long-term projections are for this province. This report says: "Conservative estimates placed some of the planned construction projects in Alberta in the order of $40 billion over the next few years, leading to a significant demand on skilled, trained workers."
That type of growth and construction outside of this province will draw away from our talented labour pool. The impact of this legislation may further drive those workers out, because we won't have the jobs that we need and want in this province. I'm sure that every one of us would be delighted if we could have the $40 billion worth of construction projected for other parts of this country coming into this province. That employment, that opportunity and those jobs would be a boon to a province which is sorely in need of jobs.
This amendment gives us an opportunity to look at that. It gives us an opportunity to review the impact that such issues are having, not just in this province but in other parts of this country, and it gives us a chance to respond to those. Key, positive decision-making requires information. It requires information and a database upon which we can adjust and move. At this point in time, I do not believe that we have the information base necessary to make a decision with respect to this bill. Clearly this amendment gives us an opportunity to expand that information base. It gives us a chance to put together enough information to make some solid decisions.
I believe that the standing committee could look at the type of work that we might be able to generate in this province -- at how we could increase the jobs. The baseline data available has been well documented. When we look at how this province is currently faring, it has been well documented. That would form the baseline data upon which this committee, struck by the passing of this amendment, could start to work.
As I stated, it has been well documented. We've gone from number one to number ten in economic growth. We are now number ten out of ten provinces. We have the highest marginal income tax rate in North America. We've gone from number one in job creation to number ten. Last year, in fact, we had a decline of some 19,000 jobs in British Columbia -- the only province in Canada to actually go down, to lose jobs. There were some provinces which were gaining as many as 22,000 new jobs. We look very pale in comparison. From 1990 through to 1997 government spending per capita rose faster in British Columbia than in any other province in Canada. In some it grew by 28 percent, while government spending in some provinces declined by as much as 17 percent. These facts are the data, the baseline, upon which this committee should start to structure its review of the economic impact this bill may have.
There's further information. Housing starts are down by more than half. That has a dramatic impact on the people of this province and the jobs that are available to them. Investment in B.C. is the lowest in Canada, tied with Prince Edward Island. Some may suggest that it's coincidence or that its impact is a result of issues over which we have no control. But certainly there are many who would suggest that labour legislation and the effect of the introduction of new labour legislation have an impact on that. The report of the Kelleher-Lanyon panel, which was put forward by this government, suggested that itself, as does the initial report we have just made reference to from the Business Task Force.
Construction and investment have started to dry up in this province, and many aspects of construction are becoming problematic. Some people, I'm sure, would suggest that construction in this ICI sector, which is being referred to in Bill 26, won't have an impact on some of the other areas. But I think
[ Page 9790 ]
that a referral to this standing committee would give us a chance to see whether that is in fact a fact. One issue is that construction appears to many to be a window on our provincial economy. When people decide to look at an economy, to look at an area to decide whether or not they want to invest their money in that area, they look at the climate in that area before they make the investment. The climate is reflected to them through a variety of factors, such as government policies, taxation, laws and regulations. We know that those factors play a large role in influencing the decisions about where dollars will go and therefore about where jobs will be created.With labour accounting for approximately one-third of business costs, labour policies must be balanced in order to attract those dollars. If they're not, then we can see greater problems with respect to dollars coming our way; we can see -- real or perceived -- that the environment is seen to be hostile. We must address that issue. We must address the psyche of the people who are reviewing and looking at whether or not they choose to invest in this province. What they see today is not a positive picture. They are seeing and reporting high taxes and onerous regulations, and they're quickly looking to other areas. They perceive our labour laws and our regulations to be tilted in favour of unions at the expense of some of the rights and issues they see as being important.
That's an opinion which seems to be shared by the majority of British Columbians. At least, that's what was cited in two recent polls, one by Marktrend and the other by McIntyre and Mustel Research Associates. Both of these polls reflect the type of sentiment, the type of issue, which I've been referring to. Both of these polls suggest that for the people of this province, the psyche of this province and hence the face we put on to other parts of the world is one of doom and gloom. That doesn't bode well when we're searching for new investment and new employment in this province.
There's recently been discussion about the potential for a new smelter in British Columbia, and we would all love to see that happen. But with the potential of this legislation and the cost that it may add -- there have been suggestions it could add anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of the cost to some types of construction -- it casts some gloom upon the potential for that to occur. It puts those types of investments in jeopardy, and that's a billion-dollar-plus investment that we could lose. This motion, this amendment, allows us to effectively look at such investment and at the economic impact and to see whether it does, in fact, have the deleterious effect which so many of us fear. This amendment may not be the perfect panacea. But I believe it does go a ways towards addressing many of the issues which we've heard bandied about in the media and in this House.
In a letter he wrote to business organizations, the minister again made reference to a set of criteria which he felt should be employed when making some decisions with respect to whether a piece of legislation coming forward or a set of recommendations coming forward was positive or not. In his letter he states: "The criteria that I will use when evaluating recommendations from the two panels, as well as any other submissions which interested groups may put forward, are
The second one is: "We must ensure that the rights of workers to join the union of their choice is respected." One can debate whether or not that focuses specifically on that issue, but certainly it is an issue which the minister has outlined and which could be addressed as part of the terms of reference of this standing committee.
The third criterion is: "We must create a climate of stability which will encourage investment and create jobs." I would certainly agree with the minister's criterion. The fourth one is: "We must consult carefully with key stakeholders before making changes to law, policies and regulations." I don't believe that the consultation process which we've entered into in this one responds to my interpretation of what "carefully with key stakeholders" means. The fifth criterion which the minister referenced was: "We must work together to bring labour and government together to address issues of public and common concern."
I believe that when the minister listed these five criteria, he was very thoughtful in putting these together. I believe that they are five very good criteria for evaluating any recommendations, any pieces of legislation. Of those five criteria, four of them focus specifically on the issue of economic impact. These criteria could be included within terms of reference and allow us to have a committee set up to address the very issues which the minister sees as being important in terms of effecting the focus and the direction that we should go -- five criteria, four of them focusing on the concerns that are addressed by way of this amendment.
[11:30]
Again referencing the minister's very own wordsI believe there is more to coming to a decision with respect to evaluating legislation than just evaluating the types of phone calls, letters and petitions which one receives. There is a much more factual and information-based process which one must go through in looking at that. I believe that this amendment allows us to do that. It allows us to look at it in a much more fact-based process.
If the criteria the minister employed for making a decision not to resubmit Bill 44 are still valid in his mind, then it seems to me that those criteria could and should be applied to Bill 26. I think he would come to the same conclusion if he applied the test that was previously applied. However, he doesn't have to do that. He has an opportunity at this point in time, if this amendment is supported, for this standing committee to provide him with the necessary data. He would not have to make assumptions about the number of phone calls and letters he'd received, but in fact, through the process of the terms of reference, the criteria and the evaluative process aligned in this committee, he would have all the information and data necessary to draw his conclusions.
I want to take the impact on the economy and the terms of reference that the baseline information might provide and apply that specifically to Surrey-White Rock. Last weekend I
[ Page 9791 ]
walked along what was once one of the busier business districts of Surrey-White Rock, Russell Avenue, a street which was vibrant and alive with business at one point. At this point in time there were five vacant buildings which once had businesses. There are, no doubt, many reasons for that. I went into a dry-cleaning business on a corner and talked to the owner there. He told me that he used to employ five people but now he doesn't. He told me that if he were starting the business today, it would not be able to survive. It's only because he's been in business for some 12 years that he's been able to pay down his debt. He's been able to work at that, and therefore, by putting in extra hours, he and his wife have been able to make the business survive.I think most people would talk about it being a stretch to talk about Bill 26 and what impact that might have on a dry-cleaning business on a corner. I made reference to the psyche, the persona, the sense that exists out there that it's not just the ICI construction sector. This hard-working small business owner, who used to employ a number of people, said that his business was suffering. He felt that this bill was going to have a negative impact on his business. As I said, hon. Speaker, it may well be a stretch to look at how this bill, at least in any direct fashion, would have an impact on a dry-cleaning and laundry business. However, the perception was there. His business was down, and he was looking at and blaming everything he could find out there. He saw this piece of legislation as another negative in terms of what was happening to his business.
Clearly, if there isn't the type of employment we've wanted in the past, if the businesses and the jobs are going to other areas, we need to be able to clarify for small business persons. We need to be able to say to them: "Here is what is happening within your area. Here is the impact." We need to be able to answer them with facts and information, not have them subject to paranoia and assumption. This amendment would allow us to do that, to focus on that.
Another fellow I spoke with is a longtime citizen of the area. He's a rational, thoughtful small business man who employs over 30 people. He's a man who's very concerned about this legislation. He has read the clippings and the news releases, and he has questions of this government. I believe that his questions can be put into perspective. They could be answered; they could be addressed if we had the data, the information necessary to respond specifically to the economic impact. This amendment allows us to address the issue of economic impact. It allows us to look at what it will do. It allows us to say whether or not we can create wealth, growth and jobs through this.
The South Surrey-White Rock Chamber of Commerce is concerned. They've lost confidence in this government. They have not seen the empathy or sympathy for the plight of their members that they think should be there.
I spoke with my brother-in-law's brother on the weekend. He's now moved to Alberta. He told me that it's not the business climate and the specific legislation that's made such a big difference to him, but that when he approached government, they said to him: "What can we do for you? How can we help?" He was amazed to hear that. He felt that when he approached government in British Columbia, looking for assistance for his employment, he was an irritant, a problem.
Well, I see that my time is running out. I remember reading once about some decision-making processes that took place. I'll have to hold that wonderful thought. I will hold onto that thought for but a little bit longer and be prepared to share it with other members.
M. Coell: It seems like only yesterday when I rose in the House to try and convince the Finance minister that some of her ways may not be appropriate for the economy, and I wish to continue that, with the emphasis on why this bill should be sent to committee. The bill should be sent to committee because of the vast differences between the government -- their ideology -- and the opposition. I want to outline that for members of the government.
If you took the bill and all of the problems that we see with it, and you sent it to committee, you'd have an all-party committee that could go throughout the province and talk to affected people, to businesses and union leaders. I think that it would be healthy.
I mentioned the other day that I was hoping that my words of encouragement to the Minister of Finance -- and she can correct me if I'm wrong -- would encourage her to start to look at free enterprise as an option to the socialist, centralist approach we have. We have in this bill a kind of very centralized, socialist approach to labour relations. I tried to say to the Minister of Finance at the time that our economy's really not in good shape anymore, that the NDP have really made a botch, a mess, of the economy.
What we want to do is somehow get that back on track and start to get jobs back into the province. We're quite concerned that the government doesn't understand what job creation is and what free enterprise is and how that could be good for this province, the economy and the unemployed of this province. That's why we're here debating this bill, because there are 180,000 people unemployed -- without work -- in this province. I think it has a lot to do with the government, with the cabinet who sit over there.
What we want to do is take this bill and send it to a committee, where cabinet can get some input from average British Columbians, average Canadians, who are concerned about their jobs and about how labour relations are developed, controlled and manipulated in this province. Maybe they'll have some good ideas. Maybe they'll have some ideas that the government can take back.
I want to explain, when I say we should be going to a committee, what the differences are between the government and the Liberal opposition. That will help the government to understand where they've gone wrong, why we have the worst economy in Canada now, why we have people and jobs leaving the province. We always talk about businesses leaving the province, but when a business leaves the province, jobs leave the province, and families and individuals are hurt. We on this side of the House don't want to see that.
I'm sure they on the government side of the House don't want to see it either. They'd like to be able to beat their chests and say: "We've created jobs." But no, they hang their heads low. A lot of them hide, because they know that what they'd have to say is: "I'm sorry. We failed to create jobs, to do what we said we would do. We've failed." That's what the government says to people.
We want to help them. We want jobs created in this province. The difference between the government and us is one word: jobs. We know how jobs are created. Free enterprise creates jobs. Legislated jobs don't exist in this province any more than they've existed in any socialist experiment in the world. It just doesn't happen. You can't legislate jobs.
The first thing is a major difference, and it's why we should be discussing this bill at length in committee: the government doesn't believe in cutting personal income tax. As a matter of fact, I shouldn't say that, because they did make a
[ Page 9792 ]
promise to cut income tax by 1 percent next year. But they did promise they had a balanced budget one year too, so I don't think the people of British Columbia are going to believe them until they see the whites of their eyes and the actual tax cut.I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal opposition believes in tax cuts right now. We believe that money in people's pockets is a lot more powerful than money in government general revenue. It creates jobs. When you take a personal tax cut for everyone in the province, it puts money in people's pockets and in the economy, and that creates jobs. That's a difference I think we could talk about with the government in committee stage -- how we can help them understand tax cuts and create jobs. Tax cuts don't hurt services; they create jobs.
One of the members is looking puzzled. I'll spend some time explaining it, because it's important. When you create a job, that job pays more taxes. The government gets those taxes and then spends it on health care and education. It's very simple. But if you keep taxing people, people don't have jobs -- like we have right now. You don't collect taxes from people who don't have jobs. If you want a healthy economy and a health care system and an education system that are second to none -- which I believe we all want -- you have to create the jobs to create the taxes to put the taxes in the government revenues to pay for health care and education. I think we'd spend a lot of time convincing the NDP, the socialist government in this province, that tax cuts are where it's at. That's what's going to help create jobs.
The other thing that I think is important for people who are coming to this province
[11:45]
That's the difference between the government and us. We believe in truth-in-budgeting legislation. The government believes in headlines that say: "You wouldn't believe us anyway. Our budget doesn't balance, but we're not going to tell you that until after an election." But people will remember that, and that's a difference. That could be discussed in committee: how Bill 26 affects taxes and budgeting. What will this bill do to budgeting? I'll tell the members. This bill will bring less money into general revenue -- you collect less tax and have less money for education and health care. This government needs to go to committee to discuss Bill 26. It needs to go to committee to understand where it has gone wrong, where it continues to go wrong and where the socialist agenda fails the real world -- the free enterprise world, the market economy, the global economy.But you know, one more thing that would really help is to have fair and balanced labour legislation. That would help people come in. What investment doesn't realize is that this is only part of Bill 44; it's chapter 1. Business knows that, and small investors know that. I spent some time the other night talking about the small investor, the mom-and-pop organization that becomes a chain grocery store, a big grocery store, and then becomes a union grocery store. You know, they won't come. They won't invest their money if it's not a balanced, fair and level playing field.
An Hon. Member: Free market.
M. Coell: The free market, as one of the members says, is a wonderful thing. The free market is what generates jobs.
But no, they're going to legislate jobs, just like the forest accord, a great big job legislator -- 21,000 jobs. What a joke! What a complete joke: a government that thinks they can legislate jobs. That doesn't exist. Can't you see, Mr. Speaker, what they have done to try and legislate jobs? Nothing has appeared. It continues to drop off and drop off, until we have the worst economy in Canada.
As a matter of fact, about an hour ago the Toronto-Dominion Bank came out with their real GDP factor. You know, they put B.C. at zero percent. Canada is going to grow by 3.3 percent, Newfoundland by 5 percent, P.E.I. by 2.3 percent, Nova Scotia by 3 percent -- and British Columbia is zero percent.
Doesn't that frighten the government? Doesn't that say to the government that you don't need to push the economy down any further? You don't need to push investment down any further; you have to encourage it. You have to bring investment here, bring the jobs back. We should be looking for every job that left this province. How can we bring it back? We should legislate what will help bring that job back, not legislate what might send someone back, further and further away from British Columbia.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I find it incredibly sad that when faced with zero GDP growth this year and the worst economy in Canada
Government has an obligation to people to attempt to create jobs, not to attempt to chase jobs away -- and that's happened. We want to make sure that this NDP government -- this socialist labour government -- understands that free enterprise alone will create jobs. This member over here, Madam Speaker, has never created a job in his life, through this chamber. I hope he has in his other work, but through this chamber he hasn't created a job. There are fewer jobs in the economy since that member was elected.
Interjection.
M. Coell: They've been laying off public sector jobs for three years.
Noting the hour, I wish to reserve my right to finish my comments after the break. I move to adjourn debate at this point, and I take my seat.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
[ Page 9793 ]
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Chair, when we adjourned last night, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson asked me to begin by responding to his comments, but apparently there are other members here, and knowing that we all have other commitments, I will defer those comments, in case others would rather pick it up, and we'll start afresh this morning. So I'll simply wait to see how it unfolds.
M. de Jong: One of the things I suggested at the outset that I want to do -- or maybe I didn't, but I'll suggest it now -- is confront and discuss with the minister some of the material that was included within the pages of the select standing committee report that was compiled a year ago and tabled with the Legislature. I should say at the outset that this is really the first opportunity we've had to elicit opinion from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- any Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- by way of a reaction to some of the recommendations contained within the main body of the report and the minority report.
I think I should say as well -- and it is perhaps less a criticism of this minister than of the government generally and, I suppose, indirectly of his predecessor, although I don't want to unfairly criticize him when he's not in a position to defend himself any longer
There is my little lecture to the minister, and perhaps I should provide him an opportunity to respond to that question of timing and chronology before I delve into some of the recommendations contained
[10:15]
There are a whole series of recommendations, numbering 72, in the main body of the report. I won't confront the minister with every single one of them, but some of them, I think, do bear some examination and discussion, and I understand that this discussion takes place following the presentation of the document the minister authored, indicating the government's acceptance of the majority recommendations. He has indicated that a number of them have been acted upon; some of them remain to be acted upon. I will present to him some of the recommendations that I think bear addressing, and he can tell me whether they've been acted upon, to the extent they've been acted upon and what the government's intentions are.
If I could start with No. 1, actually, which is the fisheries recommendation. I don't know if the minister and his staff have the report with them, but they are all relatively short, so perhaps I'll just read it to him. Recommendation No. 1 says: "Commercial allocation formulas and the management of commercial fisheries should not be included in future treaties. Instead, they should be addressed in negotiations based on watersheds, basins, regions or the entire province." In a nutshell, what that seems to be saying -- and my recollection of what the intention of the committee was in including that recommendation
We have the member for Peace River South, the former minister, who was part of that committee, here. And, Madam Chair, you are also familiar with the discussions that took place around the preparation of this report. If I'm inaccurate in my attempt to interpret what some of this means, at least the member for Peace River South can jump in. You, of course, are precluded from doing so, Madam Chair. In any event, I think what the committee intended to communicate here is that if you attempt to negotiate fisheries allocations in the rest of the province of British Columbia in the manner it was done in the Nass Valley, it ain't going to work. It's arguable whether that kind of model is going to work on the Nass. It certainly isn't going to work elsewhere. I think the key points there are that commercial allocation formulas should not be included in future treaties. Well, the Nisga'a is a future treaty; it's not a treaty yet. If the minister says that he accepts this recommendation, then I guess the question is: how does he reconcile that with a future treaty -- in the near future, we are told -- that would purport to do just that?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm going to ask the member opposite if he would simply begin listing those concerns and those questions. I've asked staff to get me my own detailed, marked-up copy of the report. I'm not about to try and remember each of those recommendations and respond accordingly. So if the member will be patient, then I will, of course, deal with all those questions. So carry on.
M. de Jong: Perhaps to assist this debate, I could seek some clarification. The minister is saying that he would be more comfortable if I started to go through the recommendations?
Hon. D. Lovick: The ones you have concerns about.
M. de Jong: My understanding is that the minister is awaiting delivery of his copy of the report.
No. 16 in the majority report states: "A formula for measuring cash and land values or a mix thereof should be established. This formula should be negotiated provincewide between the federal and provincial governments and first nations, who may wish to refer to cash-land envelopes established in the Yukon agreements and the recent KPMG study."
We touched on this briefly earlier in these debates insofar as we were talking about trying to quantify in the best way we could the overall cost of settlements. It's not a very exact science. The committee spoke of the need to develop a formula that might be applicable by determining, I suppose, an overall value and a mechanism by which you could reach that value through a combination of land and cash. Is the minister in a position, without his copy of the report, to indicate to this
[ Page 9794 ]
committee of the House what work has been done in developing that formula? To what extent do the ministry and the minister himself agree with the direction hinted at in recommendation 16?Hon. D. Lovick: I would simply reiterate what I said last night. We canvassed this, as the member alluded to, not at great length but certainly at some length. I made the point at the time that this is indeed ongoing work we're obviously grappling with. I think it's safe to say that the direction suggested by the committee is indeed the one we are pursuing. I would simply make the point now as I did last night -- namely, that when we're talking about matters like that, we're talking to some degree about strategy and tactics and negotiation. That's for process.
As I said earlier, I don't think it's a good negotiating strategy to walk in and say, "Right, here's the formula we are working with," and put that on the table. I think that gets us into the predicament of being whipsawed at both the front- and the back-end of the process, if you will. If it's any comfort to the member, yes, that's part of what we're referring to as our post-Delgamuukw strategy; that's the kind of thing we're working on at the moment. But in terms of saying we're going to table the strategy or something like that, no.
As you know, we do have some basic guidelines. We already put those out, in terms of land roughly in proportion to the percentage of population. But those are very broad guidelines, and I know the member is thinking of something much more specific. But my answer of last night still obtains this morning.
M. de Jong: When he referred to the select standing committee report in his opening remarks, as I recall, the minister identified three categories of recommendations. He can remind me, if I get this correct, but all of the recommendations have been accepted. The government has implemented, I think, 20-odd of the recommendations and is taking action with respect to another 20 -- or a certain number; I forget. I'm curious to know which category this recommendation falls into, which says -- recommends to the government -- that a formula be established. I hear what the minister is saying about his reluctance to publicize that formula, but I'm not sure I've heard him say whether or not the government has developed a formula. Maybe we can start there.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'll just simply say what I did earlier: I'll ask the member to bear with me until I get my copy of those notes -- okay? Then I can answer the general question in terms of what category and of what we are saying on that particular recommendation. I could do some of that from memory, but frankly, I don't think that would serve our interests well. I'd much rather simply look at the notes I made on the report and say: "Here's our response to the specific point."
M. de Jong: At recommendation 26, we -- the committee -- talked about third-party compensation and urged the government to develop a provincial policy on compensation for those whose "legal interests in Crown land are lost as a result of treaty settlements. This policy should identify what triggers compensation and what constitutes a legitimate claim [by the third party]." Again, I understand that the minister is awaiting delivery of his document. Perhaps he can indicate what work has been done with respect to the development of that policy as recommended by the committee.
Let me try to put this into some sort of context. I think we canvassed this briefly in an earlier debate in this place. I was struck, as a member of the committee, by the different approaches that certain members of the committee appeared to take, depending on who the third party claiming compensation was. For example, hon. Chair, if we were confronted by submissions by the Council of Forest Industries, which articulated their concerns that they might, as a result of a particular settlement, lose access to timber worth X number of millions of dollars, and pursued that from the point of view that they were owed compensation -- that this should be something that the government budgeted for in pursuing these negotiations -- certain members of the committee were less than sympathetic to that argument, for any number of reasons. That was not something they were inclined to entertain nor something they thought constituted a legitimate cost of settling aboriginal land claims.
On the other hand, if we were, for example, receiving submissions from a cattle rancher in the Nicola Valley -- for whom there was the same issue of aboriginal claims to Crown land, which this rancher was relying upon to maintain a viable operation and was at risk of losing access to -- the same person, the same member of the committee, for whom the notion of paying third-party compensation to Interfor or Canfor or MacMillan Bloedel was deemed to be so distasteful, rushed to the defence of the cattle rancher. I think it was the member for Peace River South who said on one occasion: "The only difference is that there are more cattle ranchers, they're nice guys, and they can vote."
Perhaps that is a sound basis upon which to develop a political strategy, but in my view it is not a sound or equitable basis upon which to develop a strategy and a policy around third-party compensation. That is a concern that I have, and it is reflected to some extent both in the recommendations of the majority and the recommendations contained in the minority report, which we will get to. I think there is a need -- and perhaps the minister can comment to this extent -- for a more consistent approach.
The other thing that arises out of all this is: how, in the minister's mind, has the imperative around developing this strategy changed in the post-Delgamuukw era?
Hon. D. Lovick: To start with the last question, which sort of came as a segue from what was being developed, I don't think, frankly, that Delgamuukw necessarily changed anything vis-à-vis the Crown's sense of its obligation for compensation. What Delgamuukw essentially did was to formalize and make very clear that these are the obligations. We know that in the Supreme Court ruling, a fair bit was said about compensation and the levels of it. So that codified it and made it more formal. But in terms of saying that it changed the overall attitude, the overall philosophy towards compensation for affected third parties, no, I don't believe that is the case. So that's that answer.
Re the other one, the larger public policy question about what governs third-party compensation for infringement -- let's call it infringement, for want of a better term -- and whether that should be a subjective judgment based on whether you like some guys and you don't like others
[ Page 9795 ]
because it's a corporation as opposed to a smaller corporation, you change the rules. I don't disagree with the member there. I think it's quite safe to say that our response in terms of how we carry on with drafting our guidelines and dealing with the matter of compensation is not going to be based on some kind of subjective calculus.
[10:30]
Obviously, I can't -- nor would I -- comment on what might have happened in your committee and who might have said what. Obviously that individual may have a different rendition from the one you're presenting; I don't know that.M. de Jong: Well, let's take it outside of the context of the committee and the committee members, because they're not here to defend themselves, nor is that probably an appropriate function within this forum. But I think the minister will accept that there are people within our larger society who take the view that some of the larger resource companies have in the past -- certainly not these days, but at least in the past -- prospered and profited by their access to British Columbia Crown resources, and that the day of reckoning has arrived for them; and that if they think that the province and, through the province, the taxpayer are going to compensate them for losses to resources that heretofore they have taken for granted, then they've got another think coming.
I think people who analyze the problem from that perspective have put the cart before the horse, because in order to effectively and properly analyze this issue, what we are really talking about is the interest in land. This does, to some extent, revert back to what one's notion of private interest in land is. I have to say that when members of the government, not all of them, stand and say, "Private property is not on the table," I am left with the clear impression that what they are talking about is that your house, your home, isn't in jeopardy. That's easy. We all proceed on that assumption. But if you are a cattle rancher in the Nicola Valley who owns a fee simple interest in the land on which your barns and out-buildings are, but you rely -- and your family has for generations -- upon access to Crown tenures and grazing rights on Crown land in order to maintain a viable operation, then, for all intents and purposes, you've got a private interest in those lands. You've maintained them; you've fenced them; you've done all of the things necessary under your lease; and yet you are confronted by the reality that those lands may be on the table with respect to claims by neighbouring bands. The removal from the Crown bank of any those lands that are available for use by those private individuals will render those operations non-viable. It's when we start to examine it at that level that the minister will know that the concerns arise in places all across this province.
I think what those people are looking for is a clearer, unequivocal statement from government that their interests won't be sacrificed in the name of securing a settlement -- equally desirable, but that their individual interests won't be sacrificed.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm tempted to make a brief comment about something the member said the other night -- that we should all beware of lawyers lining up and salivating and licking their lips about
Let me just establish two points for the record. First, what I said about private property before. We've had some discussion about that, and again, I simply refer back to that document that we have all been using as our template from the beginning: the principles for negotiation. It's noted clearly there, of course -- as the first item, I think that private property is not on the table. The fourth or fifth item from the end of that particular list I will simply quote: "All the terms and conditions of provincial leases and licences will be met." That, I think, is about as emphatic an assurance as we can give in terms of the status quo.
If the member's referring to future references -- licences and leases that have not yet been granted that people may want to get in the future -- then I can't speculate, except to say that what we have articulated from the beginning, and reiterated many times, is that the Crown's position and status as the manager of the land and the issuer of leases, licences, permits, tenure, etc., is not in question. We're not retreating from that. That doesn't, of course, mean that there won't be some parts of what is today Crown land that will be at some point transferred. That's what negotiation will produce ultimately. The question is where and how much.
M. de Jong: Well, I think that answer contains within it the seed of much of the uncertainty that exists. We were talking about grazing tenures. Well, they come up for renewal. That has been, in some of these instances, over the past hundred years a standard and pro forma exercise. I guess the question that arises is: what position is the Crown going to take with respect to lands which heretofore have been made available to the private cattle rancher -- who for the last 100 years has come to take for granted the timely renewal of that lease that maintains his or her operation as a viable operation -- and are now contained within what we would term a band's traditional territory, and in some cases a band taking the position: "That's Crown land, and we don't want that lease renewed and, pending the completion of negotiations that may" -- hopefully not -- "stretch on for decades
Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member is quite right. Those are legitimate questions, and one of the purposes of our tripartite meetings at the moment is to establish those guidelines so we give that kind of certainty -- albeit certainty for the interim -- and guidelines for what are usually referred to as interim measures. But the purpose is ultimately, of course, to produce just that kind of certainty. That, indeed, is what the treaty thing is about. I guess that will be one of the principle objectives of and results flowing from the settlement of treaties.
What I can tell the member, though, is just this: our negotiators, the people at the tables, have a very clear direction. But in keeping with the principles for negotiation, we will do whatever we can to protect those existing rights in land. All the member is doing is illustrating the complexity of the problem. We're talking about competing claims and the farmer or rancher who says: "Look, my family has been running cattle up here on this plateau for the last 75 or 100 years." That individual has some claim to ask: "Wait a minute. Don't I deserve to be considered as well as a first nation that says, 'Well, yeah, but you never had any right to the property in the first place, and somebody came and took it from us without our permission'?" -- etc., etc. There's no easy answer. It's not a matter of saying: "Well, you guys must be right, and
[ Page 9796 ]
you guys must be wrong." Welcome to the world of negotiation. All one can do is say that one tried to do the right, just and appropriate thing, recognizing the legitimacy of that claim.I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but it seems to me what the member's asking me for is simply some comfort that the interests of the non-first-nations people are also going to be given serious consideration. And I do give that assurance. Frankly, I think we would be irresponsible in the extreme if we didn't do that. I would simply reiterate what the Supreme Court said -- two points: (a) we're all here to stay, and (b) this is going to require some give-and-take on both sides. It's probably the most prescient comment made by the judge, it seems to me.
M. de Jong: This is probably not limited to aboriginal matters, but the observation one most often receives from members of the public, insofar as relations with government is concerned, is that it's the people who generally do the giving and the government that generally does the taking.
A Voice: Remember, you're part of that.
M. de Jong: Indeed. Which is why I take this discussion so seriously, hon. Chair.
I think the point is this -- and there's a whole bunch of things wrapped up in this: the government's response to the notion of interim measures
Confronted by a situation -- and I recognize that this is hypothetical -- where a piece of Crown land is up for lease renewal or, as we talked about earlier, an option to purchase, but would otherwise remain within the grasp of a third party, versus an aboriginal group which is claiming that property, it strikes me that so much now hinges upon the government's response -- it might be a ministry of Crown lands, or it might be the Ministry of Forests -- or the state's response to that dilemma they find themselves in. The minister used the words, in respect of an example used earlier, about it being a question of who sues you.
In some cases that might be true, but not always. It strikes me that the government has a choice about fulfilling the obligation it has -- moral, legal or otherwise -- to that third party, recognizing that there may be an issue of compensation payable to an aboriginal group at the conclusion of negotiations, versus saying: "We are going to remain in suspended animation until such time as those negotiations are settled, so that we as the guardian of provincial Crown lands can reserve as many options as possible." Those are two very different attitudes that the Crown can employ during this very difficult period that we find ourselves in, leading up to and through negotiations.
[10:45]
Hon. D. Lovick: The member, I think, will be happy to know that I agree with the analysis he presents; I think he's right. He'll perhaps be happy to know that that's precisely the premise we're proceeding on.I'm happy to report that we as the Crown are not, because of the nature of aboriginal title and Delgamuukw and everything else, in the process of holding up any dispositions. We're not saying: "Don't issue any leases because this might become part of a claim." We're not doing that.
I would also very briefly touch on the matter of incentives that the member alludes to, and I think I touched on this ever so briefly yesterday. We should not forget that there is a huge incentive at the moment for first nations people to settle. They are burning up money at a tremendous and frightening rate, and they say as much. With the loans system that they have with the federal government -- as you know, 80 percent is loans and the other is grants -- the 80 percent formula has meant that some first nations are hugely in hock for their negotiating process and that, of course, is a credit against what a final settlement might be. I've listened to a number of very articulate spokespersons for first nations saying: "We're very frustrated. Let's get moving, because we simply can't afford to sit at the table." And we, of course, ironically enough, are the ones who are more likely to usually say: "Well, we can't afford to sit at the table forever either, because we must get moving on this for the same reason." So I think there is a built-in incentive. What our point is, however, in trying to get that tripartite process back on track
M. de Jong: I'm going to turn it over momentarily to the member for Peace River South, who has some questions of the minister. I haven't gone through all of the recommendations of the report that I do want to deal with, but we can get back to that another time.
Let me just deal with one more, because I don't think the minister
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm happy to note that the member acknowledges that this is a largely symbolic construct -- and that isn't to minimize it at all, because symbols are sometimes more important that anything else. It's worth noting, I think, that government is obviously going to proceed cautiously in
[ Page 9797 ]
terms of making a formal statement of some kind, simply because of the questions of legal liability and all of that. That is simply a cautionary note.
Having said that, however, I would point out that the Premier has in fact already made an apology for the tragedy of residential schools. I have given probably at least half a dozen speeches where I have done
So in that sense I guess I'm saying that, de facto, I think we have done so. But the committee's recommendation, as I recall, based in part on what the feds were talking about at that point, was on whether there should be some kind of formal articulation as part of every treaty settlement. I think it was, wasn't it, that that would become part and parcel of
M. de Jong: As his material is absent, I don't want to pursue the minister relentlessly, but the recommendation was that the Crown in the right of the province should offer an apology to aboriginal people. The minister is correct: I think that recommendation contemplates the formal inclusion, something beyond a reference in a speech or
Hon. D. Lovick: No, it isn't.
M. de Jong: Am I being unfair, then, in suggesting that in fact the government doesn't accept the recommendation?
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't want to name names, but the member asked the question. Yes, I think, frankly, that he is being a little unfair in saying that. I think this is not a nice easy yes-or-no kind of question, quite frankly. I think it's a complex question, and as I said, we have de facto said that we are apologizing. The recommendation, as I read it and as my memory serves, was not to say that there must be a specific formal apology in every treaty, but rather to say that there ought to be some clear enunciation by the Crown of the wrongs that have been committed -- in other words, a formal apology. We haven't done that yet. I said that we are de facto doing it, I think, on a day-to-day basis. But it isn't part of the Nisga'a treaty. I don't think that is a denial of the recommendation of the report. Rather, it seems to me, it's an absolutely true statement to say: "We have accepted the recommendation, and we're still finding a way to do that."
M. de Jong: I didn't do this on purpose, but I should have read recommendation 68, which says: "The apology should be included in treaties." I understand that there are arguments against doing that, and I might even agree with the minister, but he said something just a few seconds ago about these being very complex and technical issues. He's right about that, but the response that the government tabled eight months, I think, after this report was presented to the Legislature was: "We accept the recommendations." Maybe I'm just using this as an example, but if the government accepts the recommendations
Hon. D. Lovick: I think I was very specific. I said that in the Nisga'a draft treaty there isn't a formal apology. There may well be in others. I've said that this is under review, under discussion. I'm just looking at the response to the report, which I tabled in the Legislature, and I don't think one can read that and say that anything I've said today contradicts it. As I say, I think they're complex questions. I think we have certainly accepted the intent. It doesn't mean we've acted on everything instantly. Indeed, the report goes on to say what the status is of certain of those recommendations. I guess the member and I have a disagreement.
M. de Jong: I think that is the danger that arises, quite frankly, when an attempt is made to enshrine the government response to a lengthy document containing many complex issues within a one- or two-page document. The minister can come back to this at some point in the future. Clearly the government hasn't accepted, and doesn't intend to accept, all of the recommendations. They may have very legitimate reasons for doing that, but the impression that has been left by the document that's been tabled is that they do accept them. I don't think that's the case, and I don't think that's helpful.
I want to yield to the member for Peace River South, who has some questions.
J. Weisgerber: This morning I'd like to spend some time looking at the McLeod Lake agreement-in-principle. Let me say, before we get into the body of the AIP, that I think it's a very positive step for the government to have finally agreed to negotiate and reach an agreement with McLeod Lake.
Madam Chair, you'll recall, along with the member for Matsqui, that when we travelled with the select standing committee looking at the Nisga'a agreement, one of our stops was in the community of Mackenzie -- Mackenzie being probably the community most directly affected by the McLeod Lake agreement. When we travelled to Mackenzie, the community most directly affected by this McLeod Lake adhesion claim, I think all of us were taken with the level of support that existed in the non-aboriginal community for McLeod Lake and for McLeod Lake's attempt to secure a treaty based on adhesion to Treaty 8. I thought it spoke volumes about the work that had been done by the McLeod Lake band. They had negotiated some contentious lands within the municipal boundaries and decided upon taking some alternate lands that were more in line with the community plan. They had been to the chamber of commerce. They had touched all of the bases within their community, and they enjoyed considerable support.
I thought it was worth looking at. As we examine the agreement itself, there are substantial amounts of land involved, particularly on a per-capita basis. The fact that the
[ Page 9798 ]
community would support the agreement suggested to me that the whole process that the McLeod Lake band had been engaged in was worthy of some examination.It was also, I believe, the first time that there had been any activity in British Columbia with respect to Treaty 8 since Fort Nelson selected land under Treaty 8 in the fifties. In 1982, McLeod Lake decided that rather than pursue a comprehensive land claim, they would instead opt to attempt an adhesion to Treaty 8.
There have been some activities in Alberta with Treaty 8. The minister will know, but perhaps for those who might read this and not know: Treaty 8 was signed in the late 1800s -- 1899, I believe -- in British Columbia, but it had been underway for a number of years. It covered most of northern Alberta, a portion of northwestern Saskatchewan, northeastern British Columbia and a chunk of the Northwest Territories. It was a rather large area in what had been, at that time, the Northwest Territories. It wasn't Alberta, it wasn't British Columbia, but in fact it was the Northwest Territories. Therefore that was the reason why British Columbia had this one area involved in treaty -- whereas history has shown that in British Columbia, for a whole host of reasons, that didn't happen to the west of the Rockies.
[11:00]
After that little bit of history, before I get into the treaty, I want to say as well that government in 1982, of which I wasn't a part, and in the 1986-through-1991 era, of which I was -- and for a period of time the ministerPerhaps before I go on with questions that I have, if the minister has any response or any thoughts he wants to share with the committee with respect to that, I should allow him to go ahead.
Hon. D. Lovick: I have very little response, except to say that I appreciate the background that the member provides. Obviously, coming from the area, he has some familiarity with it, and I'm glad he put it in a historical context. It's worth remembering that we are talking about an old treaty -- different language, different approaches, different rules. Clearly, the adhesion is somewhat reminiscent of the 1990s, as opposed to the 1890s, but the basic structure is still that of a very old treaty and a very old method. The conclusion that follows from that is that we may learn something about the negotiating exercise that went on in the McLeod Lake adhesion that could be instructive for us in future treaty-making, but in terms of a basic approach to a treaty, that's probably a non-starter. That would be my only observation, off the top.
I have appreciated what the member has had to say so far, and I'm looking forward to hearing more.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to talk a little bit about the geographic boundaries, geographic considerations, with respect to Treaty 8. My recollection is that the position initially taken by both the people who originally negotiated treaties back in the late 1800s and early 1900s was that the geographic area in which they were authorized to sign treaties was this area, as I describe it, to the height of the British Columbia Rocky Mountains. Therefore the argument was that anything west of the height of the Rockies was outside of the area originally described. The McLeod Lake band argued that it was the arctic watershed, as opposed to the height of land, that was the significant geographic description. The McLeod Lake band was to the west of the Rockies but within the arctic watershed.
My first question has to be: in agreeing to move forward with McLeod Lake, has the government -- not necessarily only the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs the ministry -- accepted the argument by the McLeod Lake band that it was in fact the arctic watershed that was the determining factor? Having read the documents quite closely, my sense is that the McLeod Lake band was always right, that it was indeed the early intention of the government of Canada that treaty-making be done within the arctic watershed. I don't have to tell the minister, but this is significant because there are other British Columbia bands resident within the arctic watershed that have not yet applied and may never apply for adhesion to Treaty 8 -- namely, Tsay-Keh, Fort Ware, Lower Post, and arguably, those bands in the Telegraph Creek-Dease Lake area, although the arctic watershed kind of cuts through traditional territories in that area.
My first question is: is this a signal that the government has accepted the McLeod Lake band's argument with respect to the geographic areas where Treaty 8 might apply?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'll try to give a brief answer. At the moment we are involved in litigation in response to an injunction. We do not accept the contention of the McLeod Lake Indian band. It is still before the courts. There is still a lot of legal exposure because there has not yet been a court case on the boundary -- to my knowledge, at least. But we are not accepting the McLeod Lake Indian band's position.
J. Weisgerber: I'm confused, then. I don't understand. If the government rejects the McLeod Lake band's argument that it is entitled because of the interpretation of the original instructions and it is in court, how can the government reach an agreement-in-principle? I may have to rely on my friend from Matsqui to help me read the release language with respect to the court cases, but that really does provide me with an answer that I hadn't anticipated. I confess that I usually try to anticipate answers; but this one surprises me. Can the minister tell me on what basis they are moving forward, if in fact they are still before the courts and if they haven't accepted the McLeod Lake band's argument with respect to their right to adhere to the treaty based on those original instructions?
Hon. D. Lovick: I must apologize to the member and to the chamber. My answer was clearly not correct and was indeed misleading. I apologize for that.
We are involved at the moment in trying to achieve a settlement with McLeod Lake rather than go the litigation route. The member will recall that this was in response to an injunction that was granted over about 22,000 acres of forest land and all of that. I want to emphasize, however, that there has not yet been a court case on the boundary, so a good part of our discussion in terms of that settlement, in terms of the negotiation, has been over that boundary. That's probably a clearer rendition of the position we've taken.
J. Weisgerber: That's what I would have anticipated. I guess what I anticipated, perhaps beyond what the minister has said, is that having looked at the documents, the defence that the Crown might put up, arguing that the McLeod Lake
[ Page 9799 ]
band wasn't entitled, and having come to the conclusion that indeed we're going to accept the claimHon. D. Lovick: With reluctance I'm going to resist getting involved in the discussion. The reason is simply because we are involved in negotiation at the moment. Of course, negotiations can sometimes go off the rails, can break down, and if we go back to court, anything we say here could, of course, be used in a court case. With that caution, I would rather not engage in any speculation in terms of whether their claim is good, bad or indifferent.
J. Weisgerber: I'll accept that. I think that indeed that's been the conundrum of this issue, over time. Perhaps to advance it a half-step, then, I wonder if the minister would care to speculate that the successful conclusion of this negotiation with McLeod Lake may well signal to these other bands an option that they may or may not choose to exercise. I'm talking about Tsay-Keh, Fort Ware, Lower Post, and perhaps the Tahltans and others, who might say: "We've had another look at this agreement. It appears now that the province has accepted this arctic watershed argument, and we're going to move forward." Or would the minister see this as having to be done on a claim-by-claim basis, as opposed to some blanket admission by the province with respect to this boundary issue?
Hon. D. Lovick: To answer the member's question -- again, tentatively -- I understand that the final agreement is without prejudice to any other negotiation. Clearly, if those other bands the member refers to want to get out of the current treaty process and, rather, consider adhesion, that's their choice. I'd be very loath to say which one they should do. I don't know if I can be any more specific than that.
The boundary issue, as I say, is still very much in question, and we as government have not said that we accept the arctic watershed argument. That's still open for discussion, for negotiation.
J. Weisgerber: I'm inclined to accept that. I have no doubt that the other bands are considering, have considered, and may well have rejected that option. Although perhaps when they look at the extent of the final agreement with McLeod Lake
In the minister's opening remarks in these estimates, I believe he referred to McLeod Lake as a very specific claim. I don't know if that's different from a specific claim, but it certainly doesn't leave any doubt in the reader's mind. I quite honestly had never thought of McLeod Lake in terms of a specific claim. I know that there are a host of specific claims around the province. I'd never thought of it in terms of a specific claim, and I raise it only because the federal government and the province -- particularly the province -- have embraced a specific claim process, albeit without a great deal of action, for longer than either of us have been around this place. I wonder, in the sort of catalogue of specific claims, if adhesions to Treaty 8 are considered in that context. Or was this reference to specific claims properly not capitalized in the Hansard rendition of the minister's remarks?
Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the member's question, and the lesson in here is in the question -- okay? Let me clarify it, if I might. When I say "specific," I mean "specific" as opposed to "comprehensive" land claim, but that's all. I'm not articulating the legal concept, which, as the member quite rightly points out, the federal government tends to look at.
J. Weisgerber: What I'd like to do is spend a bit of time looking at the agreement-in-principle dated May 1, 1998. I appreciate that the minister and his staff have gone to the trouble of getting a copy and making sure that we each have a hard copy that we can work from.
[11:15]
Just going through it kind of A, B, C: section A simply suggests that this is, in fact, an adhesion to Treaty 8. I assume from that that the treaty is applied, with the exception of those things noted in the agreement-in-principle. In other words, if you don't see it in the agreement-in-principle, then look back to the original treaty, and that will be the application. Is that correct?Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, the member is correct.
J. Weisgerber: Section B deals with reserve lands. Going back again to the original treaty, my understanding, and I believe it's confirmed in these documents, is that the land quantums are determined on the basis of 128 acres per person to a maximum of 640 acres per family. That's going back to the prairie connotation of the treaty, which anticipated quarter sections and sections of land being surveyed and made available to settlers or aboriginal people or anybody else who might take up that land. My understanding is that the quantum of land selected here, or made available in total, is based on the original formula contained within the treaty. We can talk about the number of eligible people, which is the other component of that formula.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct that the original formula, at least the guideline for it, was indeed
J. Weisgerber: Going back to my recollection of the ongoing debates, there were questions as to whether, if one was going to allow an adhesion to a treaty, the population of the band at the time that the original treaty was signed should apply, or whether it should be the population today. I think it was somewhat a moot point with McLeod Lake. My recollection is that the argument was that the population is about the same today as it was in 1899. So the uncertainty around the population in the late 1800s, early 1900s
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, the member is correct.
J. Weisgerber: I also note just for the record that subsection (6) suggests that the existing 600 acres of reserve land is
[ Page 9800 ]
part of that overall calculation, so that the quantum, including the existing reserve lands, winds up as a total of the formulas -- 49,536 acres.Can the minister tell me -- I think we're in agreement on that, and if not, I'm sure the minister will correct me: does the status of that land, the 49,536 acres, become reserve land as we know it today -- perhaps different from the anticipated land designation in Nisga'a, for example? In other words, this 49,536 acres will be held by the federal government in trust for the McLeod Lake band, and the constraints that we've historically seen placed on bands with respect to access and use of land would apply in this situation.
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, the member is correct again.
J. Weisgerber: Recognizing that the province is still negotiating with the federal government, I assume -- although I don't see the federal government having somehow a huge stake in this
I'm wondering what the rationale in this case was for sticking to the status quo as opposed to finding some accommodation that might be more modern. And as we go through the agreement, we'll see that with the exception of the land, there appears to have been many, many modernizations under the treaty. It hasn't been a question of simply implementing an old treaty -- good, bad or indifferent sections -- but rather to modernize, for want of a better word, some elements of the treaty and to maintain others. Perhaps the minister could give me a bit of history on why the province and the band agreed to put this into the traditional reserve status in terms of land ownership.
Hon. D. Lovick: My understanding is that the people affected by McLeod Lake are proud of their treaty; they like it very much. I tend to share the view that the member alluded to -- 1890s-version treaties are things that I, quite frankly, struggle with because they are, by nature, colonial and paternalistic, etc., etc. This one makes some steps forward.
I think the member's question regarding the history of it has to be seen in terms of the injunction. The provincial Crown got involved in this essentially because of that injunction process. It's a matter of saying that the resolution to the problem was adhesion to Treaty 8, not going and starting a new claim. Indeed, I think the rules of the game are that because they chose to do it and because Treaty 8 is there, it would be difficult to do anything other than an adhesion. In other words, there wasn't another model available, as nearly as I can make out -- at least not another model that was acceptable to the participants.
J. Weisgerber: Without wanting to jump ahead, I think that when we get into the area with respect to the cash components a little further on in the agreement-in-principle, we'll see that the parties found ways to vary quite dramatically from the old agreement and that there were significant variations in the treaty. I just hesitate to jump ahead into that. If we can bear in mind that we might want to explore this whole notion of ability to vary when we get into further sections
Along this theme of land tenure, land titles, etc., section C of the agreement deals, in fact, with non-reserve lands, and it appears that the parties -- and probably the band, although I have no knowledge of this
Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.
J. Weisgerber: Having moved that far forward with those lands, can the minister tell me if it was the reluctance of the band, the federal government, the province or of all three to simply treat all of the lands that way? It seems to me that if the decision is made to deal with 40, 50 or 60 hectares at Summit Lake and 40 hectares at Bear Lake industrial park, that one simply then says: "Why don't we just simply use that as a model and transfer all of the lands to the band in some form of fee simple ownership?"
Hon. D. Lovick: My apologies for being slow on this. I must confess that this is an area that I have not explored in any great depth. I will use the lunch-hour break to do a little reading on the background so that I can perhaps be quicker in my responses to the member.
Good questions. The core of the treaty -- what it's about, ultimately -- is reserve lands. Just as in Nisga'a, where we have certain pieces that are fee simple properties, the calculus here, I gather, is that the parties -- the first nation, in this case -- are happy to have those lands that are different from
By the way, while I'm on my feet, I might just introduce Susan Kelly, who has just arrived. She is our expert on this particular subject matter.
J. Weisgerber: Again, I appreciate the clarification.
Subsection D deals with minerals and mineral rights. I note that the agreement that has been reached is to share mineral rights on a 50-50 basis. Again, the history with respect to this is that initially reserve lands transferred to the bands included mineral rights. The exception of that was Fort Nelson, where the land, instead of being transferred from Canada to the band -- or a designation shifted on federal lands
The Fort Nelson case, which was quite famous, saw the Fort Nelson band take the province to the courthouse steps, and there was great speculation as to whether the Fort Nelson band, whose lands were very rich in oil, might succeed in getting a complete victory. There was a settlement of 50 percent, which has since been applied to Doig and Blueberry and is now part of this agreement. So I don't have any argument
[ Page 9801 ]
with it. I think it is probably a logical consequence of what has occurred, although one could argue that bands in central Alberta who were signatories to Treaty 8 enjoy full ownership of mineral rights -- Hobbema being a classic example of where the band is very, very wealthy as a result of subsurface mineral rights, particularly petroleum rights.
[11:30]
I think it's worth talking about, because it again demonstrates this ability to find newer resolutions. While there is a treaty there, one that is interpreted quite literally in some areas -- for example, land quantum -- it is modified by precedent and other things in areas such as mineral rights, etc. I don't know whether the minister has to or wants to comment, but I would certainly again provide an opportunity for that.
Hon. D. Lovick: Just a brief comment. I think that part of the reason for a 50-50 arrangement there is simply to get in line with their neigbours, as it were -- like Fort Nelson, as the member refers to. The larger question of whether this in fact is perhaps instructive or could become a model that others may wish to emulate is a legitimate question. I suspect that all those bands around the province at the treaty table
I'm one of those who thinks that we err when we assume that one can, by any stretch of the imagination, find a nice simple formula that we can apply across the board around the province. I think that the cultural diversity and historical differences are such that at the end of the day we are likely to see 100 variations on themes in terms of what works for that area and its particular resources and its relationship with the surrounding communities, etc. That's the only comment I would make on the minerals and mineral rights chunk of this, the 50-50
J. Weisgerber: I think it's a very interesting element of the treaty. Before I talk about the Forest Practices Code, I think this leads us into this question of land selection. When you take yourself back to the late 1800s, early 1900s, my understanding is that the bands had a lot of discretion and ability with respect to land selection. It was anticipated, as I recall in the original treaty, that the band would more or less -- having this formula for land quantum -- go out and select the land that was going to be reserve land. In other words, you have this big open map and very little settlement at the time. You want 50,000 acres? Which 50,000 would you like? Traditional uses were obviously significant in the bands' deliberations and decisions as to which lands they would select.
In modern day treaty-making, with the different ability to assess land, this has caused some interesting debates with respect to land selection. I know it did. I know that with timber values, for example, the Crown was unwilling to allow the band simply to go out and select the 50,000 acres in their territory that had the best timber on it in their traditional territory. One hundred years earlier, I don't think anyone would have argued had a band gone on the prairies and selected 50,000 acres with the best agricultural potential or 50,000 acres that had the greatest wildlife value. Nor do I think anyone would have argued, had McLeod Lake been included 100 years ago, that they be allowed to select 50,000 with the best timber resources, without a lot of quibbling, if that's what was important to the band at the time.
I'm not even advocating that it should have been done differently than it was. But I raise it more to put into context the kinds of compromises necessary to an old treaty in order to make it workable in today's environment. Otherwise the band would have probably gone out and tried to find 50,000 acres that had oil under it. Certainly if I was the chief, that's what I would have done. I'd have found 48,000 acres that had oil and a couple of thousand acres for residential and become wealthy on the strength of gas and oil royalties.
I guess I want to recognize that this process will require those kinds of changes in the ground rules, in the approach to reaching a treaty and to selecting land. Maybe that doesn't require any comment. If the minister has one, I'm sure he'll work it in.
I'll move on then, having recognized the constraints by which land was selected, to the notion of forest lands, forest practices and the application of the Forest Practices Code. My reading of the AIP, which suggests that in addition to the application of the Forest Practices Code
Perhaps the minister could comment on that application of the Forest Practices Code and McLeod Lake's forest practices code.
Hon. D. Lovick: As the member correctly points out, the document stipulates very clearly that there is the option that the standard imposed by the code obtains. Essentially, the simplified version is: meet or beat. That's what McLeod Lake has said it would do -- it will be at least as good as the provincial Forest Practices Code standards, and if different, it will be better.
J. Weisgerber: I think it's a positive element of the agreement. The question in my mind becomes how you enforce it. I suspect that tomorrow, or the day after the agreement was signed, there would be very little difficulty in implementation. I'm not sure about enforcement, because it comes back to this structure of reserve lands. The province has no jurisdiction on reserve lands. The province needs permission to enter reserve lands. They're federal lands held in trust by the Crown. I don't think -- and if I'm wrong, I hope somebody will tell me -- the Ministry of Forests can even go onto it, never mind enforcing the Forest Practices Code, if they're not welcome. I don't think they can even go on and do an inspection.
Unless there is something more than the agreement-in-principle here, unless there is some side agreement, I think it's academic. A belligerent band council -- there isn't one there now, but bands have elections, just like we do
An Hon. Member: Sometimes we're belligerent.
J. Weisgerber: Well, sometimes there are councils elected with a different agenda. I'm trying to anticipate a band council which says: "Look, this is our land. All we've got to do is satisfy the federal government. You guys stay away." I'm
[ Page 9802 ]
wondering if I can get some indication of how this agreement might provide a mechanism for the application of the Forest Practices Code.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member raises a very important question, and I'm pleased to respond to it. He's quite right: there is potentially a problem here, simply because these are ultimately reserve lands and therefore a federal responsibility, and they can theoretically tell the province to take a hike -- no doubt. That is probably why the agreement here is that
However, there is also built into the agreement -- and the member has read this, so he knows full well what we're talking about -- a monitoring system with joint inspections, an annual audit and all of those things. I'm referring to page 3, section (e) of the Forest Practices Code, about two-thirds of the way down, about the monitoring system. It's also worth noting that in the agreement it says that if in fact the Forest Practices Code is not enforced -- if what is promised here to be the system governing forest practices is not in place -- then British Columbia can sue for breach of the agreement. That's the mechanism we will use if we suddenly discover at some point that we're dealing with a band that is willfully disregarding the terms of the agreement. That is apparently written in as part of the agreement.
J. Weisgerber: It's important to pursue it, perhaps in this forum, but more importantly in the context of the final agreement. In recent years, with timber shortages, there have been some terrible examples in southern Alberta of bands literally cleaning out almost border-to-border the entire forest resource within the reserve lands, apparently beyond the control of at least the provincial government, and to the alarm even of many of the band members. Certainly it was a quick and substantial infusion of cash into the band council coffers -- one that is understandable but regrettable.
So I'm trying to get a sense of
[11:45]
The Chair: Noting the hour, minister.Hon. D. Lovick: I shall be brief. Again, I think the member raises absolutely legitimate questions. There is a broad dispute resolution section attached to the agreement as well. I think it's safe to say that the provincial Crown is recognizing that it has an interest. It's not as if it's some kind of paternalistic, "we don't trust you to take care of it" attitude; but we're protecting our own interests simply because, as the member says, a massive log-and-flog, with raw export of logs and that kind of thing, will obviously have a significant impact on the rest of the industry and the rest of the region.
I think it's worth noting that the member's concerns are legitimate ones. It's not a matter of saying: "We don't trust you guys, and therefore we're going to impose this on you." To protect the provincial interest, I think the agreement does indeed anticipate these kinds of problems. As I say, we have apparently built into the agreement the right to sue for breach of the agreement, specifically the forest practices part of the agreement. As well, there is a dispute resolution mechanism built in. So I am led to believe that we have sufficient assurances that this will indeed work well and that we don't worry about that happening.
We can return to this if the member wants to pursue it, unless he wishes to now, Madam Chair. I think he does, so let's use the opportunity.
J. Weisgerber: Just very briefly, because after lunch, I'd like to move on beyond this forestry thing. I think, just to get it on the record, I'll go back to my original comments with respect to the high degree of support that was evident within the community at the time we talked about this. I want to underline it: I don't think anybody believes that the McLeod Lake band is going to be irresponsible in its management of the lands. Having raised all those questions, I want to make sure it's understood that I don't believe that that's an immediate danger, but rather the possibility of something that has to be anticipated over long periods of time.
Hon. D. Lovick: Would you move the motion?
J. Weisgerber: Now, I've got to be very careful with this motion, lest we find ourselves in purgatory. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada